Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 November 2

< 1 November	3 November >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was DELETE. Jayron32 19:14, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TBA (Karmin album)[edit]

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

WP:HAMMER - no album title, no verified track list. Sources do make the group notable but no reliable sources mention the album ("in the studio" doesn't quite cut it). Anything worth saving can be merged to Karmin (band), but the article, without a name for the album, should be deleted. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 23:00, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:01, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:CRYSTAL There don't seem to be any reliable sources, as far as I can see. Several of the references refer to Karmin, but don't mention this album at all. Over half the references are Twitter. None of them is actually a reliable source that confirms any of the content of the article. Elton Bunny (talk) 13:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can not find significant coverage in reliable sources for this upcoming release; doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NALBUMS. Also, at this time, there is no confirmed track listing, title or release date (WP:CRYSTAL/WP:HAMMER). Gongshow ^Talk 17:02, 7 November 2011 (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 as blatant hoax -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2011–12 Youth Premier League[edit]

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

There is no evidence that this league actually exists, let alone that the information in the article is based on reality. The article has been prodded several times as a hoax, but the creator removes the Prod and blanks his talk page. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 22:13, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 22:16, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Blatant Hoax. Maybe it's the creators fantasy league. If creator is acting as suggested s/he is either ignorant of WP or being deliberately disruptive Tigerboy1966 (talk) 00:18, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as blatant hoax. It's been tagged as such (several times :-) but not deleted. There is no such league. The one reference in the article [1] goes to a page on a free webhost which purports to be about a Wycombe Boys A.F.C, a football club that doesn't exist and whose Wikipedia article has twice been deleted, once as a blatant hoax. According to the lead section of the article, a team called Reading Girls A.F.C. was relegated from this league the previous season. It seems a touch unlikely that a girls' team should be playing in a league alongside the likes of Chelsea U16 and Manchester United Youth... It's a hoax. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:23, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - obvious hoax. I moved out of Birmingham last year but I'm pretty sure that in that time a 79,000-seat "BT Stadium" has not been built there. I'm also fairly sure that Chelsea's under-16 team is not managed by "Joe Martian", and that a youth game between Norwich and Man U would never draw a crowd of over 75,000. All the content is clearly just drawn from the depths of the creator's imagination...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:49, 3 November 2011 (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. Jayron32 19:16, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nazo unleashed trilogy[edit]

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

Non-notable fan ~~game~~ flash video. No reliable sources show third party coverage to establish notability. (PROD removed without explanation.) Sergecross73 msg me 21:59, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I got rid of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.71.62.59 (talk) 22:45, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I believe the IP above is saying that they are the one who removed the PROD without reasoning. They also removed the AFD notification. Please, do no remove the AFD notification until this discussion ends. Even then, usually an Admin will remove it. Sergecross73 msg me 23:29, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I mean I removed the game selection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.71.62.59 (talk) 23:39, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? Sergecross73 msg me 23:43, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The fan game selection,isn't that the reason I'm here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.71.62.59 (talk) 23:50, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, there has been some confusion. The IP is talking about this edit, which he later reverted himself. It made me think that this whole article was about a a fan game. It appears it's just a flash video, with this IP claiming he would make a fan video game about the fan video. (Not sure if that's a testament to the articles poor quality, or if I just didn't read close enough because one doesn't have to read it super closely to see it should be deleted by wikipedia standards.)

To the IP (I think you refer to yourself as "Tailsman" sometimes?) - I'm glad you removed your self created rumors about a fan game of a fan video, as that is both non-notable, and probably a conflict of interest even if it were notable. However, this discussion is to delete the article as a whole, not just the little section your wrote. Sergecross73 msg me 01:52, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced, and no sign of notability. Elton Bunny (talk) 12:46, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trust me there are alot of notability.~Tailsman67 of the Sonic News Network~

Comments like that are empty unless you can prove it. Can you provide some sources from wikipedia-standard, reliable, third party sources? Sergecross73 msg me 14:07, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 13:08, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - An example of a fan with great ideas to use in a video game. Unfortunately, no fans took it to the next level so the media and Sega can acknowledge it. « ₣M₣ » 02:33, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Ironically, if Sega/the media ever did catch on, chances are there'd be legal action and/or the video would be taken down, since not only does the game use characters they don't have the rights to, it also uses voice clips ripped right out of official videos/games. Just throwing that out there pre-emptively, in case anyone throws out the inevitable "I bet there are sources out there somewhere" argument... Sergecross73 msg me 20:06, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Na,Sega might leave them alone,the dude is a fan.~Tailsman67~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.71.62.59 (talk) 16:35, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm finding no reliable sources on this series, and so can't determine what notability (if any) exists. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:23, 8 November 2011 (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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sidharth Shukla

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayron32 19:17, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hunt Country Furniture[edit]

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

Notability not established plus it fails wp:corp also prod was contestedOo7565 (talk) 21:47, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Don't see any notability. --bender235 (talk) 22:05, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete W. E. P. ! Blatant advertising. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 00:20, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks sufficient coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. The article cites four references. The first is an industry buyers guide; as such it represents an entry in a directory and does not contribute to notability. The second is kind of vague but it appears to be this; as an article in a published magazine, it does lend some weight to notability. The third is a business directory. The fourth is the company web site, so not an independent source. This publicity stunt photo was the "best" source I could find in my own searches. As such, I do not see notabiility being met by this company. -- Whpq (talk) 13:23, 4 November 2011 (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. Jayron32 19:18, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sylvia Stark[edit]

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

Article subject has requested deletion via OTRS:2011103110015618 citing misinformation and BLP concerns Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 21:41, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:17, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:17, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would agree with a delete under most circumstances of a person requesting it of an article on themselves, but I don't seem to be able to actually view the evidence and circumstance of the request. I'm guessing it isn't an auto login from the wikipedia and commons projects? Dennis Brown (talk) 22:26, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Only editors with OTRS access will be able to view the email correspondence. I have provided, with the subject's permission, only what information is necessary to initiate the AfD request on her behalf. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 23:32, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the explanation. Then while I generally agree in principle with the nomination, I wouldn't !vote without knowing more, as I wouldn't have anything to contribute to the conversation. Dennis Brown (talk) 23:44, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This person's notability is borderline at best, and the article seems to give undue weight to a past controversy. I don't think the average beauty pageant official is notable. The subject's request, submitted properly through OTRS, should be respected in cases like this, in my opinion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice to someone re-creating a WP:BLP compliant article from reliable sources. She may well scrape by WP:N on the basis of the sources cited, but unless someone is willing to take the time to carefully craft an appropriate article from all the sources, taking BLP and undue weight concerns into account, we are probably better off with nothing than a problematic stub. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:33, 9 November 2011 (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. Jayron32 19:25, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

French Quiche lorraine[edit]

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

I've deleted two chunks of text, which were present from inception, for copyvio - see Talk:French Quiche lorraine, and there is effectively no article left. There was an earlier proposal to merge with Quiche, but there is now really nothing left to merge, so deletion seems to be the appropriate course. gråb whåt you cån (talk) 18:43, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak merge You're right about the body text. How about merging just the "Further reading" section? Melchoir (talk) 19:07, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Seems reasonable. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 22:46, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - By the way, I just learned that according to Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia#Where attribution is not needed, attribution isn't needed for references, so I guess either a merge (with redirect) or a copy (and delete) would work. Melchoir (talk) 04:06, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - If there was a copyvio, don't you have to delete to remove it from all visible histories? That adds weight to your idea as well. Dennis Brown (talk) 22:28, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Melchoir. I've heard of this dish, strangely enough - which makes me wonder if we should keep it as a redirect instead of copy (and delete)? UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:42, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note to Closer This discussion was not added to the AfD log. I am adding it now, please consider the delay in deciding when to close the discussion. Monty ₈₄₅ 20:36, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:09, 2 November 2011 (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 Free Internet Chess Server#Interfaces. I am having a hard time finding substantial content in the article that can easily be merged ("key features" looks more like promotional material), but the article history will remain in case anyone wants view it and consider it for the FICS article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:29, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Raptor Chess Interface[edit]

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

Article about a minor open source game with no reliable sources so unverifiable. No evidence of notability. Prod contested, so brought here for discussion. Sparthorse (talk) 20:05, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. I find no reviews for this on Google and no indication of meeting WP:N otherwise. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:06, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a review: http://chesshive.com/2011/08/raptor-chess-fics-desktop-client-for-mac/ Sorry if my indentation/editing of this talk page is incorrect. MartinMorrison (talk) 20:13, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why do interfaces such as XBoard,Pychess and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eboard_(chess) have Wikipedia pages? How can I give some evidence of notability that gives a level of credence to my Raptor page that the other interfaces have. There seems to be no special 'evidence' for the other interfaces other than a link to their development page/website - which I have given for Raptor. The other interfaces do not have reviews either? MartinMorrison (talk) 20:12, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Wikipedia's guidelines on reliable sources which tell you that reliable sources are "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". I don't believe that Chesshive meets this standard as its a blog. As for the other articles, even if they don't meet Wikipedia's standards that does not mean this article is not required to. We treat each article independently. Thanks, Sparthorse (talk) 20:16, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is it okay if I flag the other pages for deletion then? MartinMorrison (talk) 20:19, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated XBoard and EBoard, but Pychess has at least one reliable source. Sparthorse (talk) 20:21, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would that be http://www.linux-magazin.de/Online-Artikel/Gewonnen-Trophees-du-Libre-2009 ? MartinMorrison (talk) 20:24, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Sparthorse (talk) 20:26, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair Enough MartinMorrison (talk) 20:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge MartinMorrison (talk) 20:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Free Internet Chess Server, which appears to be its only instantiation. Jclemens (talk) 00:39, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would be a good idea to merge with that page. MartinMorrison (talk) 15:54, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As the sole author/editor of the article and the editor who contested the PROD, MartinMorrison, accepted the lack of notability and !voted delete, this could/should arguably be a PROD. Salvidrim (talk) 20:28, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think a merge makes more sense now. At least list the difference interfaces and their pros/cons on the Free Internet Chess Server page. MartinMorrison (talk) 15:55, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I agree with Jclemens and MartinMorrison.--Kaspo (talk) 02:10, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Free Internet Chess Server#Interfaces, where it is already mentioned. Since this appears to be the only server that uses this software, this looks a good location to merge the limited amount of additional material necessary. Bridgeplayer (talk) 03:49, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete per inability to meet WP:BIO and WP:N.

Andrew V. Edwards[edit]

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

Non-notable person, fails WP:BIO, clearly promotional article. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:57, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - neither evidence nor credible assertion of notability. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:30, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: With or without the uncited claims about the subject's career in marketing, writing, or even art, there's no particular claim to notability about this subject. After all, not every company founder, online writer, or artist in a private gallery will be considered notable. A quick look at WP:CREATIVE, we've got a good idea what to look for in this case: 1) ...regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors; 2) ...known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique; 3) ...has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews; or 4) ...work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. As a WP:BASIC requirement, there should be multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.

After searching, all I found are the subject's publications and the subject on the record as a spokesperson. Company spokespersons don't generally WP:INHERIT notability by virtue of their position. I couldn't find anything about the subject written by a third party, be it concerning his marketing career, his publications, or his art. This subject doesn't pass WP:CREATIVE standards, and doesn't meet WP:BASIC requirements either. JFHJr (㊟) 20:49, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:BIO. ukexpat (talk) 22:03, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I really tried to find notability here, and failed. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:20, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above, I find no notability Jab843 (talk)

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:38, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Facinet Bangoura[edit]

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

Article I created years ago but I've now realized that the article has no proof of notability and the player fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG TonyStarks (talk) 19:48, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. TonyStarks (talk) 19:50, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as unverified. If we can confirm that he played in Algeria, he would meet WP:NSPORT, but all sources I can find are about a Guinean musician by the same name. Note to nominator: In spite of your comment above, you seem to have forgotten to list this afd on the WikiProject Football page. I've listed it there now. Cheers. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:58, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 18:29, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 21:25, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:54, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

James Martin (writer)[edit]

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

Subject has requested deletion via OTRS:2011102710000436 raising concerns regarding notability and accuracy of the article. Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 19:34, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find any independent coverage of this author, and I don't believe that the books listed in the article are all by the same James Martin. The James Martin who wrote A Jesuit off Broadway appears to be a priest. Pburka (talk) 21:21, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In fact I'm sure of it. That author is James Martin (Jesuit). I'm removing the credit from this article. Pburka (talk) 21:27, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 2 November 2011 (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 - As many people have mentioned, WP:NOTDUP is relevant here. Though we now have an article about the Occupy movement in the United States, the List of "Occupy" protest locations list itself is too long to become what NOTDUP refers to as an 'enhanced list'. The relevant part of the policy here is such: lists may be enhanced with features not available to categories, but building a rudimentary list of links is a necessary first step in the construction of an enhanced list—deleting link lists wastes these building blocks, and unnecessarily pressures list builders into providing a larger initial commitment of effort whenever they wish to create a new list, which may be felt as a disincentive.

Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 22:15, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of North American "Occupy" protests[edit]

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

This page is redundant to List of "Occupy" protest locations. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:16, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Oppose - think a merger of the style is an approach we should do - because this is much easier to navigate then the big list of overlinks. I hope in the future all will be presented in this matter instead of the overlink page. One has links to city articles not about the protest per say (with the protest links eventually) and the other (the one up for deletion) actually list only the articles that people would be interested in reading and are about the topic at hand. On the page "List of "Occupy" protest locations" only the second link out of the first 40 lead you to an article about the protest. Its a nice list but way to much linking to confuse our readers and I think that List of North American "Occupy" protests in a much better format for easy of use for our readers. I see why it was made. Moxy (talk) 19:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The distinction for Nth America is a bit arbitrary. What we are sorely in need of is an ~~Occupy America~~ Occupy protests in the United States article (note that there is an Occupy Canada article). Also, the subject matter is better covered by an article written in prose rather than simply a list. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:37, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Alternatively, rewrite it as a List of "Occupy" protests in the United States. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:43, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - But I created Occupy movement in the United States. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:03, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Entirely passes WP:GNG. Also, per WP:NOTDUP, "...arguing that a Category or List is duplicative of the other in a deletion debate is not a valid reason for deletion and should be avoided." The rationale for deletion in the nomination isn't valid, per this guideline. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:59, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That page talks about "complimentary" items that "overlap". This isn't complimentary, it is a portion of the larger list and there is no indication of why it meets GNG separate of the larger list. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:09, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - More importantly, WP:NOTDUP is talking about a category duplicating a list or a list duplicating a category, not a list duplicating another list. That said, whether it makes sense to split List of "Occupy" protest locations into regional lists is a matter for normal editing and discussion to decide, once you've already established that the parent list is appropriate. And if you decide that this sublist is not needed, then it could have just been redirected rather than taken to a full AFD. I don't see that the main list is so large at present that it's necessary to split it up by continent. postdlf (talk) 22:15, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:41, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:42, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:42, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:42, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have boldly created the Occupy movement in the United States article. It needs work. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:36, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This page is redundant to List of "Occupy" protest locations. --Cox wasan (talk) 23:48, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And now Occupy movement in the United States. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:54, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - See WP:NOTDUP. List overlap is not valid rationale for article deletion. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:39, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOTDUP is for categories, lists and templates and not applicable when considering articles alone. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:16, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - However, as of this writing, it is a list. If it gets expanded, then it might not apply. — Moe ε 05:27, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is entirely a list article, and WP:NOTDUP is entirely valid in this case. The nomination for deletion is faulty, per WP:NOTDUP. There is a short summary of the list's contents, per editing guidelines located at Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists - Lead section, which serves to properly summarize the contents of the list. This doesn't make this list article in standard article format. It's a list article, period. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:17, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As I noted in my above comment, you're misreading WP:NOTDUP. That section is part of WP:CLN, about the interactions of categories, lists, and navigational templates, and states that we do not delete lists for duplicating categories or vice versa, because those are complementary formats of organization. NOTDUP does not state that we tolerate lists that merely duplicate other lists (i.e., content in the same format, such as a category that duplicates another category). Duplicate articles (whether lists or not) are actually speedy deletable, per CSD A10. Now if a list is a split-off sublist of another list, such that it expands upon a section of a parent list, then it is not a duplicate, but if one list merely covers the same entries that can be found in another list then it is a duplicate. So your argument should focus on whether the parent list is so large that it needs to be split into regional/continental lists for size concerns. You're simply not going to get a keep result by (incorrectly) claiming that duplication is not a problem. postdlf (talk) 14:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Refer to: Category:Occupy movement in the United States. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:00, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This list article is a concise, discriminate, useful list, which is easier to navigate per the geographic location of North America compared to the lengthy List of "Occupy" protest locations. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:02, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nomination, there's no valid reason for the subset of North American sites to have another list as well as being included in the world protest locations. PK T(alk) 21:28, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it's clearly redundant to have this subset as an independent article. It also failed to include Mexico. Alex Covarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 17:54, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Another article has popped up at Occupy_movement_in_North_America.--v/r - T P 20:43, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Heavily referenced, passes WP:LIST and passes WP:GNG. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 17:53, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unnecessarily duplicative. WP:NOTDUP deals with lists and categories overlapping, not with lists that are copied and pasted from a section in another list. —SW— ^{spill the beans} 18:29, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article under discussion here has been {{rescue}} flagged by an editor for review by the Article Rescue Squadron. —SW— ^yak 18:30, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as User:Snottywong said, it is redundant and very redundant Jab843 (talk)

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:42, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

VivaKi Russia[edit]

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

Delete. Non-notable company. PROD and PROD2 notice removed by anon editor. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:00, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Alan Liefting. – Richard BB 19:20, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:40, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:41, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. This appears to be just another advertising agency. They can't bring themselves to say so, and all they seem to be able to bring themselves to say is leading media communication group. This also makes this text deliberately misleading, which is something like "(c)ontent that, while apparently intended to mean something, is so confused that no reasonable person can be expected to make any sense of it," only worse; and makes this subject to speedy deletion as patent nonsense. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 05:03, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 05:05, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete The article is apparently and clearly an extension of advertising --Jab843 (talk) 01:32, 9 November 2011 (UTC)Jab843 (talk)[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. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:44, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ebook scene[edit]

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

Hopeless article, unreferenced and largely untouched since its creation in 2005. I can see that a hypothetical future article on "ebook piracy" might be of value, but none of the information here would be worth including or meet the guidelines of notability and verifiability. Ajbpearce (talk) 18:44, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a sad case of ESSAY, WP:OR. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:17, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing more dangerous than pirates armed with ebooks. But seriously, I don't see press about the "scene" as it related to ebooks. Likely because you don't have the equivalent of the MPAA and RIAA demonizing them, ironic as that might seem. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:27, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:39, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:39, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There probably could be an article written on ebook piracy, but this is not it. If it were salvageable, I'd suggest moving it and improving it, but I just don't see it. TJRC (talk) 02:21, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. The consensus below is that the coverage of his various activities, including but not limited to his current quixotic presidential run, is sufficient to establish notability under the WP:GNG. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:50, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Darcy G. Richardson[edit]

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

A U.S. presidential candidate who filed to run on October 21, 2011. He is also an author, blogger and perennial candidate for political offices. He founded and writes for blog sites BattlegroundBlog and Uncovered Politics. Writes sports articles for Jacksonville Observer Blog/News site. He has run for Lt. Governor of Florida in 2010 (Independent). Duval County, Florida supervisor in 2004 (Independent), US President in 1992 (Independent), US Senator in 1988 for Pennsylvania (Consumer) and Pennsylvania auditor (Consumer). Was also a alternate delegate to the Consumer Party national convention in 1980.

I'm unable to find any reliable, independent sources about him. There are a ton of stuff from blog sites, especially his own sites. There are some short blurbs of him running in elections, but none go into detail about him. At the moment, he fails WP:GNG. Bgwhite (talk) 06:45, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 06:47, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 06:47, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Attempt to delete this article is clearly politically motivated. Subject has had 5 books published on political history, several of which are actively used as textbooks by various universities. Suspect user is an Obama supporter. Complains of no information available, yet see there was a rather large profile of Richardson that ran in the Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune, Baltimore Sun and Boston Herald. Candidate has also been covered by television stations and the Boston Globe.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-new-hampshire-candidates-20111028,0,7479283.story http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/la-pn-new-hampshire-candidates-20111028,0,5282020.story — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.224.33.150 (talk) 04:36, 30 October 2011 (UTC) — 98.224.33.150 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 18:29, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Here's the Boston Globe article which mentions Richardson along with many other of the little-known nominees who filed in New Hampshire. Along with the Memoli article, I'd say that meets notability criteria. That said, I'd be more enthusiastic about my "keep" if there were an article from a major news source about him whose message was more substantial than basically "look how easy it is to get on the ballot for the presidential primary in New Hampsire." And to the anonymous respondent, please remember to assume good faith regarding your fellow editors. Chuck (talk) 19:57, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the fact that he was the senior adviser for one of Eugene McCarthy's campaigns, a Montgomery County precinct committeeman, and author of several books, pushes him close to the notability threshold. The fact that he is now running for president and has been covered in additional reliable sources pushes him beyond the threshold of notability.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:48, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Chuck & William S. Saturn. Just enough coverage to meet the notability threshold.--JayJasper (talk) 22:19, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with the others, this guy has made a few papers, his article is worth while. Riversandstreams (talk) 17:22, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability is pretty obvious. Difluoroethene (talk) 20:21, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It should be noted that several sources were added to the article after the afd nomination was made.--JayJasper (talk) 04:36, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Those wanting to delete are probably part of the campaign of the likely nominee. Stopde (talk) , 6 November 2011 (UTC)
- @98.224.33.150 & Stopde: Please follow Wikipedia's policy of assuming good faith on the part of fellow users in discussions such as these. Also, please base your arguments on WP's inclusion guidelines & standards (in particular WP:N, WP:GNG & WP:POLITICIAN, rather than making unfounded speculations about the motives of the nominator (or those who express disagreement with your position). Arguments that are not policy-based are generally disregarded by the closing administrator. Thank you. --JayJasper (talk) 22:35, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:POLITICIAN, WP:AUTHOR and the available sources treat him as a novelty. There is no substantial coverage, so he fails WP:GNG. Hekerui (talk) 22:38, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, enough coverage given the fact that he's in the running as a potential presidential candidate, as well as some above reasons (history books, etc). dalahäst ^(talk) 07:08, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:38, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Model of the World 2001[edit]

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

Previously prodded and deleted article. Article was previously prodded under "Article unsourced and of dubious notability". Author re-created the article after letting it be deleted. Author appears to have a specific interest in this series of competitions. Hasteur (talk) 12:35, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 18:25, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even going to the official website, the last copyright (and winner) was 2008, many broken links, etc. I don't see evidence of it being very notable. Dennis Brown (talk) 22:41, 2 November 2011 (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. There is alot of commentary below but much of it is irrelevant. He does not meet the guideline at WP:POLITICIAN, and all coverage revolves around a single event. In such cases a biographical article is rarely appropriate and the consensus below is that this one should be deleted. As an editorial matter I will redirect the page to Beating of Hillary Adams where content on the event leading to his notability can be found. (I am aware that that page is also being considered for deletion.) Eluchil404 (talk) 04:02, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

William Adams (judge)[edit]

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

This appears to fail WP:BLP1E. The incident would clearly not be notable in isolation. The subject is really one of Internet vigilantism, rather than Adams per se, and the article makes an accusation based on conjecture in the press, leaving the sourcing decidedly shaky. Acroterion (talk) 18:19, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- The odds are high that some form of protection will have to be instituted while this is being kicked around here. Acroterion (talk) 19:07, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've semi-protected the article as it's showing an increasing rate of reverts for BLP issues added by IPs. This is without comment or prejudice concerning this discussion. Acroterion (talk)
Comment Career information should be added for balance—a Google search suggests the judge is known online prior to this event. The KRIS-TV interview takes this past the realm of "conjecture in the press". (COI note: I re-created this article, figuring all it needed was sources.) / edg ☺ ☭ 18:24, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ugh. Delete per Wikipedia:horrible, bloody mess. I though this would go somewhere, and that notability could be demonstrated. I thought I was being WP:BOLD, but I was WP:POINTY. I'm so sorry. / edg ☺ ☭ 12:35, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Many statements are uncited and are either SYNTH or original research. This is an encyclopedia. It is a clear BLP1E case and a negative biography contrary to WP:BLP. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 18:27, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Citation and SYNTH somewhat cleaned up, tho I don't yet have a source for the cerebral palsey—this may come from the alleged daughter's alleged other YouTube videos—and may need to remove that.
  As viral videos seem to routinely get their own articles on Wikipedia, perhaps it should be moved to an event name, but I have no idea what to call it. / edg ☺ ☭ 18:47, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per WP:POLITICIAN, elected state judges are automatically notable. I believe the article, as it stands, is nothing but an attack piece, but it should be kept and cleaned up.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:49, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What? This is fantastically wrong. The policy states that "judges who have held international, national or statewide/provincewide office" are likely to be notable and that "Just being an elected local official...does not guarantee notability." The only statewide judges in Texas are the judges of the Texas Supreme Court and Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. (Those judges are notable). In contrast, this individual is a judge of a very low level, ranking below even the county court. There are indeed thousands and thousands of local judges, magistrates, justices of the peace, and hearing officer in the United States, of whom only a small fraction are notable. Neutrality^talk 04:07, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Delete- I have cut it back to a one line stub. ukexpat (talk) 18:52, 2 November 2011 (UTC). Changing to Delete based on the delete comments below. – ukexpat (talk) 15:25, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sole reason for the article's existance is the 1E. As for being an "elected state judge" - that claim is not even made in the article - Wikipedia is not clarvoyant that he is an elected judge, so the claim of notability on that basis must be made clearly and referenced accurately - neither facts as to election, term of office, background as a judge - nothing to affirm notability on that basis. And a one line stub is not enough to make a reasonable assertion of notability. The employee list, by the way, does not state his term of office etc. at all, and he is, at most, a "county judge" and not a "state judge." Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:58, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All Texas judges are elected. The fact that he serves in a particular county (which is sourced) means nothing. California is the same way, although judges in California are both appointed and elected, but they are state judges attached to a particular county. Here's a quote from Forbes ([2]), if it helps, although it is bereft of details: "Judge William Adams holds an elected office".--Bbb23 (talk) 19:20, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Forbes states he is an Aransas County Court-at-Law judge. Note the word "County" there. It does not state that he is a State judge. [3] the "county courts" are "courts of limited jurisdiction." They can handle some misdemeanors, uncontested probate cases, juvenile cases, and low-level civil actions. They can not even hear felonies, major civil cases, etc. Contested probate matters also are heard by district courts and not by county courts. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:39, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See below. Keep and yes, all Texas judges are elected, he won, that seems notable enough and high enough office to automatically qualify for inclusion. As to the content of the article, that is a subject for the talk page, not AFD. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:29, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The applicable rule is: Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office Noting that a countywide office is not a statewide office. The requirement in not simply "elected" but that the office must be a statewide office. Judge Adams fails WP:POLITICIAN and is thus not notable. Chees. Collect (talk) 19:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think WP:POLITICIAN is being interpreted correctly here (i.e., consistent with established consensus). Yes, Adams is a state court judge, but he sits as an ordinary trial court judge at the county level, and I don't think such judges should be presumed notable by virtue of that position alone. He does not hold a "state-wide office" as that term is used in WP:POLITICIAN, which would instead mean a state state supreme court judge (regardless of whether they're elected or appointed--it varies from state to state and shouldn't matter for notability purposes), or possibly a judge on an intermediate appellate state court. postdlf (talk) 19:34, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reply I get your point and generally agree in prinipal, but only if the only coverage was being elected county judge. The rest of wp:politician says:

Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.[7] Generally speaking, mayors of cities of at least regional importance are likely to meet this criterion, as are members of the main citywide government or council of a major metropolitan city.

Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article".

...and the problem here is that he HAS gotten significant coverage. In this case, if he had done some criminal activity that got press (1 event), but not elected OR if elected but never got the bad press, then he wouldn't meet the criteria. The case itself puts him into GNG territory, but 1event territory. The two together make the event, and him, more notable. It is a bit borderline, but all things considered, I think when a politician commits crimes like this, it IS more notable than Joe Sixpack because he is a public figure. Of course, half of the events that make him notable aren't in the article at the writing of this comment.... I can see both sides, but have to stick with believing that the combination of being elected and significant coverage of his activities passes wp:gng even with wp:blp1e concerns. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:45, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG, if satisfied, establishes a presumption of notability, which can be overcome by sufficient concerns under WP:BLP1E or WP:NOTNEWS. postdlf (talk) 19:55, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Local judges aren't inherently notable, the office not being statewide. That leaves the fact that as a GNG candidate the coverage is for a single event, which trumps GNG. No inherent notability + BLP1E problems do not add up to notability. Acroterion (talk) 20:02, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to look into this further, but, as I said, if it works as it does in California, judges presiding in counties are still judges that have been appointed or elected to state office. I believe it says so somewhere in the California constitution (I'm not looking for it). I believe Adams is subject to all the normal things for state judges, including, for example being subject to discipline by state judicial commission. Take a look at Texas judicial system.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:39, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nope - the Texas site clearly shows County Courts as being "limited" in many ways - like no big civil cases, no contested probate cases, some misdemeanors, and absolutely no felony cases. There are many hundreds of "county judges" in tghe US, and WP:NOTABILTY, by specifying "statewide" clearly does not give them auto-notability. Cheers - but somehow I think Texas does not use the California laws <g>. Collect (talk) 19:42, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The jurisdiction of a judge shouldn't alter the analysis. And your repetition of "county judge" doesn't make it a fact.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:45, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not in question that county courts are part of a state's judicial system. That's not the point. The problem is you keep saying "state office" instead of "state-wide office", when that's what WP:POLITICIAN is concerned with, judges at the trial/county level of a state's judiciary are not considered to hold state-wide office. postdlf (talk) 19:45, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't buy the distinction you're making. By your logic, again using California as an example because I'm more famililar with it, the only state judges who would be inherently notable would be the Califronia Supreme Court justices. Even Court of Appeal justices are relegated to districts in the state, not to what you stress as "statewide". One of the things that should matter is whether a judge applies state law. Thus, if a Texas judge applies state statutes in his decisionmaking, he is a state judge and for all practical purposes holds statewide office. State judges in Los Angeles County have different responsibilities, but they apply state law and hold a statewide office in that sense.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:41, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest that the closest analogue to a county judge is a county sheriff, who is elected by a geographically-restricted constituency, but applies state laws. Sheriffs aren't automatically notable as a consequence of their office, nor are county prosecutors, who are elected office holders on the state payroll in many states. Supreme court judges and statewide appeals boards, yes, they meet WP:POLITICIAN. I see no state-wide office here simply because they apply state law. Acroterion (talk) 20:49, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Municipal governments in the U.S. also ultimately get their power to enact local ordinances from state law and are considered instruments of the state for constitutional purposes, but that's no more relevant to our notability analysis of municipal politicians than it is to trial court-county level judges. It's not a question of legal interpretation. It's a question of what we editors meant when we wrote and have since applied WP:POLITICIAN. There might be a new consensus that county judges are inherently notable, but that would be a change from standing practice, such that existing guideline language can't be invoked. It would require a new argument as to why they should be considered inherently notable by that position alone. postdlf (talk) 21:56, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that explanation about what was in your minds when you wrote the policy and "standing practice." Might I suggest the policy be reworded to be clearer?--Bbb23 (talk) 22:11, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per WP:POLITICIAN, elected state judges are automatically notable. -- 74.0.139.105 (talk) 20:31, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP and the fact that it is an attack page meant to degrade the subject, and uses an unofficial video that was posted for the sole purpose of defamation. Also, although the person may himself be notable, the content on the page is purely attack. Gwickwire (talk) 20:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per BLP1E. This is a local official, and grossly fails the standards of WP:POLITICIAN, despite assertions to the contrary by people who have apparently never been involved in politics or law. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:56, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're certainly entitled to express your opinion as to what the guideline means, but your conjecture about others is beneath you. Why do AfDs automatically bring out the worst in some otherwise reasonable editors?--Bbb23 (talk) 22:13, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He is a county and not state judge, thus WP:POLITICIAN does not apply. Current legal problems come under BLP1E. Bgwhite (talk) 22:28, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:35, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:35, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:36, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E. He is in newspapers worldwide in a burst of coverage of an alleged 2004 videotape of the whipping of a child with a belt by a cursing man. Before the release of the tape, he was just a county judge of little note. That level of judicial office has not been taken as inherently notable in previous AFDs I have seen. Google News archive shows only passing references and very routine and run of the mill coverage of his judicial actions, not sufficient to satisfy WP:BIO. If the alleged beating somehow gains significance, as the subject of plays, movies, books, or it it motivates the passage of some new law, or has other societal effects beyond one news cycle, or it becomes a notable crime, then an article could be created. Stating that he video and the article are an attack is ironic, in light of what the video shows. News articles now say that Adams has [acknowledged the authenticity of the video, while saying it wasn't as bad as it looks. Edison (talk) 23:04, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:BLP1E would suggest moving the article to a name about the event. But this is merely newsworthy, not notable, and Wikipedia is not news; WP:NOTNEWS. There's no basis for notability based on his judicial position; although this judgeship is a state office, it's a county judgeship, not a state-wide elected position. TJRC (talk) 00:12, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my above comments: as non-notable low-level judge, and per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E. We need more sustained coverage and indicators of continuing significance than this to justify an article. postdlf (talk) 01:04, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge into an article about this incident in particular, as it has the potential to become a major news story. Hermitage (talk) 01:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree, Keep or merge --Jtle515 (talk) 01:25, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. Another word for "potential" is WP:CRYSTAL. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 02:27, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Indeed so. We don't have articles because their subjects potentially may become notable. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:45, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. If a criminal case follows from this revelation (that of the leaked video portraying abuse), then we can start considering whether we create an article for this. But for now, it isn't yet deserving of a standalone article. --JB Adder | Talk 01:31, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename (leave redirect), make the article about the incident and not the person, as per wp:BLP1E: In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article Buddy431 (talk) 01:52, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. WikiScrubber (talk) 03:32, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep (per WP:POLITICIAN) or Merge into Beating of Hillary Adams. WikiScrubber (talk) 03:17, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- CommentBut the merge target, Beating of Hillary Adams, is also nominated for AFD. Edison (talk) 04:42, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. And the other one as well. Drmies (talk) 03:34, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On what grounds? Questions about WP:POLITICIAN aside, the beating of Hillary Adams is irrefutably verifiably notable. WikiScrubber (talk) 03:38, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So you say, and I disagree. I have a partial alphabet too, and it contains the combinations BLP, BLP1E, and IAR. Oh, and NOTNEWS. And PRIVACYFORCRYINGOUTLOUD. Drmies (talk) 03:41, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Amusingly, WP:LYNCH redirects to RFC/U, but it could just as easily go to BLP1E. Acroterion (talk) 03:50, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this and the fork at Beating of Hillary Adams. The subject is not notable, and inadequate time has passed to provide any indication that this event is of lasting significance. VQuakr (talk) 03:55, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can anyone please periodically check the article for BLP-violating SYNTH, OR and edit-warring? Thank you. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 04:04, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ahem, yeah, sure, I would--but that multitude of templates is ridiculous. Drmies (talk) 04:12, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks. I was simply trying to indicate that every single one of these conjunctions and terms were invented to promote a synthetic observation. It is not always clear to someone who does not have a concept of SYNTH and OR what really is synthesis or original research. To an experienced editor it may be obvious but the tagging is meant to show the existence of OR and SYNTH structurally to someone unfamiliar with the concepts. If you revert everything to the BLPN consensus single sentence version the tags are not needed. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 04:21, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, I think it's overkill. But in the meantime, the warring has broken out again, and I was going to fully protect the article but I'd really like some independent eyes on the article (mine aren't so independent, since I have an opinion here in this AfD). I posted a notice on ANI. I could tell you what I'm hoping for, but I think you can guess. Drmies (talk) 04:31, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - I agree it is an overkill. But sometimes, in resistant cases, demonstrating SYNTH and OR word-by-word may be necessary, at least IMO. The ANI notice was an excellent idea and the report well framed. Thank you. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 04:38, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        "But sometimes, in resistant cases, demonstrating SYNTH and OR word-by-word may be necessary" ...Wow. What an odd kind of reasoning. Feudonym (talk) 04:54, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Sorry that I have to be direct but it is not any stranger than your resistance to understand that Youtube and the tabloids are not reliable sources, not to mention the blatant synthesis and original research of your edits in addition to your BLP-violating edit-warring. Here I am trying to show you word by word what SYNTH and OR mean and these are the thanks I get from you. What an utter waste of time. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 05:02, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        I have never shown "resistance to understand" anything. That was the first time you conversed with me so you maybe you are confusing me with someone else. The YouTube link was just to illustrate the video in question, it was not meant to be irrefutable proof of everything in the article. Furthermore, I was under the impression that MailOnline, the online arm of national UK newspaper Daily Mail was a reliable source, in addition to others such as NZ Herald, but you seemed to have immediately dismissed these as gossipy or unreliable websites and deleted them (without a single look?). Oh well, I guess these events have not been covered by a single reliable source as you say and hence the whole article needs deleting. I'll leave you to it. Feudonym (talk) 05:27, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Conversation does not always happen in a direct way. Before we addressed each other on this page we indirectly communicated by edit summaries as shown on the article history. Unfortunately in the beginning no amount of tagging for synthesis or original research on my part was sufficient to end the edit war. This is what I meant by a failure to understand the meaning of synthesis etc. On a more positive note, your latest edits do show considerable improvement in these areas. But I will not try to claim any credit. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 05:45, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        
        But I have to admit there may be some hope yet. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 05:06, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, as he's an elected official in the news, and this can only be expanded if it is kept. If sufficient media coverage is not there then it can be deleted in future.Feudonym (talk) 04:54, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note related AfD of content fork Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beating of Hillary Adams. TJRC (talk) 04:47, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the guy is a reprehensible [redacted]cunt, but even reprehensible [redacted]cunts are protected by BLP, and this article clearly fails 1E. Sceptre ^(talk) 05:05, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I simply can't believe what editors get away with on Wikipedia. Putting aside civility issues, which no one can agree on at Wikipedia, the comment is arguably a BLP violation, and I should really remove it as such. It's incredible to me that so many admins who are contributing to this discussion will let it stand without even commenting.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:59, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is the latest "Internet viral" story. Similar in nature to Death_of_Wang_Yue. (Shocking video plus Internet response). Best to wait till further news coverage surfaces in the upcoming days. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 05:46, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Many commentators above fail to understand the nature of judges in this context. He's simply another county official known for a single event. WP:POLITICIAN does not grant automatic notability to every local official, regardless of what US state (or corresponding entity) they're in; aside from the recent case that should remind us that Wikipedia is not the newspaper, he seems to be no different from 253 or more truly average people across the state. Nyttend (talk) 06:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, we have some county judges in California who have articles based on being the judges in significant cases. I dont know if his status is the same as a california superior court judge, or if he tries felony cases, but the video beating is significant in terms of media coverage and the guarantee of a longer investigation period, with multiple effects stemming from it. i dont think BLP1E applies to events of significance, that will have longer lasting effects, but more to typical news cycle "man bites dog" stories. better of course to have this start as a section in an article on a related topic, such as a list of texas judges. Content and weight of article are topics for the talk page alone, as are issues of BLP and libel.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:46, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Keeping an article in wait for "longer lasting effects" that haven't happened yet is WP:CRYSTAL defined. Trusilver 06:56, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As carefully explained above, the subject does not hold an office that makes the subject inherently notable: County official + one viral video + excited response does not satisfy WP:GNG but does fail WP:BLP1E. The subject does not hold a statewide or provincewide political or judicial office, so WP:POLITICIAN does not apply. Johnuniq (talk) 06:54, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sceptre took the words right out of my mouth. Aside from the obvious BLP issue, I don't see anything about this that makes it notable outside of BLP1E. Trusilver 06:56, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete barring any major developments. WP:BLP1E is the main one here; being targeted by the good hand of Anonymous isn't in and of itself notable. If this reaches nation- or worldwide media attention and receives an appropriate reaction aside from whatever V can do vs. Norsefrost, then it will get an article and my rationale will change to Keep - but not before that point. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 07:07, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It has reached national news: just one example. ~ UBeR (talk) 09:11, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Since Johnuniq (three opinions up) said exactly what I was going to say, there's no need for me to repeat his references to policy and guidelines. Deor (talk) 07:53, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:POLITICIAN, WP:GNG, he is an elected official of Texas, and because he has become a top news story across the nation, appearing in many reputable sources (example). For those claiming he is not significant for anything other than the beating (and therefor fails the BLP1E test), see Death of Wang Yue regarding the death of a child of no (relative) import other than her death. ~ UBeR (talk) 09:07, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to WP:POLITICIAN: Adams's office is a county office, not a state-wide office ("Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national ('statewide/provincewide) office"). He is not inherently notable by virtue of this local office.

With respect to WP:GNG, you are confusing notability with newsworthiness. GNG itself states, "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article. For example, such an article may violate what Wikipedia is not. That last bit includes WP:NOTNEWSPAPER: While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion.... Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews.

With respect to the comparison to Death of Wang Yue; first, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a winning argument. Second, the focus in Death of Wang Yue is on the reaction in China to the death. Only two paragraphs (one of which is only one sentence long) deals with the incident itself. The majority of the article deals with the substantial public reaction and the suggestion that reforms may be made to the law as a result of the incident. That last part is, in my mind, a substantial distinction between that article and the case here. Death of Wang Yue is about an incident that is perceived as requiring a change to the law of one of the largest nations on the face of the earth. William Adams (judge) is about some jackass who beat up his kid. TJRC (talk) 18:56, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article and the fork per WP:BLP1E. Fails WP:POLITICIAN since he is a not a statewide judge, only county. Per WP:ATTACK, this should be speedied.WTucker (talk) 12:45, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - pretty much exactly as Johnuniq lists above. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:22, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The attention he is getting is just temporary tabloid-style news reporting. Peacock (talk) 15:26, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep - I just flicked on cable news and the first thing I saw was this. This is big and getting bigger. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 15:48, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just because it is a news story does not mean that you can add attack information, however true it may be. The edits were reverted due to the attack information. Gwickwire (talk) 16:33, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice in the event that something somewhat more encyclopedic and notable comes out of this event that, in my opinion, presently fails WP:NOTNEWS. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 18:16, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep The degree of national news coverage at this point is sufficient. There's a point at which oneEvent loses any sense of rationality--it is a matter of judgment, and my judgment is that this is past the point. (It would not have been so yesterday). DGG ( talk ) 18:41, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I read about this case in news media which are not US American and not in English, so there is global coverage, not just national coverage. Mocctur (talk) 22:59, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and merge to Beating of Hillary Adams. As DGG says, this has gone way beyond your average BLP1E. It has been a lead story on most of the major national media outlets for two days now. Also, it has resulted in the Texas Commission on Judicial Conduct, for the first time in its history, issuing a public statement confirming that it is conducting an investigation. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:23, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Texan here, so I'm going to explain Texas courts. There's the State District court system (were significant criminal cases go), County courts at law (for sheriff actions), and Family Courts (for enforcing school attendance policies, divorces, and minor domestic issues). William Adams (if I read it correctly) falls in the Family Courts category. He's elected for a single county and not at the state level. The county is separate from South Padre and Corpus Christi counties. At the time being we only have the shock video of the discipline without any reasonable explanations. Sounds like a BLP1E to me. No objections to having a more reasonable article created in a few weeks once the initial shock is calmed down and there's reliable and verifyable information that demonstrates notability. Hasteur (talk) 19:49, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E, WP:ATTACK, etc. I'm undecided on whether an article on the incident is justifiable - it has received a lot of media attention, but may not sustain lasting notability. But as article on the person is definitely not: this is directly the sort of article that BLP1E is meant to prevent. I'm surprised it wasn't speedied on sight. Robofish (talk) 20:01, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Beating of Hillary Adams — Look, I don't condone what this guy has done, nor am I saying that there's no claim to notability here (the uploaded video is receiving widespread attention on YouTube, among other sites). But this is the only noteworthy thing about him, and it's not enough to justify a BLP based on negative press. I do, however, agree with DGG and NawlinWiki above; the story itself has become very notable and should have some sort of article on Wikipedia, there's just no basis for a separate biography. Master&Expert (Talk) 22:10, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - My god, why am I not surprised that this nonsense was created as soon as the headlines hit Google News. This is what WP:BLP1E was put in place to prevent, articles on people who would otherwise be wholly unknown, save some some sensational "look what the drive-by media is talking about for today, to be forgotten by next week". He is in hte news for the alleged child abuse video and nothing more. Also, Adams does not qualify for WP:POLITICIAN either, as Adams is a judge in the Aransas County Court. County judges are not "state-wide", which is the politician notability threshold. No redirect warranted, as the "Beating... article needs to be shit-canned as well. Tarc (talk) 22:21, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep obviously. Major Internet celebrity, global news coverage. I fail to see how this one is any different than Basil Marceaux. Mocctur (talk) 22:57, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Basil Marceaux, just by glancing at the article, passes WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTABILITY, due to "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article," since he has run so many times, he has a ton of news about him. He may not pass WP:POLITICIAN inherently, but he has sufficient news coverage. This story, although it may in some people's opinion pass WP:NOTABILITY, in my opinion completely fails WP:NOTNEWS, as there is insufficient non-attack information in reliable sources about the event, or person. When more reliable sources, and a longer time period of being in the news, then I may support your argument. Gwickwire (talk) 23:06, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. — CharlieEchoTango — 23:02, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Certainly seems to be in the spirit of WP:BLP1E. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:35, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clear case of WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. There doesn't seem to be any lasting notability beyond this news cycle. -LtNOWIS (talk) 03:37, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:BLP1E specifically suggests redirecting the name to an article about the event. Would you support redirecting this article to Beating of Hillary Adams, or whatever name that article ends up at? Buddy431 (talk) 04:18, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, I wouldn't. It's not a likely search term, and the subject is less notable than the other judge William Adams. The disambiguation page William Adams and Beating of Hillary Adams are the only things that link here; the former can simply pipe to the latter. -LtNOWIS (talk) 21:22, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I believe the article as it currently is should be deleted, as it is a clear WP:BLP1E incident that this article is being used for. However, I also think that an article on the man should exist if sources on him can be found from before this event, as he passes WP:POLITICIAN because of his position. Since the special notability guidelines just give a presumption of notability, which I would normally think is enough but this situation is a bit more chaotic, an article on him should only be made if reliable sources that discuss him in detail can be found which are not from this event. Silver seren^C 05:42, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It has been pointed out earlier in the discussion that at as county judge, this person does not meet the threshold of WP:POLITICIAN. Tarc (talk) 15:54, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

True, I thought he was a higher level judge than that. Changed to full Delete. Silver seren^C 22:24, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're debating only the first of three possible criteria for WP:POLITICIAN. Adelson Velsky Landis (talk) 03:12, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This has been addressed below, please stop repeating the same misconception of my post. Tarc (talk) 12:21, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Rename to an "Incident"...something along the lines of maybe The Rockport, Texas Corporal Punishment Incident. While technically a "beating," the press is already noting that corporal punishment is not illegal in Texas and thus the language used here will certainly be seen as judgmental and inflammatory. Beyond this initial spectacle, I do think this incident is relevant for Wiki with regards to a variety of other subject matters...corporal punishment, child abuse, morality, anger management, job stress, power, male studies, white-collar crime, privacy, secrecy/behind-closed-doors, revenge, media frenzy, character assassination, subjective memory("music and games that were unavailable for legal purchase at the time"), victimization, file sharing...etc etc...just NOT straight up Biography. Johnebe (talk) 16:48, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

— Johnebe (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete None of the "Keep!" arguments above changed my initial assumption that this is a low-level Family Court judge and this is a case of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E. Both the the letter and spirit of WP:POLITICIAN makes clear that a judge of such stature does not warrant an article, elected or not. LoveUxoxo (talk) 07:19, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One incident which does not confer enough notability to justify an article. In addition, it is clear that attempts have been made to use this article as a way of giving negative publicity to its subject, in fact internet vigilantism, as stated in the nomination. If this is the principal purpose of the article then it qualifies for deletion as an article the purpose of which is to promote a point of view. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:44, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:POLITICIAN, If this was simply a father beating his daughter, then I would concur with the deletion policy, however, the article should be a light biography of Adams, which I'm sure more information will come out about him soon; with a lengthy section of this Scandal. He serves the public in the American judicial system, that is cause number one for his inclusion in wikipedia, there will be great public interest in him. Muwwahid (talk) 15:48, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It has been pointed out earlier in the discussion that at as county judge, this person does not meet the threshold of WP:POLITICIAN. Tarc (talk) 15:53, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're debating only the first of three possible criteria for WP:POLITICIAN. Adelson Velsky Landis (talk) 03:12, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now - I had put keep above, but after searching more and actually viewing a painful video, I would say delete UNLESS criminal charges are filed, as the combination of coverage and being an elected official COMBINED with the charges would warrant an article. That he doesn't pass wp:politician doesn't matter regardless, because that isn't the rationale for creating the article, so we can just drop that anyway. At this stage, it doesn't pass wp:gng due to possible BLP1E issues because while he has been demonized, it hasn't been shown he did anything wrong in the eyes of the law. Dennis Brown (talk) 16:11, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Rockport police have stated that the judge will not be charged; see [4]. TJRC (talk) 18:00, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment In regards to State charges within Texas, that is up to the District Attorney, not the police, although they usually agree on these things. Dennis Brown (talk) 18:03, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - "[Rockport Police Chief Tim Jayroe] said the district attorney determined he couldn’t bring charges, and that police would discuss the case with federal prosecutors even though he doesn’t believe federal charges would apply." TJRC (talk) 18:07, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - (Follow-up) And no federal charges, either: [5] "Angela Dodge, a U.S. attorney's office spokeswoman, said prosecutors determined there was no federal crime depicted on the 2004 video of Aransas County Court-at-Law Judge William Adams. The decision came a day after the local district attorney decided the statute of limitations blocked any state charges." So there will be no charges, no trial, state or federal. The case is dead. TJRC (talk) 19:20, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. BLP1E, local official, news report disguised as an article. Sandstein 18:29, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per BLP1E. The subject is not notable apart from this event, and at least for now the coverage is brief flurry of interest rather than sustained investigation of the event. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 05:34, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the video became an worldwide sensation, with the entire world contacting Texas police demanding this man's arrest, and/or removal from the bench. It became a media sensation, and started a discussion on what is or isn't "discipline". Itsthegoldenratio (talk) 13:36, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep BLP1E doesn't apply when the person has been subject to extensive, ongoing news reporting from multiple national sources. Keep based on WP:POLITICIAN and his obvious notability. 65.96.60.92 (talk) 23:36, 5 November 2011 (UTC) — 65.96.60.92 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
WP:POLITICIAN has been specifically denied in this case, read earlier entries above that note this person is only a county judge, and therefore falls short of the threshold. As for "extensive" and "ongoing", making these sorts of claims one week in to a news story's run is at best hyperbole, at worst disingenuous. Tarc (talk) 23:40, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Does apply to county judges. 65.96.60.92 (talk) 23:57, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A county is not state-wide by any reasonable definition, sorry. Tarc (talk) 00:11, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're debating only the first of three possible criteria for WP:POLITICIAN. Adelson Velsky Landis (talk) 03:12, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Um, yea, that is kinda the point. I am debating the criteria that are specific to WP:POLITICIAN; this single notability guideline was his only leg to stand on since otherwise he is just a "one event" case. Tarc (talk) 12:20, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Among other things, WP:POLITICIAN. I should note WP:POLITICIAN has three cases of notability regarding elected officials "who have received significant press coverage" or have had "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article". So while all the debate has been about the first case for politics ("politician"), there are two additional definitions which can define him as a notable for politics ("politician"). Adelson Velsky Landis (talk) 03:09, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those other definitions are referring to the WP:GNG, but the GNG must also follow WP:BLP1E, which this article violates. Silver seren^C 03:22, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All single notability guidelines contain some form of a "even if the person does not meet the criteria here, he still may qualify for an article via the WP:GNG" line. This person may be noted in multiple reliable sources, yes, but the "one event" aspect of just why he is in those sources essentially disqualifies him from article worthiness. This is why we take into account all guidelines and policies and such when evaluating a subject here in AfD, rather than laser-ing in one. Tarc (talk) 12:20, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment People, please remember that a title in one state may be very different from a title in another state. See New York Supreme Court for an example of how courts in different states have different names — someone may have a title that would make him pass WP:POLITICIAN in your state but wouldn't in his state. Nyttend (talk) 13:28, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've resisted revisiting the issue of WP:POLITICIAN because the dispute as to what it means and how it should be applied devolved into some Wikipedian version of original intent, but what this discussion shows is that the guideline should be rewritten to be clearer. Frankly, I don't much care if this judge's article is deleted, which is my guess as to what will happen, but I do care about other articles about state judges and how they are treated in the future when it comes to notability. It would be better to have a notability guideline specifically for judges as politicians are elected, and not all judges are elected (some are both appointed and elected).--Bbb23 (talk) 15:00, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the "elected" element is just a distraction, as what we ultimately care about is the stature of an office (i.e., "statewide"), not how it was filled. For example, judges on the New York Supreme Court, which is the trial court-level organized by county, are elected by popular vote, but judges on the New York Court of Appeals, the state supreme court, are appointed by the governor, and we currently consider the latter automatically worthy of an article but not the former. Even when it comes to more straightforward "political" offices rather than judicial, United States Senators are appointed sometimes, and even a president can serve without being elected, yet these are obviously more significant than, say, local school board members who are elected. If you'd like to discuss expanding notability guidelines to cover lower-level judicial officials, WT:BIO or WP:VPP would be good places to post suggestions and arguments as to why. postdlf (talk) 15:26, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the level of the judge is more important than whether they are elected or appointed, but I also think the county vs. state distinction is not necessarily helpful. I also think it matters whether the judge is a state or federal judge. Thus, a trial-level federal judge may be inherently notable (federal judges are never elected), whereas a trial-level state judge may not. At the same time, we might want to make all appellate state judges inherently notable. However, when you get to the trial level, it becomes harder, state by state, to distinguish between the different levels of judges. For example, California used to have municipal and superior court judges, and municipal judges had less power. Then, the two courts were unified. Each state is different, although there are, of course, commonalities. The reason "elected" is NOT a distraction now is because of WP:POLITICIAN, which not only addresses elected officials, but even uses the word "judge". I would take judge out of WP:POLITICIAN completely and have a separate guideline for all judges, state and federal, and the criteria to be used for each kind. I might add that the Wiki court/judge project has its own evolving guidelines.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:37, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, remove "elected judges" from WP:POLITICIAN entirely. No, do not create yet another SNG. I'm getting tired of seeing the proliferation of ultra-specialized sub/single-notability guidelines...hell, in a DRV last week someone tried to get one going for flippin 'roller derby, of all things. Imagine that, girls playing a fake sport on the weekends now could soon be hitting a Wikipedia near you. Facepalm SNGs should not get people to have Wikipedia articles if they are otherwise complete notability failures. That was never the intent of these sub guidelines. Tarc (talk) 18:35, 6 November 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Delete. He's a local judge in Aransas County which is not even close to being the size of any state. It's near Corpus Christi, and if it included Corpus Christi then I might feel differently about this.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:38, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hi there. I was reading about this guy and also about the associated policies and guidelines that Wikipedia has for keeping and deleting articles. I think it's pretty clear that his press is not limited to his town or even his region. If the argument for his deletion is that he is only famous for one event, then how does Wikipedia keep articles like Rachel Corrie, Lee Harvey Oswald, Jack Ruby and other people who are famous for simply one event. Also, it appears to me that judges are automatically notable, just like sportsplayers and such. I am sorry if this statement doesn't appear to be the best for the argument as compared to some others. I am pretty new at this and will try to get better as time passes. Thanks. 140.247.141.158 (talk) 21:12, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lee Harvey Oswald is notable because he has been the subject of extensive, continuous, non-trivial coverage from the press. His notability, while related to the one event (death of JFK) is also related to the subsequent events (federal investigations, conspiracy theories, etc). Books were written about him, documentaries were filmed, etc. I don't know about the other cases but I suspect they are similar in spirit. In this case (William Adams) the story is not nearly as high-profile and likely won't generate further developments, either in the press or in the forms of investigations. I hope this helps. — CharlieEchoTango — 21:28, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I might not agree with you but your comments were presented well and I'd just like to thank you for contributing to this discussion. Cheers! LoveUxoxo (talk) 02:08, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge into the event (currently titled Beating of Hillary Adams, also subject to AfD). While the subject doesn't make the bar as a county rather than state judge, they are still an elected official and have an amount of presumed notability already — in any case they are a public figure so the BLP claims carry a lot less weight. Being a judge and having the police chief state that they "believe that there was a criminal offense involved" is, in itself, notable, particularly when you're a judge working on child abuse cases and the claim against you is child abuse. Then being quoted saying "It looks worse than it is" guarantees you additional notoriety, as evidenced by deep and diverse international news coverage extending far beyond the usual short news cycle. I think we'll be analysing and referring to this as a case study for the foreseeable future — indeed we already are. -- samj _in ^out 11:19, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to obvious and unquestionable notability and interest, but even at worst we would merge and redirect to Corporal_punishment_in_the_home#United_States. I can think of nor do I see any actually legitimate reason why would delete something covered in widespread media outlets concerning a judge. We are not a paper encyclopedia. We can and should cover anything and everything that is backed by reliable sources and for which a neutral fact based article can be written. If all these other sources are out there anyway, we need not concern ourselves with "protecting" someone whose actions are viewable online to billions anyway... --131.123.123.124 (talk) 15:23, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The nomination states the reason is WP:BLP1E. It is not optional. None of the keep votes address the fact that Adams is known for one event (and the "If the event is significant..." test hasn't been even discussed above by keep voters). I'll add some text from BL1PE here to guide editors who want to argue that it does not apply to William Adams.

Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article.

If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them.

So what's the second event for William Adams. or what is likely to happen to raise his profile? We know that his name reached global media because there's an available video - that's a textbook one event matter. patsw (talk) 19:49, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You're spot on. As was noted above, we occasionally make exceptions, both for dead and for living people (e.g. Seung-Hui Cho, Herostratus, and Anders Behring Breivik), but we require the person to be far above the average BLP1E. There's no evidence that this guy is of the level of importance that these people are or that he and his actions will be remembered well into the future, as will be the case with these three people. Nyttend (talk) 22:28, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- fails my standards for lawyers and judges. Presiding over a single case is the only notable thing he's done. Bearian (talk) 22:25, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Lets not also forget the fact that not only is this an individual that fails notability on many levels, the one thing that people are citing as notable is a crime that he's not even being charged with. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It's not a newspaper. It's not a court of public opinion. It's not a forum for activists. Trusilver 23:31, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even if guilty of a crime, that's not so notable for inclusion. Bearian (talk) 01:08, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep He passes WP:POLITICIAN and is notable for on-going, non-trivial, nation-wide media coverage. For those who say that WP:POLITICIAN does not apply to county judges, how do you justify New York County judges who are notable under this guideline. The standard needs to be applied uniformly, thus making this politician/judge notable. 134.241.58.253 (talk) 02:23, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question. Putting aside the obvious WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, which NY judges are you referring to?--Bbb23 (talk) 03:00, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, we don't have articles for all New York County (Manhattan) judges. Second, Aransas County, Texas has less than 25,000 inhabitants, while Manhattan is the center of American's largest city has 1.63 million inhabitants. Third, while the New York Supreme Court (the trial courts in Manhattan) are superior courts of general jurisdiction (they hear all kinds of cases, including felonies, major civil cases, etc.), the Texas County Courts at Law are low-level courts of limited jurisdiction - they rank below even the Texas County Courts, which are Texas's general-jurisdiction trial court. The WP:POLITICIAN does not at all say that these kind of judges are entitled to an article. In fact, it states that "judges who have held international, national or statewide/provincewide office" are likely to be notable and that "Just being an elected local official...does not guarantee notability." The only statewide judges in Texas are the judges of the Texas Supreme Court and Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. There are indeed thousands and thousands of local judges, magistrates, justices of the peace, and hearing officers in the United States in positions comparable to Adams'. Only a small fraction are likely to be notable. Neutrality^talk 04:20, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Second of all, New York County does not have County Judges; they are only elected in the 55 Upstate New York counties. Compare New York City trial courts with New York upstate trial courts. Both accessed November 8, 2011. The New York City criminal and civil court judges are not usually notable. Bearian (talk) 15:03, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, the County Courts of New York are separate from (and subordinate to) the general jurisdiction New York Supreme Court system which is also organized by county. So while there is no "New York County Court" for New York County (the NYC borough of Manhattan), there is a New York Supreme Court of New York County[6] as well as the other NYC boroughs and counties in the state. postdlf (talk) 15:43, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question. Why does WP:POLITICIAN keep coming up? The plain text the guideline of it only includes state-wide and national judicial officers. Explain what Adams meets in the WP:POLITICIAN criteria. patsw (talk) 15:56, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question. Why does on-going or persistent coverage keep coming up? Give an example of this on-going or persistent coverage applicable to the WP:NEWSEVENT criteria. patsw (talk) 15:56, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:BLP1E. Lacks ongoing RS coverage. Does not pass WP:POLITICIAN as a county judge. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- He is the subject of ongoing RS coverage. 1,580 articles in the past 24 hours. 65.96.60.92 (talk) 04:55, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Try that search again with Judge "William Adams". The search in your format matches Judge OR William OR Adams anywhere in the article. From what I saw in my search, it was Letters to the Editor or other non-RS opinion. An example of on-going news coverage, please. patsw (talk) 14:07, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK. How about Judge Beats His Daughter ... Abuse Or Discipline? from NPR on Nov 8, 2011. Does that satisfy it?. I guess you could also use Commission investigating judge Adams from The Rockport Pilot on Nov 9, 2011. You might also consider Protests Over Judge Adams at Aransas Co. Courthouse from Nov 7, 2011 from KRISTV News 6. 65.96.60.92 (talk) 18:41, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be missing the point. It's still "flash in the pan" reporting discussing the single event. Still a combination of BLP1E and POLITICIAN notability that doesn't pass either. Hasteur (talk) 19:16, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but you asked to prove that he is still undergoing continued RS coverage. I provided an article from RSs for each of the last three days. How did I fail in your challenge? 65.96.60.92 (talk) 00:38, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. We're running at about a 2-to-1 clip in favor of deletion, with 4-5 of the keeps relying on the debunked politician guideline to boot, so the outcome is pretty much wrap. We also just passed the 7-day mark, so hopefully this is closed shortly.. Tarc (talk) 22:28, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another article/video from CNN In Sweden, a generation of kids who've never been spanked on Anderson Cooper. Not sure why you all think he's not the subjected of continuing, ongoing RS coverage. 65.96.60.92 (talk) 01:38, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are missing the point, which is what was once a torrent has now slowed to a trickle. Check this graph at Google Trends. Tarc (talk) 02:08, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:59, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Christoph Semke[edit]

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

Non-notable professional gamer. Ridernyc (talk) 17:23, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lack of reliable, third party sources. Notability not established. Sergecross73 msg me 14:33, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per substantial coverage in German RS sources. The Interior (Talk) 17:58, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

do you mind providing them? Ridernyc (talk) 18:56, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Already did. See article. The Interior (Talk) 19:10, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So you found one source, not sources. Ridernyc (talk) 19:15, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I take it from your response that you aren't fond of it. The Interior (Talk) 19:30, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 18:18, 2 November 2011 (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. Nominator effectively withdrew their nomination after sources were discovered by frankie. (non-admin closure) I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 08:49, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cazuela[edit]

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

If nobody has found any references in over three years, the topic almost certainly fails the general notability guideline. Also, see WP:V. Chris (talk) 00:39, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think notability is easily met, as cazuela is both the name of the utensil (cooking pot) and the given name to many stews made in it (in a similar fashion as casserole), and it is consistently used in that manner throughout Spain and Latin America. Here are some dictionaries to confirm it [7] [8] [9] [10]. Taking the article beyond a dictionary definition is trickier, since using much of what is available online (mostly recipes) would require original research. There is some analysis, though: this article [11] treats the subject as such, and then it refers to the book Chilenos Cocinando a la Chilena by Roberto Marín. I couldn't get any related snippet, but the index is available here [12], showing a chapter dedicated to "Las Cazuelas". There's also these two links [13] [14], and a chapter from the Florentine Codex [15] reporting all the different kinds of cazuelas that the lords ate. I'll try to include some of this content in the article tonight, and look for additional sources — frankie (talk) 16:00, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I didn't realize it had that much coverage. If that info can be incorporated into the article, then we should keep it. Chris (talk) 18:53, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a few changes to the article, and included this ref [16] about the Chilean cazuela. One of the links above mentions versions from Argentina and Colombia (although very lightly), and es:Cazuela (comida) describes versions from Ecuador and Peru, but the sources used are not that great — frankie (talk) 05:54, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that the AfD wasn't listed, so I've added it to today's log — frankie (talk) 18:13, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 18:13, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - per nominator's own comment: "Wow, I didn't realize it had that much coverage. If that info can be incorporated into the article, then we should keep it." AfD is not the Article Improvement Workshop. Carrite (talk) 18:15, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - per Carrite's rationale. Can't think of a better rationale than when the nom changes his mind and says there is a lot of reference material to back up the article. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:32, 2 November 2011 (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. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:09, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Glowstone[edit]

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

Contested PROD. This seems to fail the notability guidelines for fiction. Cutecutecuteface2000 (talk) 18:01, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There really is not much to say here. Completely forgettable detail of a computer game. --Crusio (talk) 18:19, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Reach Out to the Truth 18:23, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable fictional element of a video game. No out-of-universe coverage by reliable sources. Additional note: The article was already proposed for deletion and probably would have been deleted in about two days if you'd just let it sit. Keep an eye out for that in the future. Reach Out to the Truth 18:32, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:32, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my PROD rationale, which the others have also mentioned above. –MuZemike 02:17, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No notability independent of that of Minecraft, and insufficient content to justify a spin-out from the main Minecraft article(s). - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:41, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - DustFormsWords summed up my thoughts. I'm not finding coverage for the subject in reliable sources to warrant an individual article. Gongshow ^Talk 06:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable unsourced. Even within the scope of the Minecraft article it might not be notable enough by itself to warrant inclusion. Salvidrim (talk) 17:04, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:37, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AlphaStar Corporation[edit]

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

Subject lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails the notability guidelines for organizations. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 18:01, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:20, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Another article about a provider of advanced engineering analysis services and of specialized software for the analysis of complex engineering material systems. This actually sounds more historically important and encyclopedically significant, and, well, interesting, than 99% of these software articles. Google News and Books find only press releases and directory listings, and the article text doesn't give many leads either; it's too vague and abstract to tell what they really do or enable disinterested editors to fix it by editing. Delete this -- it's also advertising, of course -- but without prejudice to an article written by a technical person rather than a PR person. Unless all the specifics are doublenaught spy stuff -- and if they are, why do you want a Wikipedia article? - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 04:53, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:36, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Covert[edit]

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

Primary editor of article appears to be subject, sourcing is local coverage and press releases SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:39, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete I tried, and tried, and tried to find web based sources, only found a few that were local in nature like this, but I don't think this is quite enough to pass the bar. Maybe they do exist, but I'm afraid they don't. I can find lots of blogs and his myspace and facebook pages, and lots of social media references, but very little that passes wp:rs. Dennis Brown (talk) 17:55, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:30, 2 November 2011 (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 (G4) by Jayron32. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 13:49, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bulletproof (12 Stones song)[edit]

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

There is no significant information here which is not already on the page for the album, so there is nothing here which should even be merged.

This song does not meet notability criteria in WP:MUSIC. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:46, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per {{db-g4}}. Author didn't even bother updating dates with dates that have passed still "upcoming". --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 18:18, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:29, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, G4, tagged. Hairhorn (talk) 00:38, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. withdrawn (non-admin closure) RadioFan (talk) 01:06, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Devil Inside (film)[edit]

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

No indication of how this might meet WP:NF. Only reference is to IMDB. Article fails WP:NFF and WP:FUTURE. RadioFan (talk) 16:44, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete under Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. No sources to speak of, to say it will be notable someday is trying to tell the future. Dennis Brown (talk) 17:57, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's not crystal balling to say that the movie does exist it just haven't been screened yet. IMDb is a good source to begin with as it gathers 72 news articles about the subject and clearly shows that it is sold to 8 other countries other than the USA. It means a worldwide coverage and that it is an international movie not just a cable TV production. Worth enough. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me • CP} 21:13, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article passes WP:N and there are a plethora of sources outside IMdB on the film that can be used to ameliorate the article. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 21:29, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:28, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per meeting the general notability guideline; I'm finding various sources in Google. RadioFan, you need to look outside the Wikipedia article itself to determine if the topic is notable. A topic can be notable but not have enough references within the Wikipedia article, which means that there needs to be cleanup through using these outside references and expanding the article. Erik (talk | contribs) 22:34, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per inadvertant errors in nomination statement reflecting perhaps a lack of WP:BEFORE and misunderstanding of pertinant policy and guideline. To the nominator, and with respects, a topic's notability is not to be judged by an article's current state, but rather by the actual avaiablility and quality of reliable sources that deal with the topic, even if NOT in the article. And, as shown by those above, topic notability was easy to establish. Further, WP:FUTURE specifically DOES allow and encourage discussion of future events, just so long as the event is properly sourced and the information about the topic does not contain unsourcable speculation or original research. And toward WP:NFF, please understand that a completed film, with imminent release, that has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, IS allowed by that guideline. This is explained at WP:FFCLARIFY. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:52, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ease up on the judgement on the nominator would you? WP:BEFORE is difficult with such a common title. How about a little WP:BURDEN on the page creator? I'm going to withdraw this based on the plethora of excellent sources several editors have mentioned here (but give no examples of) and look forward to seeing this article improved.--RadioFan (talk) 01:06, 6 November 2011 (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, withdrawn by nominator. Non-admin closure — frankie (talk) 17:17, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Philotimo[edit]

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

~~WP:NOT#DICTIONARY - unsourced essay that basically defines the noun. Article had a failed PROD.~~ Toddst1 (talk) 16:17, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Submission withdrawn by nominator in favor of a complete rewrite. Toddst1 (talk) 18:00, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The White House even published an article called Philotimo. This is old Greek, and not as many citations are going to be found on the first page of a google search. That doesn't mean it can't be verified and isn't required by WP:V, it means verification requires more effort and maybe a trip to your library. That said, the "noun" is more than a word or WP:DICDEF, it is a concept, a philosophy from antiquity. Dennis Brown (talk) 17:41, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to add, just using the scholar link on this AFD should convince anyone. Regardless of how much work the article needs, the topic meets the criteria for inclusion. Dennis Brown (talk) 17:42, 2 November 2011 (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. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:12, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Liquid Fuse[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Some of the "references" don't mention Liquid Fuse, others make bare passing mention, or are non-reliable, or not independent or promotional. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:16, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not only is there no assertation of reliability, the article seems like it was put there purely for promotion, and is incomplete. The main author Liquidfuseofficial not only appears to have a COI, but has made the article into a template to be completed later. The only reservation I have is that this article was only made 5 hours before going up for AfD. He's Gone Mental 16:23, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:TOOSOON. Maybe someday they will be notable, but they aren't today. Links to their iTunes and such do not verify notability, only that they made a recording and are trying to sell it. Dennis Brown (talk) 17:59, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:27, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the above rationales. No significant coverage in reliable sources found; subject does not appear to meet WP:BAND at this time. Gongshow ^Talk 05:58, 3 November 2011 (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 Pather Panchali. (non-admin closure) HurricaneFan 25 18:26, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Subir Banerjee[edit]

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

No references, no biographical informations, no evidence of notability, just a Bengali movie in 1955.--Cavarrone (talk) 16:07, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Cavarrone (talk) 19:32, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Cavarrone (talk) 19:32, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cavarrone (talk) 19:32, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Pather Panchali. While the actor fails WP:ENT, he does have multiple reliable sources speaking about him directly and in detail for his role as Apu in that film.[17][18] Let's send readers to the one place where he is sourcable in context to his role in that film. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:16, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - agree with Schmidt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VasuVR (talk • contribs) 04:26, November 4, 2011‎
Redirect per MQS. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:14, 10 November 2011 (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.

Review requested[edit]

Not one film, per IMDb he acted in two films! One of the two films was Pather Panchali, reading from today's (March 13th) Times of India, the film changed the course of Indian filmmaking for ever and now a full length Bengali film is going to be made on the life of the actor. That shows the influence of the character he played and with this film he is again in the news! I am requesting a review! --Tito Dutta (contact) 05:24, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All (and only those) editors who participated in the last discussion have been informed except the non-admin who closed the discussion as his account is blocked as a sock! --Tito Dutta (contact) 05:28, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello, T D... Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Please know that nothing is lost.(diff) What was redirected was a one-sentence unsourced stub of someone who then-appeared to fail WP:BIO. And blocked now or not, there was no flaw the in the closer's rationale. But you have brought forth an excellent source toward notability... a source that did not exist at the time of the 2011 redirect. I would be quite happy to move the version that existed before the redirect into a userspace for you, where you would be able to expand it and add sources. The redirect itself will stay in place for now, and at such time as a sourced version is ready for mainspace, just pingg me and I would be happy to over-write the redirect with the improved content. Would you like to work on it? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:06, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Tito Dutta. I am very busy with my work and home activities that I am not able to spend time on Wiki. Kindly take this forward with opinions and votes of others. Thanks for notifying. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 02:29, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect all. Any content worth merging may be pulled from the page histories. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:31, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Paget[edit]

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

Redirect as it fails to meet WP:MUSIC and WP:GNG He's Gone Mental 15:50, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they all fail to meet the same criterea:

I've come to AFD as previous redirect attempts have been undone multiple times without discussion. He's Gone Mental 15:50, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no significant coverage of the individual on his own merits.--Cavarrone (talk) 16:29, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Cavarrone's rational, that just being the lead guitarist isn't notable by itself, even IF the band is. Dennis Brown (talk) 18:01, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:26, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bullet for My Valentine, as was done with a recent AfD involving bandmate Matthew Tuck. Per WP:MUSICBIO: "members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases." None of these musicians appear to have yet demonstrated notability apart from the band. Gongshow ^Talk 06:03, 3 November 2011 (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. Nominator withdrew nomination. (non-admin closure) HurricaneFan25 | talk 16:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hans Jørgensen[edit]

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

I searched Google and am unable to find any connection between anyone of this name and the Newa people of Nepal. That he wrote a dictionary of their language does not inherently make him notable. If in fact he was the anthropologist who first described them, that might make him notable, but the source indicated may not be making that claim. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:27, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:22, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - added a review of his noted dictionary and a link to the entry on him in the Dansk Biografisk Leksikon which seems to me (with the help of Gtranslate) to satisfy notability. Searching for Jørgensen and tibet also seems helpful. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 23:50, 2 November 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Keep I am the nominator but at this point this is out of my hands. I am satisfied with the references added since I nominated this. Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:49, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article documents a significant impact he made to scholarly studies (enough to pass WP:PROF#C1 — note that Google scholar citation counts are not really useful for this timeframe and subject) and the Dansk Leksikon link added by Msrasnw provides us with enough verifiable content on him to write an article. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:35, 3 November 2011 (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 as advertising. Checkuser confirms that Ocelot7, and several other accounts, are run by the same person or people, for the purpose of advertising. The claim that "This is not a paid piece at all" is thrown into rather a lot of doubt by the CU results. The Cavalry (Message me) 15:27, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DJ H[edit]

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

Obvious paid puff piece with many claims and few references. One reference is literally entitled "Indian Wedding DJ for hire" and is the DJ's own ad. Fails WP:GNG. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:22, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:20, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a paid piece at all, and I think it's unfair to suggest that. A lot of Bhangra DJs already have pages, and DJ H is a fairly big celebrity in the UK music scene (see Facebook, YouTube, etc.). Here are a couple more references to DJ H in the press: http://www.flavourmag.co.uk/winners-announced-for-brit-asia-music-awards/ AND http://www.bbc.co.uk/asiannetwork/events/ama2010/galleries/4/index.shtml?gp=26#gallery5737 Ocelot7 (talk) 23:54, 2 November 2011 (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 (snowball closure). Kotniski (talk) 08:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LOT Polish Airlines Flight 016[edit]

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

The incident is not notable enough to be included in a stand alone article, as per WP:AIRLINE. It shouldn't even be mentioned in the airline's article. Jetstreamer (talk) 14:41, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, how do you reach that conclusion? Major news story here.--Kotniski (talk) 14:56, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a belly landing of a large airliner is an extraordinarily rare type of incident. Plus, it's all over the media in Poland and abroad. Extraneus (talk) 15:01, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the guidelines before opining. You want the article to be included just because it had a wide media coverage. That's not a valid reason. It doesn't matter if the aircraft involved was a Cessna or an A380. There were no injuries, there were no changes to procedures, and the aircraft was not written off. How many people, aside from the occupants of the airliner, will remember this incident within a few months?--Jetstreamer (talk) 15:06, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've read them. The aircraft is seriously damaged and likely to be written off. As for changes to procedures, too early to tell. Extraneus (talk) 15:13, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, for further discussion it would be good to know how frequently such event happened in the past (i.e. belly landing of a large airliner on land without injuries). --Kubanczyk (talk) 15:10, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As you say, it doesn't matter if what's saved from flipping over or disintegrating is a Cessna or an A380. Makes me think of Malév Flight 262. — A. Kupicki (talk) 15:29, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The plane involved in Malev 262 was written off.--Jetstreamer (talk) 15:43, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tupolevs were being phased out by Malév at that time...all of them. — A. Kupicki (talk) 17:02, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Emergency landings are notable. Just see numerous flights linked at emergency landing. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 15:40, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As long as the aircraft involved results damaged beyond repair. Emergency landings occur all the time. Will you label an emergency landing due to the loss of a tyre or a medical emergency aboard a notable event?--Jetstreamer (talk) 15:46, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not us who decide what makes it notable - it's the media. I don't know how surprising this was to the experts, but the way it's been reported, it's the fact that no deaths or major destruction occurred that somehow made it more surprising and noteworthy.--Kotniski (talk) 15:55, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "Miracle On The Hudson" was kept - yes, probably due to wide media coverage, but it is also a good reason - why not this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lemmy Laffer (talk • contribs) 15:44, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Tons of media coverage both in the United States and Poland. Passes WP:GNG and WP:EVENT. -- Luke (Talk) 15:48, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What about WP:NTEMP?--Jetstreamer (talk) 16:00, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can compare this aircraft incident with US Airways Flight 1549. A belly landing for this type of aircraft is not a common occurrence, as is US Airways Flight 1549. That's why Malév Flight 262 and the Miracle on the Hudson were kept also. -- Luke (Talk) 16:11, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:AIRCRASH. The incident caused substantial damage to the aircraft and probably complete hull loss. Pburka (talk) 15:55, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak Delete So far all I see is WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:CRYSTAL here as we do not know for sure if this is a sure thing writeoff. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my opinion to Keep based on all the media coverage =). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:20, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This event is a first of such kind of incidents in the world, where airplane remains in one piece after belly-landing (without wheels) with ZERO injured people! This confirmed today Mr. Chesley Sullenberger in his interview for CNN: event like that happened never before. Zboralski (talk) 16:59, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
TBH, this is not a first in aviation. A B747 belly-landed in Islamabad in 1986, and none of the 264 passengers or crew were injured. [19]. I'd guess the reason it's not on WP is that the plane was eventually repaired and returned to service. Extraneus (talk) 17:06, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd guess that PIA Flight 300 doesn't have an article because it happened 25 years ago, and Wikipedia has a bias towards topics which occurred since its inception. I'll also hazard a guess that this wheels-up landing will have an article by the end of the week, now that you've pointed it out. Finding reliable sources from that time period will be a bit more difficult, of course. Pburka (talk) 17:32, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So we just have to wait and write an article as soon as an event occurs?--Jetstreamer (talk) 17:35, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you mean. But arguing that Wikipedia shouldn't have LOT Polish Airlines Flight 016 because it doesn't have PIA Flight 300 is just a variation of WP:OTHERSTUFF. Pburka (talk)

If this article is kept, the PIA's incident should have an article too, that's for sure.--Jetstreamer (talk) 18:17, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as notable as the US Airways landing in the Hudson River. If this is deleted then that article should be also deleted for just the same reason. Just because it isn't showed live for hours at a time on CNN doesn't mean it isn't notable. Ajh1492 (talk) 17:55, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Plus there are articles in PL:WP. FR:WP and IT:WP, so other people think it is notable. Ajh1492 (talk) 18:09, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to make a general comment, but it is likely that any kind of event widely covered in the news has it reply as a new Wikipedia article almost immediately. I don't think this is the appropriate procedure, as we are not including other events as important as the one we are discussing here (PIA Flight 300 for instance).--Jetstreamer (talk) 18:17, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Full disclosure, I'm the one who wrote the French version, and I may very well be the only French speaker who thinks this is noteworthy. ;-) It does seem however that no deletions have been proposed on the other Wikis. Extraneus (talk) 19:01, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Absolutely notable. Airport blocked, one of a kind landing, worldwide media coverage, immediate articles on several different wikipedias. At the same time no valid reason to delete it. Lack of injuries makes an article not worthy ? Seriously ... --Lysy^talk 19:43, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not sure if there's anything else to add, but yes, clearly notable, worldwide news coverage, a fairly rare incident... so... if the belly landing had been a disaster and the thing would've blown up and bunch of people died then it would be notable? Weird logic. Volunteer Marek 20:47, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly.--Jetstreamer (talk) 22:09, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So if you agree, then there is no reason to keep the article as marked for deletion anymore.

Keep, for now. Lets see what happens witht he hull. Maksdo (talk) 21:14, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This has been officially classified as accident, not incident, now. This is unique, because never before in Boeing 767 all wheels did not want to show up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.6.70.225 (talk) 22:51, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Historic rare occurrence and the only to involve a 767. Only one other occasion when a modern jetliner performed a belly landing successfully on pavement was a 747 in 1986 in Pakistan. It's particularly historic to Poland as very recently their president Lech Kaczyński was killed in the 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash which is why such an amazing landing is garnering such accolades from the current Polish president and the press of this aviation case. Obviously passes WP:GNG. WP:AIRLINE is a project, not a notability guideline. Even if somewhere buried in its pages is some inclusion criteria such as in Wikipedia:WikiProject Airlines/page content (again, not a notability guideline), it's had an extremely low number of editors participating in its conclusions. WP:CONSENSUS is very clear that overall project-wide consensus trumps limited consensus. WP:CONSENSUS states, "participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope." --Oakshade (talk) 01:02, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A few things. A hull loss doesn't automatically make an incident notable. Take for instance the DC-9, of 131 hull losses there were 64 without fatalities. A cursory check of wikipedia articles shows exactly one of those crashes have an article. Between ASN and google news search someone could write articles on the other incidents. Do you feel that should be done or it would be overkill or do you just don't care about those incidents because many of them took place 30-40 years ago and you're only interested in recent history? Looking at the size of the templates for aviation incidents in 1971 and 2011 and checking the total of incidents there were according to Aviation Safety Network's databases, the evidence says recent history is preferred. 1971 had more incidents than 2011 but the articles for the latter outnumber the former 36 to 11. Whereas 1971 had over 200 incidents and 2011 hasn't reached 100 yet.

I don't understand why people keep connecting this crash and the recent tragedy involving the Polish President. Poland has quite a safe air history compared to many of its neighbors. There hasn't been a non-military related crash in the country resulting in 3 or more deaths in almost 25 years.

The news coverage in the United States involving this crash mostly consists of replaying the video. If 500 media outlets show the same thing, does that make the media coverage extensive or like some broken record?

Lastly, this Florida United States Wikipedian flew into Warsaw Airport without his luggage in 2000. KLM left this platinum elite Frequent Flyer's plus his silver elite FF wife's luggage behind in Amsterdam.- William 02:09, 3 November 2011 (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 subject may be encyclopedic and worthy of an article, but the community judges that the article should be blown up so we can start over. causa sui (talk) 18:32, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pond air pump[edit]

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

Essay that serves as a coatrack for advertising a particular business. All external links are to the same business (presumable one that sells pond air pumps). Given the author's campaign of redirecting other pages to this page, it seems clear that advertising is the aim of this article. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:41, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nom; nothing more than a coatrack to advertise pumps. Relevant and properly sourced material about pond pumps could be integrated with Koi pond. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk

Delete. Coatrack. Also how-to. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:09, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, for all the reasons above. There could perhaps be an encyclopedic article about aquarium air pumps, but it would need to be started from scratch, and such pumps for ponds are of trivial notability. ~~Please note that there are redirects to the page (ie, air pump) that will also need to be wiped up.~~ --Tryptofish (talk) 17:42, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ill-considered advertising attempt. It's possible that the topic of pond pumps is notable ("water features" are quite popular around here among the suburban set), but this article needs a fundamental rewrite. Del for now. The Interior (Talk) 17:46, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are a number of aspects of pond fish keeping that are notable, including the whole question of maintaining clear and well oxygenated water although as pointed out Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. There are plenty of other sites on the internet that serve that function. I agree with those that say that this is not even at the starting gate for an acceptable article - it isn't really about pond air pumps as such, let alone air pumps in general and the redirect from there is wholly unacceptable. It says, reasonably, that circulating surface water is the best way of achieving a healthy environment (though it should explain that is mainly through vertical rather than horizontal circulation) and in the same sentence recommends air pumps which are really another way of introducing oxygen - it does not say why an air pump is superior for ensuring vertical circulation to, say, a surface skimmer. Nor does it compare air pumps with the commonly recommended way of oxygenating water, the spray fountain. It does not mention the relevance of water depth and temperature, stocking levels and so forth, all of which should influence a decision on whether an air pump is desirable. There is no technical information at all that would be expected in an encyclopedic article on a class of equipment of this sort. And so on. --AJHingston (talk) 18:48, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic is quite respectable and just needs work in accordance with our editing policy, which is to improve such articles, not to delete them. For an example of a substantial source which covers the topic in good detail, see Pond aquaculture water quality management. Warden (talk) 18:51, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right after the page was created, I tagged it for improvement (tags were subsequently removed) instead of nominating it for deletion, so I thought about that same issue. On further reflection, though, I see this more as something to delete and start over. I'm active at WP:WikiProject Aquarium Fishes, which includes a lot of aquatic hardware pages (Airstone, for a related example), so I think I have a feel for which kinds of apparatus are and are not appropriate for an article here. As AJHingston correctly described, there are plenty of apparatus that play a significant role in pond keeping, as covered by the book you cite, but air pumps play a very minor role in ponds (unlike indoor aquaria), so I'd rather see the topic covered as a section within a broader article instead of having a page devoted just to this kind of pump. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:03, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (move to Wikiversity?). As it stands it's a how-to, and I don't see the intersection of pumps with this particular application meeting the threshhold for its own article -- there are zillions of uses for pumps and most of them are obvious. Details of specific applications almost inevitably slide into being a how-to. There may be a place in a sister project. EEng (talk) 22:37, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Merge any parts that can be reliably sourced into Water aeration. This topic does not warrant a standalone article. --Epipelagic (talk) 22:54, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would say this is quite informative, it could be improved, see WP:Imperfect. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 17:50, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#A7. No credible assertion of significance. causa sui (talk) 18:30, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Majid Chaudhry[edit]

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

Poorly sourced biography of a living person. For some reason identical with the creator's user page, indicating a possible conflict of interest. bender235 (talk) 14:12, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources given in the article do not establish notability and I was not able to find any reliable sources in a quick google search. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD. No credible assertion of significance, blatant promotion that would require a complete rewrite to make it encyclopedic. causa sui (talk) 18:28, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Daviz Logic[edit]

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

Unsourced biography of a living person. No notability what so ever. bender235 (talk) 14:01, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No coverage in reliable sources. Pburka (talk) 18:02, 2 November 2011 (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. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:25, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John Lockhart Lyman[edit]

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

No indications of notability. EIC of a non-notable journal. Former (assistant) editor at Foreign Policy Digest. Has written for some other journals/magazines, but nothing that indicates that either WP:BIO, WP:AUTHOR, WP:PROF, or WP:GNG are being met. (Note: there are several people named "John Lyman" (or even "John L. Lyman", complicating the search for possible sources). Crusio (talk) 11:23, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent sources found to confer notability; fails every relevant guideline per Crusio's nomination. Yunshui 雲水 11:39, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:57, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Journal of Foreign Relations. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:37, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Actually, that's a good idea. Change !vote to Merge. Yunshui 雲水 13:39, 2 November 2011 (UTC)~~[reply]

Comment I disagree. That journal is not notable and is itself at AfD. Merging two sub-notable articles does not make one that is notable. In addition, if you read both articles, you'll see that all information that is present in this one is already also present in the article on the journal. --Crusio (talk) 14:07, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, Merge *what*? Are the people saying merging actually reading what is at both articles? --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:22, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In my case, I'm afraid not - I didn't look at Journal of Foreign Relations (have done so now!); it simply seemed sensible to merge info on the editor of the journal to that page. Since Northamerica1000 had already proposed it, I assumed he had already confirmed that the information wasn't already there. That will teach me to rely on other people checking stuff... Returning to delete stance, normal service has been resumed. Yunshui 雲水 14:55, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable person with a job in journalism. Off2riorob (talk) 14:35, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The AfD of the article on Journal of Foreign Relations has been closed as "delete". --Crusio (talk) 09:57, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the person is even less notable than the Journal, which lacks any claim of notability. Sparthorse (talk) 06:09, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails to meet the WP:BIO criteria and a failure of WP:COI. --Fæ (talk) 12:17, 7 November 2011 (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. causa sui (talk) 18:27, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tré Melvin[edit]

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

The article fails to address WP:BIO. Getting 1,000 subscribers on YouTube does not meet the notability criteria of WP:GNG and I find no sources on GNews or GBooks to indicate that sources are likely to be found to support the criteria in the near future. PROD (and improvement tags) removed, so raising for wider discussion. Fæ (talk) 10:54, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:57, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unremarkable YouTuber. No significant coverage found. MikeWazowski (talk) 14:57, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He has received an adequate amount of positive rave around the globe regarding his YouTube series in literally weeks, well over enough to meet the WP:BIO guidelines. He has made remarkably impressive contributions both artistically and benevolently throughout the years. The young man is a role model, and hilarious if I must say so myself. The world will certainly be seeing more of him in the near future. --Tlmelvin (talk) 01:07, 3 November 2011 (UTC)— Tlmelvin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Not only does the above editor appear to be Tré Melvin and/or a WP:SPA, he also tried to remove my delete vote. MikeWazowski (talk) 01:19, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am not Tré Melvin, I am a fan and I created this account solely to write this article with his permission. I did not mean to delete your comment - I am new to using Wikipedia in this manner. Forgive me. --Tlmelvin (talk) 01:26, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent and reliable refs to be found. A non-remarkable YouTube personality. Bgwhite (talk) 07:02, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unremarkable. Neutrality^talk 20:18, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. The consensus below is that sufficient sources exist to demonstrate notability. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:04, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No More Kings[edit]

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

no real notability shown for this band. award is not major, just another submit your band to us for promotion thing. touring lacks coverage. lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources. I didn' find anyting significant. nothing satisfying wp:music. original research. prod removed without comment or change. duffbeerforme (talk) 09:59, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:56, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. From a news search for "No More Kings" sweep the leg [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28]. I'm not sure how reliable some of them are (in particular, the way the starpulse.com article praises the band's nothing-out-of-the-ordinary-website made all my good faith go AWOL), but overall coverage is solid, and that together with casual mentions such as this one [29] make me think that they have in fact become a notable band by now — frankie (talk) 21:29, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Coverage in the sources provided by frankie, along with others such as these [30][31], is sufficient for subject to meet WP:GNG and criterion 1 of WP:BAND. Gongshow ^Talk 21:55, 11 November 2011 (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. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:27, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Enderman[edit]

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

Fictional figures in a PC video game. No out-of-universe notability. Unsourced. Does not meet any of the relevant guidelines for notability. Crusio (talk) 08:09, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 12:55, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:56, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable topic. There won't be reliable sources for this topic specifically. Merge any relevant information to Minecraft. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:55, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment An exceptionally poorly written article, with no reference in Minecraft article itself. Can someone substantiate that this content is, in fact, correct? If so, Merge, else Delete. Jclemens (talk) 16:08, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No real-world notability. See also the previous Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Creeper (Minecraft), which was deleted. Reach Out to the Truth 17:37, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No real-world notability. All it just is an in-universe description of an Enderman. Cutecutecuteface2000 (talk) 02:25, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. No apparent out-of-universe notability. Gongshow ^Talk 06:19, 3 November 2011 (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. Perhaps further discussion of merging is in order. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:24, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Demi Lovato tours[edit]

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

This does not strike me as a notable tour at all. Drmies (talk) 01:24, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lovato's tours (i.e. Summer Tour, Warm Up Tour) already have their own articles, this article is a little meaningless. Sailodge (talk) 03:57, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:22, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Probable keep -- these kinds of articles aren't unheard of... List of U2 concert tours, for example. But naturally, as a band of 30~ years theirs is a little more substantial. At what point would a list of this style be warranted? That's the crux of the matter, for me. But consider this: the U2 one ultimately just links them together; here it covers the tours as three of them don't have articles in their own right, probably because they couldn't warrant them. And that seems like a sensible idea in my mind. Similar to how we group many minor league baseball players under their respective teams' articles: San Francisco Giants minor league players, for example. (Didn't expect to draw that parallel when I first opened this page...) Also, it's not true that they all have their own articles -- only the one does, and there's currently a merger proposal to combine it with this article. I think this is a pretty sensible way to house them all.

With only one fork, and a (currently unopposed) merger proposal, I don't believe this is meaningless; nor, indeed do I think it's not notable. Granted, it's under-sourced right now, but that's a matter for improvement rather than deletion. Also, the nomination calls this a tour which, strictly speaking, it isn't -- it's for her tours as a whole. And I would assume that a reasonably popular (I've heard of her, anyway...) musician's tours could pass WP:N. I'm not a fan, though, so I've no idea where to look. And Googling makes it a little difficult to search through the myriad of fansites to find anything of use... Provided some can be found to establish notability, I'd definitely say we should keep this, though. Perhaps notifying WP:WikiProject Musicians would be a good idea? They're more likely to have some good ideas for sources than me, certainly.

I would propose moving it to List of Demi Lovato concert tours for consistency, though. Buttons to Push Buttons (talk | contribs) 20:23, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:51, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd keep it and delete the tours. Article needs more sources btw. -Koppapa (talk) 21:39, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:22, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Emanuele Minotti[edit]

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

Equity analysts are not generally notable. This one seems to be no exception. Looks suspiciously like a vanity piece, mainly edited and created by SPAs. Sources are nothing but a series of very trivial mentions and the subject's names on research notes. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:11, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:23, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:50, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passing WP:BASIC (multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability), per:

• Failed Deals Leave Italy Banks in Flux, NY Times

• INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS; Italian Banks Are Steered Clear of Mergers. NY Times

• Business: The Company File - Italian insurance giant in merger bid BBC News

• Full Year 2006 KBC Group NV Earnings Conference Call - Part 3 et al.

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:10, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The above sources listed by Northamerica1000 (talk · contribs) constitute trivial coverage. Analyzing each source through the lens of WP:GNG:
- In "Failed Deals Leave Italy Banks in Flux", Minotti is quoted and identified as a "European banking analyst at Salomon Smith Barney". The article further mentions his recommendations with regards to some banking stuff. This source does not go beyond a mention in passing ("John Smith at Big Company said..." ...).
- "INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS; Italian Banks Are Steered Clear of Mergers" contains merely two quotes from Minotti. See WP:BASIC#cite note-note5-5.
- "Business: The Company File - Italian insurance giant in merger bid" is trivial coverage as Minotti is interviewed about some economic stuff. Being interviewed about something does not establish one's notability.
- "Earnings Conference Call - Part 3" is another interview of Minotti about some economic stuff. See my comments about the previous source.

In sum, all the sources consist of quotes of Minotti, which establishes his reliability as a source, not his notability. Goodvac (talk) 23:29, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:15, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Matadana[edit]

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

I could not find any reliable sources for the book on Google, and I believe it fails WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK. Inks.LWC (talk) 06:51, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Inks.LWC (talk) 06:53, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Abhishek ^Talk 16:28, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:26, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:50, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, weakly. Article is apparently about a 1965 novel by a Kannada author that was apparently made into a motion picture. The Hindu called it a "classic novel"[32] The author is apparently a significant literary figure. (Encyclopedia of Indian Literature). This is enough to make me suspect that better sources exist, and that they may be in languages I don't read. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:50, 2 November 2011 (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. Sandstein 10:07, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Parallel Kingdom[edit]

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

Prodded for failing WP:WEB, rejected by original WP:COI editor without addressing notability problems. Sources are merely a local paper writing about how the developers got $800k of funding for unrelated (?) projects, a reprinted press release about how the game donated some money to charity, and the fact that the game was nominated for (but did not win) some apparently unremarkable "bestappever.com" award in 2009. McGeddon (talk) 16:45, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:27, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:49, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep - Barely, but meeting, GNG. A well-known game that has received some media attention [33], [34]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:09, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep New York Times shows brief mention of it. [35] Oh, hey, look. [36] Their official site of course list all the notable media sites that have reviewed them favorably. So they have gotten coverage. Dream Focus 14:54, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from the NYT article including two paragraphs about the game, and possibly the TechCrunch review, the "notable media sites" appear to be WP:RS-failing app review blogs. --McGeddon (talk) 09:50, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per arguments of Dream Focus, This has reliable sources, and may meet WP:GNG. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 16:53, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:GNG stipulates significant coverage; "significant coverage" does not imply imply coverage in just a handful of reliable sources. Betty Logan (talk) 01:00, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm on the fence on this one, but yes, solid coverage in a handful of reliable sources is enough. Hobit (talk) 01:09, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. per WP:SILENCE. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:47, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Kidd Rizz[edit]

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

An electro hop musician and dance artist. Has one album that was self-released on his own independent label, Outfit Records. Could not find any information on the label except on his homepage. There is also an Outfit Records in Ohio and Georgia. No reliable sources in the article about him nor any that I could find. Fails both WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. Bgwhite (talk) 22:36, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 22:37, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:28, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:49, 2 November 2011 (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. Notable under WP:AUTHOR , as shown by the reviews as suitable independent secondary sources. The argument that the sources have to be about the person's incidental biography rather than their work has not b, nor should it--people are notable because of what they do, which is shown by the sources about it. (A few people--royalty and society figures) may be written about for merely existing, but they are the exception. DGG ( talk ) 16:26, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Guyatt[edit]

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

The article does not make a case for the person's notability. The sources all focus on the book the subject wrote, rather than the subject itself. There is nothing to imply that the author is notability because of the book. A Google search doesn't seem to throw up any thrid party souces that profile the subject. Betty Logan (talk) 02:44, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:45, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since this has been relisted, I will present my rationale more clearly. The author clearly doesn't satisfy the criteria for WP:BIO in that the person has not been the subject of multiple secondary sources. Under the criteria for academics (WP:ACADEMIC), I believe the subject still fails to meet the criteria, since there is no evidence presented in the biography nor is it evident from a Google search that the person is distinguished within their field, or indeed has had any significant influence within their field i.e. the subject appears to be a journeyman scholar. The only notable aspect of his career is the book Have a Nice Doomsday, which has received some coverage in the mainstream media, but mainstream coverage is not indicative of influence within a field, since mainstream sources are prone to publicising research by fringe academics; in fact most of the attention the book has received has come from outside academia. The mainstream coverage of the book could be evidence for criterion 7, which stipulates The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity. However, the guidance for criterion 7 stipulates Criterion 7 may also be satisfied if the person has authored widely popular general audience books on academic subjects provided the author is widely regarded inside academia as a well-established academic expert and provided the books deal with that expert's field of study. I am not sure a single book that has received mainstream attention satisfies this, and again there is little evidence that the subject is "widely regarded" as an "expert" within academia on the topic. This has all the hallmarks of an academic authoring a fringe piece on a provocative topic, and there is no evidence of the subject being notable in any form. Betty Logan (talk) 07:41, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Yunshui 雲水 09:04, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Per enough reliable sources to pass WP:GNG: [37], [38], [39]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:21, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Substantial multiple coverage of Have a Nice Doomsday is enough to pass WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. In addition, his book Providence and the Invention of the United States has also received substantial reviews[40][41][42] as well as substantial discussion and citation in other works [43]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:02, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Guardian article referenced in the article and the rest count as significant coverage in reliable sources. Also, any of his books that get ample coverage, could have their own individual articles as well. Dream Focus 00:50, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On what basis does the subject meet WP:GNG? All the secondary coverage is of the book, not of the subject himself. Also, WP:AUTHOR only confers notability on authors of "significant" or "well known" works, and there is no indication they are "well known". They were basically reviewed when they were published and that was it. Betty Logan (talk) 00:54, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You have to actually read the coverage.
These alarming statistics come from Have a Nice Doomsday, a jaunty report by Nicholas Guyatt from the front line of wacky religious fervour. Guyatt, a Briton who has lived and studied in the US, meets the preachers and authors who spend their time mapping the correlation between Iranian nuclear ambitions and verses in the Book of Ezekiel.

Guyatt tries to conceal the wrinkle all of this puts in his secular nose, not always successfully. He isn't a polemicist, but he doesn't leave much doubt, for example, about his scorn for America's pro-Israel foreign policy. Israel is important to Bible-belt fundamentalists because it is where the Final Battle happens. The worse things get in Jerusalem, the nearer we are to Armageddon (which is, if you are a righteous believer, a good thing). As Guyatt points out, Christianity has had apocalyptic spasms throughout its history. But the last time it was so fixated on the Antichrist and his designs on the Holy Land was around the 12th century. Prophetic literalism is Denaissance theology. etc. etc.

Yes, they talk about him. Dream Focus 01:18, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That clearly isn't about him, it's about the content of his book and the research he undertook for it. There is nothing there that doesn't come from his book; it's not as if they have profiled him as background to the book. Betty Logan (talk) 02:03, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per Reliable Sources, This articel will however require expansion and a rewrite. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 17:57, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As Dreamfocus and Arxiloxos point out, numerous sources establish notability under WP:GNG. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:47, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The multiple reviews from reputable publications of Guyatt's work satisfy WP:AUTHOR (4c). His Have a Nice Doomsday has received coverage at "'Have a Nice Doomsday' Witty, Informative" from The Capital Times, "Is This the Way That the World Ends?" from St. Petersburg Times, Review from Library Journal, and "Author explores apocalyptic Christian culture" from Reuters. "Another American Century? The United States and the World After 2000" from Political Science Quarterly. His Providence and the Invention of the United States has received reviews from The Historian, History, Journal of the Early Republic, Journal of American Culture, The American Historical Review, Canadian Journal of History, and The Journal of American History. Goodvac (talk) 23:26, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn. non-admin self closing per speedy keep guideline. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:29, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Portions from a Wine-stained Notebook: Short Stories and Essays[edit]

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

declined speedy. the author is notable, the title essay is clearly notable independent of the collection, other essays are notable, but this book, as a book, is not notable in any way that i can see. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 03:03, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:45, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. That it was by a major author should be enough (and I think Bukowski satisfies WP:NBOOK#Criteria #5), because we gain nothing by punching a hole in our coverage of his works (the same as deleting an album from the discography of a notable band). But it's very easy to verify that this particular collection was widely reviewed,[44] thus demonstrating its own independent notability per WP:NBOOK#Criteria #1 and WP:GNG. postdlf (talk) 14:51, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
withdraw—you are absolutely right. i didn't carry out a good enough investigation, and i apologize for wasting time. if i read the guideline correctly, since no one has suggested deletion, i can do a nonadmin close on this? or does someone else have to do it by this point?— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 15:00, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's certainly how I read it --Miskwito (talk) 21:23, 2 November 2011 (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. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:12, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leessang[edit]

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

I cannot find sufficient RS coverage of this duo to satisfy our notability requirements. Perhaps others will be able to. Epeefleche (talk) 02:40, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll find them searching on Naver, Nate and Cyworld. Jay2kx (talk) 02:59, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes point two of WP:BAND, Leessang has an extensive charting history on the Gaon Chart, South Korea's official music chart. A Google search for "리쌍" shows significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. — ξ ^xplicit 21:55, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:32, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Perhaps you can help with this -- point two appears to presume that a country has "a" national chart. You indicate that Gaon is "South Korea's official music chart" -- if so, that meets the criteria I would think. But looking more closely, it appears that South Korea has more than one national chart -- on what basis can we conclude that Gaon is, as you say, "South Korea's official music chart"? For example, why does that moniker not belong to Korea K-Pop Hot 100, associated w/Billboard? Many thanks for your expert help.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:57, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:44, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. One of their songs is currently in Naver Music's 100 Chart History (차트 히스토리) [45]. Naver Music also has 183 of their songs covering 11 albums, 26 music videos, and have had their music on another 17 compilations including several film scores. Check the popularity of the songs on the right side [46]; they are pretty popular. ₪RicknAsia₪ 15:00, 8 November 2011 (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. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:29, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Days (2007 film)[edit]

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

Not meeting Wikipedia:Notability (films)
Anish Viswa 05:27, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - film does not have significant coverage in reliable sources; no evidence of notability. 11coolguy12 (talk) 06:25, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Looks like the kids from Super 8 came to life and created a page for their "movie". Possible self promotion and fails general notability. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me • CP} 10:06, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:50, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:51, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per failure of WP:NF and WP:V. I just cleaned up a bunch of bluelinks that led to the wrong articles... such as the director link going to a chemist, and the actor links going to non-actor topics. Appears to be a student film, and I have not been able to find any coverage. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:10, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable sources, no notability... I couldn't even begin to find any sources about this film. Any attempts to find anything seemed to redirect to a film called College Days, which is most assuredly not the same movie. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:22, 3 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Delete. I'm not finding coverage for this film in reliable sources; appears to fail WP:NF. Gongshow ^Talk 06:24, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We don't even have the complete names of the actors. Neither has the film been nominated for any award and even all these years later the filmmaker still seems to be unknown. Due to all that the article will remain a real orphan. The man from Nordhorn 22:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by NordhornerII (talk • contribs)
Delete per WP:ONEDAY and lack of coverage from secondary sources. Erik (talk | contribs) 23:09, 3 November 2011 (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. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:35, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Tiller[edit]

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

Non-notable lower-level minor league baseball player. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 05:10, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:50, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:50, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:18, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The 2 rather trivial sentences of coverage in Williamson Daily News is not nearly adequate to establish notability under WP:GNG. Rlendog (talk) 20:25, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find anything on this guy other than a scant few passing mentions. As such, fails WP:BASE/N and does not meet WP:GNG. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 00:14, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above - no significant coverage found; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:BASEBALL/N. Gongshow ^Talk 23:27, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete: A7 as tagged by User:Gaijin42, zero assertion of ~~notability~~importance; also appears to qualify as a G12 as blatant self-promotion. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:17, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Javiel and Jc[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NMUSIC; no source given for claim of "attention". Only 50 ghits, zero gnews. Nat Gertler (talk) 03:17, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of El Salvador-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:49, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:49, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:10, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wako-Pro World Grand Prix 2011: Hungary vs Croatia[edit]

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

fails WP:SPORTSEVENT. no evidence of third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 09:56, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:58, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:19, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 03:05, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - with 5 minutes of search I found third party news coverage for the last match (simply googling their names) published by Heti Világgazdaság [47], another one by Nemzeti Sport [48] and one for the whole event with results by the official Hungarian K-1 site [49] (which qualifies for a third party as the event wasn't organized/promoted by them). Further research would be the same easy. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me • CP} 10:24, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:09, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alexey Yanushevsky[edit]

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

Non-notable professional gamer. Ridernyc (talk) 13:48, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lack of reliable, third party sources. Notability not established. Sergecross73 msg me 20:57, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This was Kept way back in 2008, as the sources then present were enough to show that the subject met WP:ATHLETE as a top competitor in a world-class event or events. On that standard... I dunno, this might still qualify. I do know that our BLP standards are much stricter now, however. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:06, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I saw that as well, but it appears that consensus has changed. There have been 4-5 other similar articles from about a week ago, that have been deleted that are virtually exactly like this, and consensus there was that WP:Athlete did not apply. Sergecross73 msg me 14:13, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - You can see what I'm talking about here, there are 6 of them below the AFDs for "Parallel Kingdoms" and "MeetYourMakers". Sergecross73 msg me 14:18, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Consensus is also now that WP:Athlete has nothing to to do with professional gamers. Ridernyc (talk) 16:53, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 02:59, 2 November 2011 (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. non notable, non encyclopedic DGG ( talk ) 16:28, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Glades, Bromley (Shops)[edit]

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

Really deep WP:NOTDIR violation: this is an exhaustive list of every individual business that's ever been located in one particular shopping mall, sourced exclusively to land ordinance surveys. Was previously redirected back to the parent article on the mall itself, but the creator recently came back and recreated the original article again with no further explanation of why this is something that would belong in an encyclopedia. Delete as textbook case of what Wikipedia is not. Bearcat (talk) 02:37, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Articles about shopping malls on Wikipedia tend not to cover any tenants but the most important anchor tenants. A year-by-year, unit-by-unit table of mall tenants does not appear to be necessary for an encyclopedia. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:13, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete, non-encyclopedic free advertising. A mention of the shopping centre would be appropriate in the article on Bromley, but this is not desirable. Mjroots (talk) 07:06, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:47, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:47, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:47, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lists of shopping mall tenants are not encyclopedic and violate WP:NOTDIRECTORY. This article is an extreme example. Nothing to merge. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but consider a transwiki to Wikisource. The information itself is reliable, it's just that it's too much of a directory to be suited for Wikipedia. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 21:59, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or transwiki) - UGH! individual retail spaces are not notable (or exceedingly rarely). This Article isn't talking about the Notable Property in its entirety. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 02:32, 3 November 2011 (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. causa sui (talk) 18:25, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

99 Percent Declaration[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The topic is not indepent of Occupy Wall Street and does not independently meet WP:GNG. Two users, including myself, set it up as a redirect and article creator without consensus, put the text back. Article appears to have been WP:POINT created in order to get around consensus regarding the inclusion of these sources on Occupy Wall Street. LauraHale (talk) 02:36, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting this page would be bias. Keep it. Noahk11 (talk) 02:02, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Occupy Wall Street. Pointy behavior at best, a POV fork at worst. None of the secondary sources do anything more than mention the phrase "99 Percent Declaration." The article does not satisfy WP:GNG by itself. Trusilver 03:08, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you mean by "do anything more than"? Dualus (talk) 03:20, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because per both WP:GNG and the specific notability criteria at WP:WEB, the document has been the subject of these non-trivial published reliable WP:SECONDARY sources independent of the site itself:

Walsh, J. (October 20, 2011) "Do we know what OWS wants yet?" Salon
Kennedy, A.L. (October 22, 2011) "Protesters Plan to Occupy Williamsburg" Williamsburg Yorktown Daily
Duda, C. (October 19, 2011) "Occupy Wall Street Protesters Call for National General Assembly, Put Forward Possible Demands" Juvenile Justice Information Exchange
Lopez, L. (October 19, 2011) "Finally! The Protesters Have Drafted A Set Of Demands For The Jobs Crisis" Business Insider
Haack, D. (October 24, 2011) "How the Occupy movement won me over" The Guardian

Moreover, the nominator refuses to respond to questions on Talk:99 Percent Declaration and her talk page[50][51] and I believe she has been canvassing people with whom her only interactions have not been independent of her interactions with me[52]. Dualus (talk) 03:20, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The first and second source doesn't give any information other than the phrase "99 Percent Declaration". The third source says straight out that the Occupy Wall Street movement hasn't officially adopted any specific demands yet and specifically states: "The list online is cleared marked as a “suggested list of grievances” and not as the platform for the movement that claims to represent “99 percent” of the country. The final list, to be voted on by the National General Assembly, may or may not include 20 proposed reforms." Therefore, the article's first line that suggests this "declaration" is connected to the Occupy movement is patently false. The fourth and fifth sources make no mention of the 99 Percent Declaration at all. Trusilver 03:34, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dualus, I already pointed out to you that Laura's message on my talk page was a direct response to my own comment at her talk page warning her about the futility of trying to reason with you. Pretty obviously not canvassing IMO. You might want to retract the accusation. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 21:20, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also... please limit yourself to discussing the merits of the article's notability rather than making ad homenium attacks against the nominator. Trusilver 03:45, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The first source says:

"There’s a “99 percent declaration” that calls for a national general assembly of representatives from all 435 congressional districts to gather on July 4, 2012, to assemble a list of grievances and solutions that isn’t official. But the draft list overlaps in some ways with Reich’s proposal: public works programs, tax hikes, debt forgiveness and lots of muscular ways to get money out of politics. An OWS demands working group proposed a “New New Deal,” with public works programs, tax hikes and defense cuts similar to what Reich is proposing."

That is clearly more information than the phrase. The second source says:

"organizers have been trying to get participants to vote on a list of grievances, and a “99 percent Declaration” has indicated an intention to convene on July 4, 2012 to form a National General Assembly tasked with creating a nonpartisan independent political party."

That is also clearly more information than the phrase alone. As for the third sources, did you notice the section heading in 99 Percent Declaration#Suggested grievances? The other sources also describe the same document. If you can not verify that by their content, that doesn't matter, because the threshold of substantial coverage in multiple independent reliable secondary sources is met. Dualus (talk) 03:55, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per the nom's concern about POV forks and POINTY behavior. If, after this, there are continuing issues with people recreating the page then it can be protected if necessary. Shadowjams (talk) 03:26, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Which sources do you believe involve POINTY behavior? Dualus (talk) 03:29, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Maybe you misunderstand WP:POINT. It's a reference to on wiki actions used to create a point. It appears there was discussion about this, and there was disagreement with the consensus so they went ahead anyway. I'm not involved in the original discussion so I have no idea the intricacies, but what the nom says checks out. Shadowjams (talk) 03:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - The nominator wrote, "Article appears to have been WP:POINT created in order to get around consensus regarding the inclusion of these sources on Occupy Wall Street." Are you saying that you have verified that statement, and it, "checks out," but you don't know which sources lacked consensus to include? Even if there was not consensus, which can change, to include such sources in Occupy Wall Street, why would that mean that there is no consensus to include such sources in 99 Percent Declaration? Dualus (talk) 03:46, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep First of all, the general Occupy Wall Street is beyond unwieldy. Instead of larding more onto one article, it needs to be broken up into various subjects with lead paragraphs explaining the generalities of the subject and a link. This is a core element, the closest thing to a unified platform for the Occupy movement. While it emanated from the first of such protest locations, its the closest document any have to offer the media's request for an agenda for the otherwise poorly defined protests. In WP terms, it has received significant coverage. Here's more sources: [53], which has dozens of mirrors. [54]. A side note; under the burden of consensus, its quite an achievement for the General Assembly to come up with anything resembling a unified statement. That in itself makes it significant. Trackinfo (talk) 03:54, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the additional sources. I think the current.com video will make a good external link. Dualus (talk) 04:00, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trackinfo, you are not correct if you believe that this document represents anything that has come from the General Assembly. It was released prior to even bringing it up to the GA, apparently to make a big news splash, which it did. Gandydancer (talk) 10:05, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Under WP:GNG whether the article is a ratified document passed by the General Assembly or if there is a hoax in play that is misrepresenting it as such, the fact is it has received sufficient coverage. If there is more "drama" at play, that is content that should be sourced and included in the article rather than deleting information and pushing the subject under the rug. I suggest removing it because it is not was it purports to be is wikipedia editors deciding by themselves what is newsworthy and what is not. We are an encyclopedia, we try to accurately consolidate what the press has reported. Trackinfo (talk) 01:45, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Keep I have been convinced by the arguments of others that this is notable enough for inclusion as long as all Copy right violations are kept out and the POV pushing is left out. The article can be expanded in an accurate way. Should it not stay on this path, it can simply be renominated or speedy deleted per MOS.--Amadscientist (talk) 12:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wikipedia:Activist POV pushing, non notable fringe document being given undue weight to a movement that has distanced itself from the authors and the document. BLP issues concerning Larwrence Lessig. Possible conflict of interest in creating the article. User may be involved in organizing a real world activity through Wikipedia.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:05, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What real world activity to you think I am trying to organize? And why do you say BLP issues for Lawrence Lessig? Dualus (talk) 05:12, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment- Thank you for asking these two specific questions.
  - First, you are using Wikipedia to organize your personal Point of View that the document has weight and notability, where an ongoing dispute, brought up by yourself in a number of Noticeboard locations has centered on these subjects, which are clear Wikipedia:Activist. In doing so you are actively partaking in trying to effect a real world event through your edits and the creation of this article.
  - Second [55] Activists treat the BLPs of their ideological adversaries as dumping grounds for almost any kind of pejorative or impeaching information they can find. It doesn't really matter how tenuous the sources are. They could be posts from an advocacy blog hosted by a political lobbying organization, a professor's self-published slide show, or the subject's signature on some controversial petition, it's all good to go as far as they are concerned. Any attempt to remove or qualify some of the negative information or balance out the BLP in question, even a little, is met with cries of "whitewash!" and WP:NOTCENSORED by the activists on each other's talk pages and a quick call to action.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:42, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Additional reasoning to delete include the copyright violations of lifting the text directly from the website the document is found. The section "Constituional amendment" [56] is simple copy paste from the Occupy Wall Street article that was deleted as undue weight to the subject...Lessig Himself. It is also added in similar fasion, if not exactly on the living person's page, Lawrence Lessig.[57].--Amadscientist (talk) 06:05, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - You say I am using Wikipedia to organize my "personal Point of View that the document has weight and notability" -- how is that a "real world activity"? I am just an editor trying to improve the encyclopedia. The document is notable per the notability criteria, and it's not POV pushing to try to get an article about it written well. Which specific statements in Lessig's article do you think raise BLP concerns? I'm not sure you understand what editors generally mean by BLP concerns. Have you read WP:BLP? As for the copyvio concerns, it's excerpted with considerable elision and thus is usable under the fair use doctrine because the article is about a primary source. Dualus (talk) 06:12, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Fair use doctrine is not Wikipedia policy and you have to do more than use the text from the document as copy paste to create an article. Does not fall under fair use for Wikipedia. You are attempting to "prop up" information to give undue weight to Lessig for this document. Please explain why he is even in this artcile you have created if not to push the point of view that you hold. Why not mention the author...David Haack, instead, who is credited in numerous sources as having written this document as far back as August. Could it be that he is not a notable figure? Could it be that this was only presented at some point and then turned down by the governing body of OWS? It could and probably is the reason. You are pushing an article to effect the events of the movement...not record or document them.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:21, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Are you saying that I am pushing a point of view to be able to author the document I'm trying to document? That's preposterous. If I were authoring that document it would mention instant runoff voting as part of electoral college reform. Also I would find some source like [58] for the Republican perspective on the part about mortgage risk per WP:NPOV. Dualus (talk) 08:05, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        
        That information supports the idea that this is a WP:POVFORK, and should be deleted as failing to meet WP:GNG. --LauraHale (talk) 07:40, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        No, it does not. I give equal weight to anyone with a pending constitutional amendment similar to the one called for in the Declaration. A POVFORK is a different article about the same subject from a different point of view, so there would have to be another article on the Declaration but this is the only one. Dualus (talk) 07:48, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, it does so! The most blatant POV forks are those which insert consensus-dodging content under a title that should clearly be made a redirect to an existing article; in some cases, editors have even converted existing redirects into content forks. However, a new article can be a POV fork even if its title is not a synonym of an existing article's title. If one has tried to include one's personal theory that heavier-than-air flight is impossible in an existing article about aviation, but the consensus of editors has rejected it as patent nonsense, that does not justify creating an article named "Unanswered questions about heavier-than-air flight" to expound the rejected personal theory.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:44, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you get "most blatant"? Dualus (talk) 21:53, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Keep We have had endless problems with this editor at the OWS article. He starts thread after thread forcing editors to engage and then when everyone is worn down he accuses them of not answering his posts. Eventually, when he doesn't get his way, he goes to other articles such as the Occupy movement article, or in this case starts a new article, to start the process all over again. We are currently having a discussion at the OWS article about whether or not this information should even be included in that article. Most of his references are not acceptable to use as sources. Gandydancer (talk) 09:38, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A lot has transpired since I made my Delete vote and I have now changed it to Keep. I will explain my rationale when I have time. Gandydancer (talk) 23:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- I'm sorry you have so many problems with me as a contributor. Do you have any problems with the content of the article you want to delete? Dualus (talk) 09:55, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I just barely glanced over the talk page for Occupy Wall Street and I already see that this individual is exhibiting a very frustrating case of "I didn't hear that!" It's helpful to keep the concept stored away in your head somewhere that when consensus is siding against you, that "just maybe" they are right and you aren't. That means accepting the fact and moving on rather than creating a new article that contains the information that everyone else said "no" to. Trusilver 10:53, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Not content to describe fifty word paragraphs as no more information than a three word phrase, you now seek to pretend that there was not an approximately equal balance of editors in favor of and opposed to the disputed sources? Simply because I'm not trying to pretend my opinion is in a vast majority whenever it seems to be in a plurality? The talk page archives have plenty of support for my position. There was no consensus either way. That doesn't mean consensus was ever entirely against me. I've responded to specific problems when they have been pointed out by finding more sources or changing the wording to address the problem. Do you have any specific problems with the content of the article? Dualus (talk) 11:46, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Question that I would like answered, I still can't recall a single editor who supported your proposed text (and actual insertions by force), and I can't recall a single editor who sided with you in any dispute whatsoever regarding the appropriateness of a source. You've repeatedly claimed there wasn't a consensus against your edits, and in this thread you are now claiming there was "approximately an equal balance of editors" on both sides of an issue, but I've pressed you repeatedly to identify a single editor who supported your proposals and you have refused each time. And this is to say nothing of the fact that the discussions would have gone very differently had others lent you any support, or the fact that consensus is not a vote. Please demonstrate that there were actually other editors supporting your arguments or stop making that claim.

I think it's also worthwhile to note that after you created seven separate Talkpage sections about the unsubstantiated claims about Lessig you wanted to include, and after the claims were rejected at each, you also started no fewer than four noticeboard discussions, each of which saw editors echoing the same concerns we had previously raised, and which you never addressed.

I think it's also worthwhile to note that you have inserted the virtually same disputed/rejected material in three separate articles besides this one: the Occupy movement article, the Lawrence Lessig article, and the Convention to propose amendments to the United States Constitution article. I can't imagine a clearer case of trying to ignore and circumvent consensus. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 21:15, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Am I allowed to count the people voting to keep on this page? Thank you for pointing out the other articles where the material remained undisturbed for days if not weeks. Dualus (talk) 18:21, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, because that would be another lie. You have now repeatedly claimed that prior discussions at OWS involved other editors supporting your OR on Lessig and the 99 % Declaration, and you even claim there was "approximately an equal balance of editors" on one issue. I am calling those claims out as a lie intended to dishonestly influence the outcome of subsequent discussions, just as you lied about the George Will discussion to make other editors think there was consensus for your edit which was in fact flatly rejected. Note: this is a serious charge and it's possible for me to be blocked just for making it. Please either substantiate your claim with diffs showing that you were only one of multiple editors arguing for the same material at OWS talk, or cease making the false claim. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 19:56, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- ~~Delete~~ Keep (per Amadscientist's change from delete to keep, and my discussion with Dualus) Amadscientist is spot-on correct, and it seems Wikipedia is being sorta hijacked by elements within OWS to win more weight for something which isn't independently notable. This is an OWS power struggle which has sadly spread to Wikipedia--whatever side we take will affect the power grab being attempted by those who are abusing Wikipedia for personal benefit off wiki and it saddens me because the completely "nothing at stake" editors like Amadscientist and others are getting out-muscled by the activists. The 99percent declaration is being given/attempted way too much coverage relative to the overall OWS coverage which Wikipedia has in its various OWS articles. The 99% declaration deserves about a paragraph or two inside either the "movement" article or main ows article, if even that much. 완젬스 (talk) 12:05, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GandyDancer is right also about how this editor is wearing the rest of us down, almost like a reductio ad naseum at every turn. It's a marathon for those who have a life other than Wikipedia, because the non-stop stuff which keeps piling up slows everyone else down. It's tough staying current, and it's mostly a small handful of editors who drum up non-stop red tape (such as this) which must be handled on a day to day basis, before work can freshly begin on the article again. In a way, this non-stop activity of this one editor is making everyone feel the pinch, especially if this article isn't deleted, then it's more talk pages for us to have lengthy discussions on about WP:UNDUE weight all over again. 완젬스 (talk) 12:10, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any specific objections, such as a particular passage you think lacked consensus to include, or a statement not sufficiently supported by a source? Or a deficient source? I am interested in improving the content, and I am sorry you don't like me as a contributor. What is your objection to the statement in your link? Dualus (talk) 20:31, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, you're fine. I've come around to you since you're talking & answering stuff for us. I'll delve into answering your questions here tomorrow evening, and erase this sentence. 완젬스 (talk) 20:40, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you intend to update your !vote? Dualus (talk) 17:28, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I changed to keep. Thanks for our 2 chats, 완젬스 (talk) 23:39, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources provided in the article seem to say that there are many people and factions making demands. Of course this is a major, or perhaps the major, aspect of any protest movement. It should be covered in the article on the movement. No indication that this one document is what's notable. Kitfoxxe (talk) 12:41, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:44, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to Occupy Wall Street Declaration. Reliable sources: [59], [60], [61], and more. Merging to the already sufficiently comprehensive Occupy Wall Street article wouldn't be functional. Redirection to the Occupy Wall Street article is the same as deletion. It's hasty to delete this article while events continue to occur. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:04, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – See also WP:SPINOFF, "Sometimes, when an article gets long (see Wikipedia: Article size), a section of the article is made into its own article, and the handling of the subject in the main article is condensed to a brief summary." et al. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:25, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment that also says: [T]he moved material must be replaced with an NPOV summary of that material. If it is not, then the "spinning out" is really a clear act of POV forking: a new article has been created so that the main article can favor some viewpoints over others.--Amadscientist (talk) 16:56, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Clean-up and Improve. The various points are well expressed and not otherwise found. A problematic Wikipedian should be warned & censored if necessary, but that's an issue independent of content. I'm referencing this page for Occupy Boston. RKerver

Comment I see copy paste...no expression in that.--Amadscientist (talk) 17:01, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree that it needs a lot of work but I think the topic meets GNG. I also think that a rename is in order to maybe Occupy Wall Street Declaration or something else. --Kumioko (talk) 19:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —Dualus (talk) 20:27, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Clean-up and Improve. I did a quick Google News search and there seems to be enough reliable secondary sources. Many of the current references, however, do not appear to be suitable. I'd be happy to help in the clean up.--Nowa (talk) 21:29, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you're willing to do clean up, can you start now? I'm not certain what can be rescued and additional problems appear to be added to the article on a consistent basis at the moment.--LauraHale (talk) 22:24, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Anyone else interested? We can meet on the talk page of the article.--Nowa (talk) 22:30, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe there are serious WP:OWN issues with this article to the point where you won't be able to actually improve the article to bring it into compliance with Wikipedia guidelines like WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:GNG, WP:MOS. Consensus on Talk:Occupy Wall Street indicates that most of the content and source related to the actual information appearing in it is not acceptable. I'd like to see how these issues would be resolved in practical sense because I can't see how you can keep unless those issues are addressed. --LauraHale (talk) 22:41, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. Perhaps I can be of most use as a moderator. Let's see how it goes on the article talk page.--Nowa (talk) 23:28, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete The page is too unstable for me to support a keep.--Nowa (talk) 20:30, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CBS News Philadelphia writes:

"...plans are found in a document posted online by an “Occupy Wall Street” working group, titled “The 99 Percent Declaration.” The document proposes a National General Assembly to be held in Philadelphia starting on July 4th, 2012 and running through next October.
The proposal says the Assembly would operate similarly to the original “Committees of Correspondence” — the Founding Fathers who met in Philadelphia prior to what the group refers to as “the first American Revolution.” It was not immediately clear if such a gathering will actually take place, but city officials are aware of the proposal and Mayor Nutter says he wants to talk about it with the organizers.
“I understand national Occupy would want to be in Philadelphia — this is birthplace of freedom, liberty, and democracy for the United States of America — so I look forward to a conversation,” Nutter told KYW Newsradio. “We need to better understand what it is they want to do, where and what it’s all about. But I welcome the discussion.” Nutter says he would like to maintain the same open dialogue with the national organizers as he has with the local group now encamped on Dilworth Plaza."

Maybe someone is sending reporters to Dilworth Plaza. Dualus (talk) 01:02, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This short article is still long enough that it would make the already very long OWS article too big; better to have spin-offs such as this than a too large article that people have trouble getting around. Besides, there are more than an adequate number of sources about this specific part of the OWS protest to support a separate article, and notability requirements are more than satisfied. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:17, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Nom appears to be trying to strip the article down to nothing in order to insure its deletion. I suggest she withdraw from editing the article as her POV seems clear. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:47, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Diff. So have other editors. Dualus (talk) 18:58, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable and distinct from Occupy Wall Street.Greg Bard (talk) 03:55, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It appears this is no longer a part of OWS or the New York City General Assembly. The official site makes that clear:

Per Wikipedia MOS [62] Official links can be used as a source to verify a self-published statement in the article text. This link [63] shows that the NYC GA states:

"In the interest of full transparency and openness, it is time to share with you, dear reader, a story about a group, a group that is no more. Yes, that’s right. I am referring to the “99Declaration” group."

"[T]here were internal disputes within the 99Declaration group and one of the admins decided to take things into their own hands and delete the group. Any group admin has the power to delete their own group at any moment. This story gets especially intriguing, though, when the other group admin decided to blame the movement, which he knew very well was not at fault. Let this post clear the air and set the record straight."

It is as legitimate a source as using the document itself as the FIRST reference in the article that is now reduced to two small paragraphs, after all copyright violations have been removed. Frankly it should have been speedy deleted and not nominated, but here we are and the article still makes claims that, while referenced, (even if badly and stretching things quite a bit) are no longer factual. They are not a part of the OWS movement and have left the New York General Assembly. This means it is a document without a cause. It can be mentioned that the declaration started out at OWS NYCGA, but right now it doesn't say anything about the fact that they are no longer associated with OWS and the NYC GA--Amadscientist (talk) 08:42, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete then redirect - there is no significant coverage in RS about this document. Chzz ► 11:50, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These are the mentions of significance on WP:WEB which is the specific notability standard for inclusion:

"Wikipedia articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers, but should describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance, which can be significantly more up-to-date than most reference sources since we can incorporate new developments and facts as they are made known. See current events for examples.

"When evaluating the notability of web content, please consider whether they have had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education...."

What is your standard of significance? Dualus (talk) 18:34, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete: Let's not make Wikipedia a platform to spread ideologies, this article and blatant spam are pretty much the same. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 13:19, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep The initial proposal is pique at not gaining consensus to merge this back. The merge may be reasonable, although having the Declaration discussed only in an article on the group that disowned it is counterintuitive; but AfD is not the road to that. The sources include the New York Times, the Guardian, Salon, and the group opposed to the declaration; these are not the sources of a puff piece. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If this is deleted, please place in my user space. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. If it is deleted, please place it in the article incubator. Dualus (talk) 18:18, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - Satisfies GNG, capable of lengthy treatment as a standalone article, and of significant historical importance. If WP can have articles for every single episode of every Star Trek related series, and every character therein, then it should accommodate serious and highly significant content like this, or we may as well pack our bags and go home. Rangoon11 (talk) 16:57, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Dualus (talk) 17:58, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Dualus (talk) 17:58, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Dualus (talk) Dualus (talk) 20:06, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Dualus (talk) Dualus (talk) 20:06, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect this is a POV fork made to make a point --Guerillero | My Talk 21:31, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename Occupy Wall Street Declaration per User:Northamerica1000. Subject meets WP:GNG and has definite potential for expansion.--JayJasper (talk) 22:36, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question. Rename it to make it sound like it has an official relationship with the movement that appears to have rejected any relationship? Sounds misleading and very POV-pushy. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 11:12, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Position of the Founder of the #OWS Working Group on the 99% Declaration.

My name is Michael Pollok and I am the person who wrote the first drafts of the 99% Declaration now found at www.the99declaration.org. Most of what is in this article is false. I am a criminal defense attorney who became involved in #OWS when I began representing a number of students who were arrested on the Brooklyn Bridge. After meeting with these students, giving a talk at their college and discussing what issues mattered to them, I wrote the 99% Declaration.

On October 15, 2011 I appeared before the New York City General Assembly and addressed the General Assembly for over five minutes. During that time, I described the formation of the Working Group on the 99% Declaration and our purpose which is to organize an election of 870 delegates to a National General Assembly to draft a petition for a redress of grievances. This petition shall be served on all three branches of the United States government. I received a warm reception and held a two-hour meeting following the General Assembly. Interestingly, all of the speakers before the NYCGA on October 15, 2011 appear in the minutes but my five minute statement does not. appear. My ENTIRE appearance and all mentions of me and our Working Group were excised from the minutes by the facilitators because one or more of them disagreed with our point of view.

I wish to emphasize that carefully followed all of the procedures to start an #OWS Working Group and appeared before the General Assembly on October 15, 2011 at 7:45pm to announce the formation of the Working Group and its first meeting in Liberty Park that night.

Since that announcement to the General Assembly, the working group has moved to Facebook http://www.facebook.com/www.the99declaration.org and currently has over 2300 members. The 99% Declaration page has had more than 173,000 hits since October 18th when it went viral. The 99% declaration has been edited several times by using polls on the Facebook page and a yahoo site so anyone can propose edits and substantive changes.

From the inception of the NYCGA webpage. In fact, we were one of the first groups to appear on the new NYCGA website. Our group on that page was not set up by me or anyone else connected to the 99% Declaration. Instead it was started by Drew of the Internet Working Group and the admins "Stan Ford" and Brad l/n/u were the admins. I never had any admin control over that group so these statements in this article are false. I did criticize the NYCGA because this working group was taken down unilaterally by "Stan Ford" and we never had any admin control of that group.

I have requested assistance form the #OWS mediation group to have the 99% Declaration Working Group restored to the NYCGA official site but my requests have been ignored. The NYCGA operates like the very oligarchies they claim to challenge. I have suggested that I be the co-admin of the group with a member of the internet working group. In sum, most of the information in this article is false. -Michael Pollok, Esq. 11-3-11, 9:38 p.m. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The99declaration (talk • contribs) 01:46, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Michael, I'm copying this comment to Talk:99 Percent Declaration#Comment from Michael Pollok -- please feel free to join in with the discussion on that page. Dualus (talk) 03:53, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, besides that we don't know that you are who you claim you are, what does this have to do with the discussion at hand? Are you simply saying "The article is wrong"? So all those sources are wrong? But what does that have to do with deletion? Sorry, mr. Esq., but this is odd. Drmies (talk) 01:51, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like mr Esq. is on quite the power trip. He should run for president. Gandydancer (talk) 13:34, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it bares stating to the author of the "spam" text something he may not be aware of as a new Wikipedia user. You just released that entire statement as CC Attribution 3.0 Unported. Meaning, anyone may now use this text by simply attributing the editor/Wikipedia who placed it here, Please be sure you understand the following:

Information for text contributors to Wikimedia projects

To grow the commons of free knowledge and free culture, all users contributing to Wikimedia projects are required to grant broad permissions to the general public to re-distribute and re-use their contributions freely, as long as the use is attributed and the same freedom to re-use and re-distribute applies to any derivative works. Therefore, for any text you hold the copyright to, by submitting it, you agree to license it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. For compatibility reasons, you are also required to license it under the GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts). Re-users can choose the license(s) they wish to comply with. Please note that these licenses do allow commercial uses of your contributions, as long as such uses are compliant with the terms.

As an author, you agree to be attributed in any of the following fashions: a) through a hyperlink (where possible) or URL to the article or articles you contributed to, b) through a hyperlink (where possible) or URL to an alternative, stable online copy which is freely accessible, which conforms with the license, and which provides credit to the authors in a manner equivalent to the credit given on this website, or c) through a list of all authors. (Any list of authors may be filtered to exclude very small or irrelevant contributions.) --Amadscientist (talk) 09:08, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have a WP:COI and am refraining from any further edits to OWS pages and the page under discussion. (When I edited the OWS page, I was a detached observer. I have since become a partisan and have no desire to become an WP:Activist) Further, and to be crystal clear, this is not a !vote.
Some other editors, who do not seem to have any WP:COI, appear to have offered comments and "cast" !votes. Some of these contbutors seem unconnected to the edit wars at the OWS and 99% pages. Other contributions seem to be connected to the continuing, disruptive edit wars at the OWS and 99% pages.
I'm hoping the closing admin will discount the contributions to this AfD page of anyone with a declared COI.
I also hope the closing admin will take an opportunity to remind established editors that:

focus should be on the edits, not the editor,
talk pages and AfD's are subject to WP:BLP, and
because dead men don't type, it can apply to derogation of fellow editors as well as named persons. David in DC (talk) 14:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - seems clear that this is not directly associated with OWS, and has been fairly definitely rejected by them. It doesn't seem to have sourcing indicating that it's gaining any sort of traction.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:59, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an interesting situation - merger to OWS would be logical if and only if there were a clear connection thereto - lacking such, "merge" fails." What we are left with is "Is this notable?" and, at this point in time, this "declaration" appears notable per RS coverage. Does it violate any WP policies? Again - no - if it violated BLP etc. I would absolutely !vote to delete. When the !votes based on "I don't like the editor involved" or "it should be merged (to a page where it actually does not appear to fit in), or based on WP:ACTIVIST which is an essay and has zero weight in a deletion discussion are deprecated by the closer, I suspect the consensus is to keep. Wikipedia does not delete articles based on dislike of any editor. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:36, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for a completely sensible rationale. I hope anyone interested in reading what a perfect vote sounds like, it is finally here. 완젬스 (talk) 23:38, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is sufficient specific notability in the Declaration to make it separately notable, as shown by the sources. FWIW, I certainly have a very strong feeling on the subject but I have not been editing these articles. Anyway, I would regard the Declaration as equally notable if I had the opposite view of the underlying social and economic issues. This AfD should not be treated as if it weres a referendum on them. DGG ( talk ) 00:15, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, independently notable and noteworthy, indeed, it has received significant secondary source coverage from multiple WP:RS sources. — Cirt (talk) 02:11, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant keep. Having gone through the sources, I'm satisfied that WP:GNG is met, and that it's unclear at best if the "Declaration" has a direct relation to the "Occupy" movement. Given time, the article should become more stable and a re-assessment can be made whether the article is warranted as a fork or should be merged, but it regardless meets the criterion for notability. — CharlieEchoTango — 02:29, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for sufficient specific notability. (PS I do appreciate the discussion here, many dark points seem to be a bit clearer now) --NUMB3RN7NE (talk) 17:32, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment' : This entire article is being promoted by some user Dualus, he obviously has an agenda. I would like other editors to keep a close eye on this. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 02:25, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this article is biased and will probably never be able to become neutral. Also, the references are poorly formatted, with several links simply posted after the text. Of those links that are posted, one of those links is to another article on Wikipedia and another is for a Facebook page, which is wrong. I also find this sentence un-encyclopedic: "The 99% Declaration has been edited hundreds of times using online polls and taking suggestions from people who email their main email at: mailto:[email protected]". I also find it very awkward having a section called Background and another section called True Background. Finally, I must agree with the nominator, the article can either be deleted or easily merged into Occupy Wall Street or We are the 99%.--12george1 (talk) 03:27, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You need to look again. All of your comments are about vandalism that had just been added and that I reverted before you even made this vote. Silverseren^C 03:36, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That is a little better then what I originally saw. However, the article is small enough to be merged into Occupy Wall Street or We are the 99%.--12george1 (talk) 03:50, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I put in a little more time on it and edited it down to the most neutral, accurate MOS compliant version I could come up with at the time. This is the version I came up with. [64] --Amadscientist (talk) 15:38, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you remove the WP:SUMMARY? You and the nominator have both blanked that section while the nomination for deletion was ongoing. Dualus (talk) 22:45, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When two people set the article as a redirect and asked for a consensus decision before recreating the article, why did you restore the article? Why did you ignore consensus for a redirect? --LauraHale (talk) 22:58, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You requested the SUMMARY section in your first edit to the article. Dualus (talk) 23:58, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two people is not a consensus. And, secondly, it is the making it a redirect that requires a consensus, not the undoing of such. Silver seren^C 00:45, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is obviously a work of a few editors trying to push this article, I really hope it gets deleted. Is not neutral, it doesn't even seem notable --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 18:17, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the fairly large amount of veteran editors voting Keep in this discussion would disagree with you. Silver seren^C 19:53, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:GNG, meets requirements for WP:WEB. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 18:05, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article has been mentioned in an OTRS ticket: Ticket:2011110510006569 for those who have access. Stifle (talk) 14:00, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep doesn't make sense to merge if it's not affilitated with OWS. CallawayRox (talk) 18:03, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable and important. I hope people with POV concerns help keep it neutral, as it is a politically loaded topic. --Eric (talk) 22:44, 9 November 2011 (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 Already deleted as G5. (non-admin closure) →Σ τ c. 02:25, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Flint (author)[edit]

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

Non-notable teenager who does not satisfy the General Notability Guideline. →Σ τ c. 02:02, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This 13 year old author of a self-published novel has attempted to create the illusion of notability through referencing various user-submitted websites he uses to promote his writing. Although I admire his cleverness and enthusiasm, he is not notable, yet at least. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:15, 2 November 2011 (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. causa sui (talk) 18:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Drei Ros[edit]

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

For one, unvarnished self-promotion. For another, "sourced" through blogs, video clips, passing mention in tabloids; nothing, in short, of substance. - Biruitorul ^Talk 02:00, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Pure vanispamcruftisement that fails WP:BAND … extensively edited by a WP:SPA in violation of WP:COI. Happy Editing! — 68.239.65.132 (talk · contribs) _{16:00, 4 November 2011 (UTC)}[reply]
- For the record, editing an article about yourself isn't prohibited or a violation of WP:COI. The editors aims definitely conflict with Wikipedia's but as I often see people believing that simply having a close connection prohibits one from editing an article, I think it bears mentioning. OlYeller21^Talktome 16:56, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Wikipedia:Vanispamcruftisement ukexpat (talk) 16:14, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There's a good amount of essay/advert type language but the subject seems notable given the references provided in the article. Unless someone is willing to work on the article and clean it up, it needs to be deleted. Otherwise, I believe the subject is notable per WP:GNG. OlYeller21^Talktome 16:56, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It could be stubbed out too with just a few cites. But, yes, I'm seeing lots of romanian news sources about him.[65].--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:22, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Delete Very obviously notable person that meets criteria #1 of WP:BAND, he has been discussed extensively in full length reliable Romanian news sources. Silver seren^C 22:16, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now that we've actually gone through all of the available sources and discussed them properly, I am convinced, for now, that he isn't notable, unless someone else brings more reliable sources to light discussing the subject. Silver seren^C 03:19, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At this point, I would like to invoke WP:COMPETENCE when assessing the notion that "Romanian sources discuss Drei Ros". Yes, we know that googling him up in Romanian turns results, but how does it follow that those results are creditable as sources. Allow me to paraphrase the conclusion they induce: "The AfD nominator speaks Romanian, but he surely must be as ignorant as not to have tried googling up Drei Ros before this AfD debate here; he'd have seen all these quality reliable sources that any Anglophone can quickly assess as full length and reliable. Either that or he's on a deletionist campaign, or worse still he hates the Romanian superstar Drei Ros."
I've clicked the link above, and these are the "quality" Romanian sources I get: Libertatea and Click!, the prototype Romanian tabloids, reprinting PR releases about him having released a clip or two, plus, once, a gossip column about him quitting basketball to go hip-hop (wow! would you guys have believed that basketball and rap could have any connection to each other? now they do: its name is Drei Ros); I won't even count promotional platforms such as BestMusic. And that's it: even with BestMusic, it's seven results in all.
This also stands for "the references provided in the article" - I have verified and can confirm what Biruitorul noted in his AfD rationale above: the article cites "blogs, video clips [and] passing mention in tabloids"; in fact, some are just posted by Drei Ros or his promoters. No single music column in any specialized magazine, or cultural review of any sort, or even lifestyle magazine, seems to have ever bothered with Drei Ros; it was the author's responsibility, not mine, to verify that any reliable sources mention Drei Ros, but I did his homework and checked anyway: there aren't. He is not mentioned on musitronic.ro, on revistasunete.ro, on dilemaveche.ro, not even on beatfactor.ro or beatnights.ro. He only gets one mention on the hip hop review 4elemente.ro, but again a mere phrase with a link to his youtube video. Dahn (talk) 14:59, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is an article in Prahova also tabloid coverage? And you're going to have to explain how Libertatea is a tabloid, since it certainly doesn't appear to be as such and it has extensive coverage of him. He's also discussed in another Prahova article. Not to mention that there's probably sources out there for him playing basketball. Silver seren^C 16:46, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Libertatea freely admits it's a tabloid. The second article in Prahova is actually about Nico, with just a phrase devoted to Drei Ros. As for the first: well, I suppose it's telling that he can get one poorly-written puff piece in his local paper, but can't get any mention in the national newspapers, which are after all published just 60km away from his hometown. Or, for that matter, in the Seattle Times. - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:01, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) No, Prahova, with its two PR-pushed articles on the guy (in its gossip column) is, as the title says, published for the good people of Prahova County - meaning that its circulation is way below average and its credibility... well, just read on and you'll perhaps see what level of credibility has be attributed to some of the most circulated national news sources in Romania.
For Libertatea, let's look into what third parties tell us (please note that I'm only going for the most respected kind of WP:RSes, without going into, say, the Romanian cultural magazines which now and again have a field day mocking Libertatea headlines, or the reputation it enjoys in other news media). On 17 October almost the entire staff of the best-selling tabloid Libertatea, owned by Ringier, quit the paper in order to join Averea. The tabloid was afterwards rebranded as Click, with a format and style extremely similar to Libertatea's. (Alex Ulmanu, "The Romanian Media Landscape", in Georgios Terzis, ed., European Media Governance, Intellect Books, U. of Chicago, 2007, p.421) the daily Libertatea, which was transformed from a newspaper for municipal information into a successful tabloid. (Mihai Coman, "Press Freedom and Media Pluralism in Romania", in Andrea Czepek etc., eds., Press Freedom and Pluralism in Europe, Intellect Books, U. of Chicago, 2009, p.185) Adevarul Holding plans to launch a tabloid that would compete with Libertatea, the Romanian tabloid with the largest circulation. (T. Vlad, M. Balasescu, "Few Educators, Many Media and Journalism Programs", in Beate Josephi, ed., Journalism Education in Countries with Limited Media Freedom, Peter Lang, 2010, p.223) In this respect, the most popular daily - Libertatea, owned by Ringier Romania - is a case in point. Previously a quality paper, Libertatea is now a tabloid that offers mainly news in brief, erotic content etc. (Orlin Spassov, Quality Press in Southeast Europe, Southeast European Media Centre, 2004) Feel free to continue the search on your own, if you still have doubts. But it's all bullshit reliability when compared to Prahova, isn't it.
Oh, but don't leave me curious about the other sources on him "playing basketball" - the man says he played basketball in the USA, so you should be able to easily retrieve those sources discussing the NBA stats of this transatlantic overachiever. Dahn (talk) 17:22, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Found it. He plays for the Snohomish County Explosion, currently in the National Athletic Basketball League, though for the past four years it was a part of the International Basketball League. And, if that is truly a professional basketball league as the article says, then he would fall under #1 of WP:ATHLETE for basketball. Silver seren^C 17:58, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, good old WP:ATHLETE, allowing us to keep - what? - 20% of the worthless articles here? 30%? Anyway, if his five minutes of play for the Snohomish County Explosion (a team that has how many dozens of fans, I wonder) validate his having an article here, then a) this proves that WP:ATHLETE is a seriously flawed policy, though we knew that long ago and b) perhaps we can remove content referring to his music "career", given its lack of coverage in reliable sources. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:25, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Before we get carried away:) According to Silver seren, this article passes WP:ATHLETE # 1, because Drei Ros made one appearance in the International Basketball League. But what WP:ATHLETE actually says, under "Basketball", is the following: "Basketball figures are presumed notable if they[:] 1. Have appeared in one game in the original American Basketball Association, Asociación de Clubs de Baloncesto, Euroleague, National Basketball Association, National Basketball League (Australia), National Basketball League (United States), Serie A, Women's National Basketball Association, or a similar major professional sports league. [...] 3. Have won an award, or led the league in a major statistical category of the Continental Basketball Association or NBA Development League." So the "one game" thing doesn't make the cut: he has not had any caps in any league that would qualify as major, as IBL's relationship to the NBA is clarified under our List of developmental and minor sports leagues. Which, at best, excludes him from criterion 1. But what about criterion 3? Has his one-game career, which he tore himself away from to rap, resulted in an award, or has his one two-point shot in a game propelled him to top of league stats? Highly unlikely, even if they were to use stoneware basketballs in that whole league...

Yes, WP:ATHLETE is seriously flawed, but only because we get articles on other nobodies, and they stick around. This should not be the case here, as Drei Ros doesn't even reach that level of relatively "acceptable" obscurity.

So no. Keep digging, Silver seren. Dahn (talk) 18:39, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No need to be rude about it. I'm just going through possibilities of notability. I don't care one way or the other about the subject, i'm just checking every avenue to see if he is notable or if he isn't. Silver seren^C 19:08, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no personal problem with you, and sorry if I seemed rude - I was directing my humor at Drei Ros, not at you. What I was saying, and respectfully maintain, is that you were wrong. Dahn (talk) 19:19, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to make sure I understand that [66] is not a "passing mention," right? That article might suck, but the nomination implied no dedicated articles to the subject existed. If we are going to shift the grounds of the nomination to require in-depth examinations of each source that apparently does exist, please let me know. This subject's article is not a unique phenomenon, any schmoe who lives in the United States and records some album in his native country's style seems to get some local coverage back home. Like, some ex-Bosnian pop star will now work as a welder in Texas, but can still can get coverage in Bosnia when he records a new CD.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:05, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not a passing mention (though it would cover only a couple of paragraphs in a regular print version), but it is braggadocio in one of the local newspapers published in his home town - it is indeed a "look at me mom" more than anything. Speaking for the nominator, I don't think that one is actually required to run through all the articles where Drei Ros is mentioned just to see if they're passing mentions or not. Dahn (talk) 19:19, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying the nomination was rashly done in violation of WP:BEFORE, just that we're shifting a bit in the rationale. No question, he's no Costi Ioniţă.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:53, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why instead of spending so much time analyzing this article, don't just edit it and summarize it. Drei Ros is the 1st Eastern European rapper to collaborate with Akon and one of the few Eastern European rappers in US. I'm just a fan and I'm not a professional writer. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreiros (talk • contribs) 2011-11-10T04:17:37‎

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

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

The result was speedy delete. G11, promotional and not rescuable DGG ( talk ) 16:12, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Daniela (Gorovei) Holzheimer[edit]

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

Blatant promotion. Unless you're Kate Middleton's mother, running a party-favor company generally doesn't entitle one to mention in an encyclopedia. I certainly don't see why this individual should have a biography here. - Biruitorul ^Talk 02:00, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 2 November 2011 (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 appreciate The Interior's effort to find sources, but the only evaluation of the content is that the coverage is insufficient, and since the coverage is limited to a single event, that evaluation seems to have merit. Consensus appears to be that even the championship level at video game tournaments does not confer notability. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:38, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Badr Hakeem[edit]

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

Non-notable professional gamer. Ridernyc (talk) 13:44, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lack of reliable, third party sources. Notability not established. Sergecross73 msg me 01:19, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →Σ τ c. 01:48, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Rs sources available, such as this Arab News piece. Undoubtedly there is coverage in Arabic sources, but I'm not sure how to go about searching them. The Interior (Talk) 18:17, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, causa sui (talk) 18:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete until and unless reliable sources can be found covering him in detail. The only sources I can see are translation of the one found by The Interior, and those only cover a single event. They are not sufficient to write a balanced biography. If other sources can be found in Arabic or any other language I'll be happy to reconsider. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:33, 11 November 2011 (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. causa sui (talk) 18:22, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DWYZ[edit]

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

Probable hoax. No proof that this station actually existed in reliable sources. (Contested PROD) Bluemask (talk) 01:23, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Description makes it pretty obvious it's a non-notable illegal pirate station using our resources to try to attain respectability. Nate • (chatter) 02:53, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While I am sympathetic to all Philippines-related articles, this one has few sources; it's impossible to find additional sources: the call letters spell out delta-omega-gamma-zeta, often used on particle physics formulae. Delete. Bearian (talk) 22:40, 7 November 2011 (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 all. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:15, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of NFL starting quarterbacks in 2006[edit]

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

Also nominating the following:

List of NFL starting quarterbacks in 2008
List of NFL starting quarterbacks in 2011

The following are lists of starting NFL quarterbacks for their seasons (3 articles the past 6 seasons of football). These articles have no reliable references and notability as a stand-alone topic for a group of articles is suspect. We have articles of starting quarterbacks for every NFL team already, i.e List of Buffalo Bills starting quarterbacks (and all 31 other teams) and the starting quarterback articles are not topics that pass WP:GNG, the very least bit. — Moe ε 12:24, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:40, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:40, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Either delete or merge to relevant season articles per reasons at ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Major League Baseball managers in 2010. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:40, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would have merged them to the main article Lists of NFL starting quarterbacks myself, however only three year articles were created and the NFL has been around since 1920. — Moe ε 14:53, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I wouldn't merge them there. I think that page could do with more prose, a la List of Major League Baseball managers. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:57, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not seeing this as helpful to sports researchers--it would just be a re-hash of other sports almanacs with no additional information.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:06, 5 November 2011 (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.