Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 August 6

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 5 August	7 August >

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 keep. (non-admin closure) Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 01:35, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bibiyapur[edit]

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

This article may or may not be notable, the formatting is messed up, and the article is completely unreferenced. AutomaticStrikeout 23:51, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: I tend to give the benefit of the doubt on notability to geographical features like towns and so on. I've redacted out the unsourced tourist guide stuff and reduced the article to a fact-of-existence stub. I think it can stand this way... -- BenTels (talk) 07:03, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a stub, I found the population count and referenced the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:36, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can't find it on Geonames, but maybe they don't index sub-village entities? If it's an administrative division of the Indian government, it should still be kept though. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:28, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep, as deletion discussions are not for cleanup, and the nominator fails to provide any adequate reason for deletion. Cavarrone (talk) 23:12, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep AfDs are not for cleanup, and the nominator has not provided any rational. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 12:21, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per above and also, any geographical site with verified position is notable. — ΛΧΣ21™ 00:51, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:56, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lynx Gang[edit]

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

Not notable, refs are all about one member of the gang that became notable for another issue, notability is not inherited. PROD declined without change to article. GregJackP Boomer! 23:42, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:31, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:31, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:31, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete I was unable to find sources which evidence notability under WP:GNG. --j⚛e decker ^talk 17:41, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the gang does not pass WP:CRIME. --Vic49 (talk) 23:10, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The gang lacks substantial coverage by reliable sources. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:23, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I cannot believe that a street gang, even if formed to oppose the skinheads is (or was) notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:38, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There has been sock-puppetry (CU confirmed, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/La Cosa Nostra786) in the article history, but does not seem to have had any substantive effect on the content since prior to when it apparently began. I'm now wondering if the PROD-remover(s) are also part of that drawer. DMacks (talk) 23:08, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It does not meet both GNG and CRIME. — ΛΧΣ21™ 00:50, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:57, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We Are Kooki[edit]

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

The only reference is a PR piece. Non notable company. DGG ( talk ) 23:13, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per DGG; only source I can find for this is the Guardian piece, which, one way or another, isn't reliable. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 00:58, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I found a HuffPost[1] story on Kooki, their app, which may be slightly more notable, but still not enough coverage right now to keep. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:33, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per A7 criterion: no claim of significance (the fact that Guardian accepted their quote can't be held for such claim). Nowhere close to satisfying WP:NCORP and promotional in tone. In the end, this is a a company with no notable products. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:32, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There is some irony in the fact that of the only two sources claiming this app to be "best of London apps" one is US-based and another provides advertising as publishing press releases and writing paid news items. Both items are published after this AfD began, BTW. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:23, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - None of the sources suggest that this company is notable. NB: I did decline the speedy deletion, as some significance was asserted, even if notability was not established. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 13:08, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Just of curiosity: in your opinion, how is significance asserted? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:40, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, they did win a contest. See the thread about this on Lady's talk page. I also initially tagged this page with a db-corp tag, but that was based on the Guardian thing appearing to be just an entry into the contest, not as an actual winner of it; Lady corrected me and declined my speedy. Anyway, I'd say that winning a contest is significant enough to pass the A7 test, although only just. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:48, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't get the logic: the link goes to one of several contestants. Furthermore, the notice on the sidebar says that Guardian's review results in featuring the entry. As one may notice following this link, this just didn't happen. In fact the reference leads to the form, filled by the company's CEO and (as of now) not approved by Guardian. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:02, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Eh, to be honest, I didn't really put that much thought into accepting Lady's rationale. My initial nom was based on a misreading of the contest rules, where I thought the contest hadn't ended yet and so the company couldn't possibly have won it; after talking to Lady I took another look and saw that I was mistaken about the rules, so I went with it without much further thought. Between AfD or CSD, it's not really a big deal; it gets just as deleted either way. (Technically, AfD is more deleted, if you want to pick nits). Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:24, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I found an article saying that this company was part of University College London and the European Regional Development Fund [2], chosen for their innovative business model. I'll add reference to main entry, suggest we keep for now. — 94.194.62.101 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 15:31, 8 August 2012 (UTC).[reply]
- And how does this help with notability? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:53, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking indepth coverage in independent sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:24, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree with user 94.194.62.101. Keep this for now. It can be improved. Limemine (talk) 18:44, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable company with no realiable information to back up the existence of the article. — ΛΧΣ21™ 00:49, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No prejudice against recreation when notability is achieved. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:58, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hunter Green (flutist)[edit]

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

Judging by the page's history, this article is obviously an autobiography and it seems the subject has used multiple accounts. The proposed deletion tag I added was removed so here we are at AfD. Aside from that New Jersey On-Line article, I haven't found any other sources to establish notability. SwisterTwister talk 22:50, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, WP:MUSICBIO, WP:UPANDCOMING, and WP:HAMMER. He seems like a nice young man, and will no doubt have a great career, but ... he does not rank for Wikipedia yet. Subject to re-creation when he has gotten into college and has been significantly reviewed by the usual major papers and magazines (New York Times, Opera Digest, Philadelphia Enquirer, etc.). Bearian (talk) 19:10, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of notability at this time. Not a bad start, suggest Userfy for article creator with noindex, for future development. --Lexein (talk) 00:19, 8 August 2012 (UTC) (revised - Lexein)[reply]

Delete - Lacks coverage o establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:21, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Bearian. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:25, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sadly, he has not yet gained anough notability and media/musical recognition to have his own article. It is surely a too soon case. — ΛΧΣ21™ 00:45, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. A pat on the back to Mark for carefully considering the decision and being willing to bring it back for some more input, but with more input (I considered input from both discussions, since this is essentially a relist), I believe the question of whether or not we have sufficient sourcing to write an article has been sufficiently addressed, and the answer I see consensus for is "Not at this time." Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:28, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Iain Martell[edit]

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

I closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iain Martell (2nd nomination) as delete in that I felt there was a narrow consensus to delete. After further thought and discussion, I think it was probably closer to a "No Consensus". So I've restored the page and relisted it to gain a clearer consensus. A specific issue in the last Afd that hindered consensus was whether the coverage that he's received apart from MMA is enough to satisfy the WP:GNG, so please comment on that. I am neutral. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:50, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:00, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete It seems like he's not quite notable either as a fighter or as a celebrity. As a fighter, he fails WP:MMANOT, since he doesn't have any fights for a top tier promotion. As a celebrity, most of the links provided aren't really about him, he's just mentioned in a couple sentences in an article about someone else. I don't think he quite passes WP:GNG. CaSJer (talk) 00:12, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am a bit surprised by this - with the exception of the primary author the consensus of the last discussion was delete. The subject is not yet notable as a fighter so the case seems to be does a couple appearances on a game/dating show confer enough added notability to warrant an article. As mentioned above the links provided are really not about him and being mentioned in passing does not make one notable.Peter Rehse (talk) 01:47, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep page passes WP:GNG. Martell is notable for being a television personality as well as being a successful mixed martial artist in one of the UK's top promotions. As I have stated to the closing admin for the 2nd nomination, the three users who voted delete did so on baseless ground, which I broke down for the admin and after careful thought he realised that to delete the page was irrational, hence he reinstated the page providing that it goes back through an AfD under a new listing. And from I see from the votes so ar, I am seeing the same type of votes made in this one as in the last. MMANOT has been proven to be flawed, partially because it does state at the top of the page that the guideline can be used to interpreted notability, it doesn't say anything about being the de facto of notability for MMA related pages. Also I have also stated to the admin that the guideline failed to show other notable promotion such as the Super Fight League (India's biggest promotion), One Fighting Championship (the biggest and fastest growing promotion in Asia), the International Fight League (covered by mainstream sources and competed with the UFC at its height) or Invicta Fighting Championships (biggest woman's MMA promotion in North America) so for the guideline to not include UCMMA shouldn't affect notability at all. And I must point out that everyone is making it sound like that the only other sources out there on him outside his MMA is more related to another person. The fact is that it only covers a small part of his celebrity, as there as plenty of independent sources out there on him relating to TV appearances as well, and even with the two articles relating to Katie Price, it isn't like he is mentioned in just one line on just one paragraph from a poor source, he is mentioned on multiple articles for The Sun, the UK's biggest tabloid paper, and each article went into detail about, including a possible crush on Martell and Alex Reid getting confrontational with Martell and his gym members at one point. Hardly un-relating articles and overall I am still awaiting a good case for deletion. Pound4Pound (talk) 09:18, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I fully agree that MMANOT is flawed, especially when it comes to event notability, but the inclusion criteria for fighters is pretty clear and seems to be working pretty well. I agree that UCMMA is notable, and maybe should be added to the list of second tier organizations, but it's not a top tier organization along the lines of UFC or Strikeforce. Even if it's comparable to BAMMA, it's still second tier, and five fights for them still doesn't pass the guideline. As far as the sources, The Sun is the strongest source, but it's also the source where he gets the least coverage. The stories are about Katie Price, and Iain Martell is only mentioned in passing at the end. The source that really is about him, the Evening News 24 source, is local news, and wouldn't normally be enough to count as significant coverage. Even after looking at the sources again, I still don't think he quite passes GNG, sorry... CaSJer (talk) 12:04, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The whole of MMANOT is flawed, thats my point, you can add in UCMMA to the second tier promotions as well as the other four promotions I used as an example, however it still wouldn't put a dent into the many problems with the guideline. And as such using it as a policy that this page fails to meet, and hence delete on that basis, would just be wrong. The closing admin to the last AfD agreed with me on that point and because of that MMANOT should not be used to justify a reason to delete this page. As far as the sources go, I believe them to be quite strong, as some are from major sources, and as for the ones that people say hardly cover him, it would be like saying adding those sources and information to Alex Reid's page, particularly mentioning his issues with Martell, and trying to delete that bit of information on more than one occasion off his page just because the sources doesn't cover him in the majority. That is what I am trying to say. I think should try to remember that he has appeared on TV on more than one occasion, the first was for a hit dating game show on one of the top TV channels in the UK, ITV. The other was for a comedy show that was on the BBC, the biggest in the UK, and the episode that he appeared drew in more than 4 million people watching. Add in the fact he fights for a big promotion that is one Sky Sports, he is clearly notable. Pound4Pound (talk) 12:17, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also if anyone is interested in reading my discussion with Mark Arsten (closing admin to 2nd nomination) to read my points in detail, read here - User talk:Mark Arsten#Iain Martell — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pound4Pound (talk • contribs) 09:24, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. WP:TOOSOON. Like another user above, I was confused why this process was considered close; I thought the closing statement offering to userfy was a reasonable compromise. I myself only relisted the procedure, making no assertion. In this procedure, I'll assert the subject has been in the MMA business a very short time, has an admirable but very brief record. I see little in sources outside of routine sports and entertainment coverage. The Sun coverage is bare mention. The rest are blogs. Only the Norwich source stands the test of RS, and IMHO, we don't have enough upon which to base a BLP. I have zero problem with userfication so the page can be improved, but I don't see a way this could be returned to mainspace without improvement. BusterD (talk) 16:07, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you read my statement to the closing admin on his talk page, you'd see why he changed his mind. I pointed out that the only three delete votes were made without any real detail, any proper explanation, or in some cases without any seriousness as to why they reckon the page wasn't notable (one user's mocking at the end of their vote pretty much told use how they felt). But as will keep on repeating until the end of this AfD if necessary, The closing admin AGREED with me when I brought up these points to him after the last AfD was closed, hence why were are back with another AfD. Pound4Pound (talk) 12:27, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick note - the closing admin agreed to re-open the AfD in order to gain a more clear consensus - he didn't agree that the article should be kept. The decision to re-open discussion shouldn't sway voters one way or the other. CaSJer (talk) 13:01, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but in order to agree to do something you would have to believe in it to an extent, and in the case where you decide on one thing, and then changed your mind based off what one person said, then a sense of agreeing with a person is in place. I am not trying to sway voters, just stating facts where they are needed, I am seeing too many votes being made that have not been thought through, researched into the topic in question and/or even not tried to take it serious so all I am doing is stating the fact where they are needed is all. Not trying to cause issues. Pound4Pound (talk) 13:10, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"...delete votes were made without any real detail, any proper explanation, or in some cases without any seriousness as to why they reckon the page wasn't notable (one user's mocking at the end of their vote pretty much told use how they felt)." I apologize if you felt I was mocking you, Mr Martell, or the AfD process - I was only making a silly joke about a name; I can see that this is a topic that you are passionate about, and a dumb joke may have been in poor taste on my part. While my statement about Mohammed Ali was not serious, I do have serious reservations about Martell's notability: as I stated in my comment at the previous AfD, I don't believe that his passing mention in The Sun and celebrity gossip articles (this seems to be your main evidence) in which he is only talked about in the context of how he relates to other celebrities like Katie Price don't add to the evidence of his notability. Again, my apologies. Zujua (talk) 08:00, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I agree with CaSJer's comments--the subject certainly does not meet the notability criteria for MMA fighters and I don't think he meets GNG. Jakejr (talk) 04:39, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Updates made to the page added in additional source for his appearance on John Bishop's Britain, adding in information about being a judge for a major swimwear competition last year WITH source, improved wording on Mixed Martial Arts career with additional source for upcoming fight. I urge those who made votes to please read over page again and decide whether to change your vote or keep them as they are base on your opinion after reading them. Pound4Pound (talk) 12:50, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. IMDB is not considered a reliable source. My analysis of sources remains unchanged. Another unchanged: User:Pound4Pound seems to be the only participant in any of these AfDs who is asserting keep for this subject. BusterD (talk) 13:52, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would be more satisfy that a page that is notable was deleted based on good arguments from the side to delete than that based entirely on poor arguments to delete. I must admit that better arguments are being made in this AfD to delete than in the last one, however I feel it is still not enough and that is why I am adamant that the result of this AfD should be keep. If it does get deleted though, I will still have the page on my sandbox so at a later date when he rises higher in the MMA rankings and gets into bigger and bigger promotions as well as any other TV work, then I can always reinstate the page and along with the added information relating to him to clarify notability. This is not me saying I have given on this AfD, this is me saying that if this AfD goes the opposite way I want it to go, then I can always keep it on my space, regularly update it and when the time comes where I feel he is even bigger than now, then I will state my case for the closing admin to this one and show him the changes since the last one. However, this is happen IF this results to a delete, and I will attempt to change opinions by showing them the facts, encourage them to read through the page more carefully and get an overall better opinion of the page before making their votes. Last thing I want is another AfD for this page in place simply because people who vote from here on are making uncoordinated votes. Pound4Pound (talk) 14:17, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd contend trying to convince editors in this discussion isn't an effective use of your time. Because the subject engages in battling, this doesn't mean that battleground behavior or campaigning in this discussion process is a preferred strategy. If you want to sway participants in AfD, I believe the maximum effectiveness lies in improving the page. Sources like blogs, IMDB, or Sherdog have limited utility; I don't consider any of those as reliable. The best types of sources for sports figures, IMHO, are sports magazines and sports sections from notable newspapers. Sandboxing the page prior to deletion is much like userfying, and is a reasonable strategy in cases like this when the sources available haven't quite reached the critical mass required for inclusion in an encyclopedia. BusterD (talk) 14:51, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are missing my point though, I am not convincing people to vote keep, I am convincing the vote properly, I have already stated that I am okay with an overall delete consensus ONLY if the votes were properly done through researching, careful reading and seriousness. I have been improving the page as I just added in sources before I came back to this AfD. So if people want to check them out, please go ahead. And if it does get deleted what difference does it make whether I got a copy of it in my sandbox or not? At least there I can make improvements over time so that if there comes a time where he reaches to the top of the MMA world (such as the UFC) and/or makes it big in the TV world (hosts his own TV show on ITV/BBC) then it saves starting over from scratch like I had to do for this page due a previous user making such a poor version the first time, but it would of saved me some time to gain access to what was already on the original page (i.e. MMA record, boxes, sources etc.). So regardless of where this AfD goes I will keep it updated through my sandbox. Pound4Pound (talk) 15:45, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete The article has been improved since the last discussion, but I still don't think notability has been sufficiently shown. Mdtemp (talk) 17:43, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Doesn't seem to be a celebrity.Fails WP:TOOSOON and WP:NOTABILITY TheStrike Σagle 03:53, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect. Fram (talk) 07:48, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Virgin Media Channel Packages[edit]

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

The article is a redundant content fork of List of channels on Virgin TV, beyond reorganising the channels by package instead of genre and different lead and key sections, the article has no substantial changes. Jasmeet_181 (talk) 22:11, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently duplication of List of channels on Virgin TV with slightly different information. Is it possible to simply merge/redirect back? OSborn ^arf_contribs. 00:35, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The information in the tables is exactly the same bar a few minor formatting changes (caps, date format etc.) and the aforementioned difference in organisation so there's nothing to merge. Jasmeet_181 (talk) 07:40, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of channels on Virgin TV as duplicate. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:09, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect As per Bushranger TheStrike Σagle 03:56, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:58, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Booth (boxer)[edit]

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

Non-notable boxer who meets none of the criteria at WP:NBOX. The claims to fame mentioned in the article are losses to notable fighters (WP:NOTINHERITED) and being arrested for driving an unlicensed taxi and conspiracy to sell cocaine (WP:NOTNEWSPAPER). None of those meet any notability criteria I'm aware of. Jakejr (talk) 21:49, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Jakejr (talk) 21:49, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. He totally fails WP:NBOX....William 00:45, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Jakejr's reasons are sufficent to show subject is not notable. Mdtemp (talk) 17:45, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Early speedy close per WP:OUTCOMES. Nominator has withdrawn and there are no outstanding !votes for deletion Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:11, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fred 3: Camp Fred[edit]

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

Contains absolutely no references to establish notability or verifiability, PROD was removed without explanation. 117Avenue (talk) 21:04, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn, the article contains enough third party sources to establish notability now. 117Avenue (talk) 22:24, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ The movie exists and has aired, though there were very few sources since it's darned obvious from the Olympic weekend premiere that it was burned off. If some can be found it can be turned into a keep, but not in this form of a textwalled plot summary. Nate • (chatter) 02:58, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- An addressable issue that requires simple editing, not deletion. See search results below. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:43, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Keep Concerns have been addressed, but the long plot summary does need culling (I was saying more deletion on that more than the lack of sources, which I knew would be addressed). Nate • (chatter)
    - Was Easily done.[3] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:36, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:33, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ This article has spawned from a minor edit war on Fred 2: Night of the Living Fred. In the edit war, there was a section called "Sequel" that was uncited, and I deleted. The next day, the other party re-inserted it, redlinked the title, and cited his source. The day after that, I removed the red link. Finally, the other party created this article and bluelinked it on the Fred 2 page. It has absolutely no resources and is simply the result of a pointless edit war. Even if resources are found, it should be deleted. Newellington (talk) 23:19, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As numerous sources for the sequel are readily available, a far better tack than repeatedly removing the good faith, non-controversial edits in a "minor edit war" , would have to actually sourced the sequel section yourself or shown how it was sourcable. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:43, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment: My point with my argument is that one WikiUser is just trying to prove a point and get his way with uncited information on a new article that stemmed from this minor edit war. I understand that I can offer sources, but I personally think that the article shouldn't have been created all at once, unsourced, where everyone can see it. It looks more like a fan base to me than a Wikipedia article, and should be deleted and replaced, slowly. It can most definitely be improved in its current state, but the better thing to do would be to start all over, so it doesn't look like a fan base, covered up by citations. Newellington (talk) 15:45, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response: We do not begin and start over when issues can otherwise be addressed through regular editing... as IS being done. (more below). Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:36, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Solid Keep per meeting WP:NF and WP:GNG through sources being available for improving the article. Sure, we have a topic contributed by an unschooled newcomer, and the thing as nominated is a glaring mass of plot and contained no sources. So what? When WP:BEFORE finds that sources ARE available, we fix such article... not delete them through retaliation at what a newcomer contributed elsewhere. We do not delete because something is a possible target of probematic edits. We can watch. We can protect. We can improve such ourselves and show through example that it CAN be done. As shown above... one such sets of repeatedly removed edits in a related article were ultimately sourced. regular editing is far preferred over a battling over addressable issues. Note: it took only took about two minutes to begin adding sources.[4] What we need now is the use of more of the available sources,[5][6] and someone (maybe even me) to trim the living daylights out of the newcomer's overlong plot section. Addressable issues rarely require deletion, and AFD is not for forcing cleanup. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:43, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I will say the same thing to you that I said to Schmidt. The article [WP:UGLY|stinks]. The best thing to do is to delete it in its current form and replace it with something that doesn't look like a fan site. Sources were available, but the person creating the article chose to make it look like a fan site, completely uncited. I personally think that once we work past the bias that this article contains, we can choose to ditch the article in its current form or improve on the current article. In the same way as people choose to stop editing from one account completely and begin fresh, articles can undergo the same type of process. Newellington (talk) 15:45, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response: Any issue with one editor's lacking clue is to be addressed in a diferent venue. We do not nominate their contributions in retaliation, specially when such contributions are of sourcable notable topics. As stated above, we do not begin and start over when issues can otherwise be easily addressed through regular editing... as IS being done. Sure... it did "stink" when nominated but so what? It no longer stinks.[7] Your claim that an unschooled newbie being interesed in editing a topic somehow and automatically creates a negative WP:BIAS is unfounded... specially as what's always worth remembering is that if someone is not interested in a topic, they have little inclination to actually edit it. Being myself active with project film, I DO have such inclination and I can put aside any personal feelings about the lack of quality of Fred projects. Point here being, though I personally think Fred projects are pretty crappy, they DO have sourcable notability... and THAT'S how our inclusion criteria work. We do not punish someone's being interested in contributing, and instead guide them in how to do properly so. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:36, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Topic meets WP:GNG per Journal Star article and Pittsburgh Post-Gazette article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:03, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfunny, but Keep While the so-called "comedic tastes" of the subject can certainly be called into question, the notability of said subject cannot. Numerous reliable sources have covered the film, therefore it meets WP:GNG. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 22:36, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That much is true. As I have said to Schmidt and MichaelQSchmidt, we can choose to self-destruct the article like some users choose to start fresh, or we can improve upon the current article. It would be much easier to destroy the current article and replace it with one that isn's a fansite. Newellington (talk) 15:45, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response: WP:CLEANSTART refers to a user wishing a "clean start", and has nothing to do with article content. You might be thinking of ""blow it up and start over" which is an essay dealing with "pages so hopelessly irreparable that the only solution is to blow it up and start over"... a situation which does not exist in this instance, bad as the original version might have been when nominated. Have you read WP:UGLY? More, you seem to be acknowledging notability, but appear for some reason to simply not want editors to work to improve what we already have, as IS already being done.[8] Plot section has already been massively reduced and sources have begun to be added. Per deletion policy we fix the fixable. Addressing addressable isues is specifically per editing policy and doing so improves the project, while deleting notable topics that could otherwise benefit from regular editing does not. As for starting from scratch... sorry, not reasonable here. Such would be unneccesarily bitey toward newcomers, and NOTHING in the article fell under WP:CANTFIX. A better result is that the newcomers whom you feel might be too interested, might actually learn from the positive examples of our proactively and positively addessing issues. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:36, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on Response to Comment I use WP:CLEANSTART analogously. Also, given that the plot and the sources are improving, my second option may turn out to work. However, I would much rather just blow it up. I'm not trying to bite a newcomer, I just want them to understand that an article can't be created out of an edit war! Please at least consider my argument, please! Newellington (talk) 00:30, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Being one of those willing and able to address your earlier concerns toward a (former) lack of sourcing and problems with (former) content, I simply do not find your argument about starting over to be very convincing. And that the article was initiated in response to a conflict over addressable issues with another article elsewhere is only worth consideration if the new article's topic was non-notable or if issues were not addressable. We do not delete notable topics in retaliation. We fix them. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:40, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Final Response Two things: 1. I do realize that problems have begun to be solved. Therefore, I withdraw all of my "delete" arguments on Fred 3. 2: I was NOT trying to be bitey to a newcomer! Newellington (talk) 16:40, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The stated problems of no reputable sources and a gaping mess of plot have been fixed. The problems of it being started by a minor edit war have been resolved. Therefore, the only plausible solution is to not blow it up, but instead to improve on it as it is. Option two of all of my previous delete arguments seems to be the one that most people agree on; and since that is the definition of "consensus", it can be assumed that this is the correct way to do it, at least for now. If the newbie tries to revert it back to the gaping mess of plot that was completely uncited, however, I would like to be the one to warn him that this AfD is still open. Newellington (talk) 16:40, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One of your two !votes needs to be struck through. And if any editor shows problem edits and will not involve in discussion, you always have WP:ANI. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:55, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Schmidt: This has been done. Thank you for solving this dispute calmly and without useless edit warring. Sincerely, Newellington (talk) 13:56, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to have helped. We will need to leep a watch on the article though, as Fred does have fans who may edit incorrectly. If THAT happens, all we need do is open calm discussions... and perhaps send them to WP:PRIMER to encourage a little CLUE. 18:47, 11 August 2012 (UTC)Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.}

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ill Manors (album). The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:59, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deepest Shame[edit]

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

Not notable. Fails WP:NALBUMS which says "All articles on albums, singles or other recordings must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". News hits that mention this at all have no more than a sentence or two as part of an album review -- when they have a mention outside a track list. Was tagged for notability issues and tag removed with the comment that "this may become a hit single". So it may, and when and if it does it will then be notable. DES ^(talk) 20:57, 6 August 2012 (UTC) DES ^(talk) 20:57, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. DES ^(talk) 20:59, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:43, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re-direct to Ill Manors (album). If the song appears on the charts when it is released as a single it will become notable. For now, re-direct the page to Ill Manors so that the history remains intact. Ellm6 (talk) 13:32, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I could support that approach. DES ^(talk) 14:47, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ill Manors (album) per the above. The song does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NSONGS at this time (no significant coverage found in reliable sources) so an individual article is not yet warranted. Gongshow ^Talk 23:51, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Reynolds[edit]

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

Unable to find reliable, secondary sources on which to evidence notability under WP:GNG. j⚛e decker ^talk 20:48, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I literally turned up nothing useful on a search, so I don't see any way he satisfies GNG. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:22, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unable to find significant coverage in any reliable sources. J04n(talk page) 01:29, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn nomination. Notability was demonstrated. I guess I'll slap a cleanup tag on it. ❤ Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions ( 偉特 ) 22:44, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Belknap Lookout[edit]

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

Subject isn't notable enough to deserve its own article. I could see parts of the article possibly being merged into Grand Rapids, Michigan. ❤ Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions ( 偉特 ) 19:38, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Distinct neighborhood with a very significant amount of substantial coverage that's specifically about this neighborhood )couple of examples [9][10]). Too much topic-specific content to merge into the already overly-long Grand Rapids one.--Oakshade (talk) 03:20, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 06:18, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Online health treatment and doctors in bangladesh[edit]

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

Article is unsourced and shows no evidence that the subject is a notable topic.N.B. the author has unsuccessfully tried to promote Emedicalpoint here, which may underly their creation of this article. I can't find any reliable sources about the subject online and I somehow doubt, considering Bangladesh's general poverty, it is a noteworthy issue in the country. Sionk (talk) 20:24, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A google search of any part of this text reveals that this text was lifted word for word from a blog post that seems to no longer exits. Topher385 (talk) 22:29, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:24, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTESSAY. --BDD (talk) 20:54, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete original research. LibStar (talk) 08:25, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Essay gets an A, but the page gets deleted. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:56, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Roles and responsibilities of social worker in school perspective[edit]

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

School essay without clear encyclopediac scope. The title makes it a subpage of School social worker and much of the content is redundant. Other content is location-specific and/or advocacy (or at least uncited professional-sounding opinions). DMacks (talk) 19:16, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTESSAY. --BDD (talk) 20:54, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Creator also has a copy at User talk:Johnnybolla18, which is presumably a WP:STALEDRAFT given his lack of activity since uploading these two pages all-at-once. DMacks (talk) 06:53, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:39, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly original school work by the contributor. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 19:58, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:10, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lucifer's Unholy Desire[edit]

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

Non notable unreleased film. In June 2011 this article was taken to afd. At 17:32, 12 June 2011 that afd ended "The result was userfied - needs some coverage before this can be hosted in mainspace." and the article was userfied one minute later. At 17:36, three minutes later, in act showing total comtempt for the afd's consensus the article was moved back by its original (single purpose) creator. No more coverage was found. The film is still (acording to IMDB) unreleased an has not recived any significant coverage since the last afd. The original consensus that this article does not belong in the mainspace should stand and given that if this had stayed userfied it would likely be deleted as stale draft this current mainspace article should be deleted instead of userfying again. (This may under the spirit of the rule be eligible for a G4 speedy deletion). duffbeerforme (talk) 07:29, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article continued to be refined in userspace, and not being the same as what was userfied, does not quite qualify as a G4 recreation. Indeed, userfication is done with an expectation that an article might one day return to mainspace after improvements. The author simply returned it prematurely. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:15, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was not refined in userspace. It was immediately returned unchanged [11]. Exactly the same does qualify for g4. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:44, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes... sorry. I see now that IF caught 13 months ago in June of 2011. it would have then qualified as a G4. But no one caught it last year as being returned to article space, and it was subsequently edited and changed (this is exactly the sort of editing one would have expected or hoped for in userspace). Shame on the author for not understanding just why it was returned to him for continued work. The version that existed 12 months ago, the version that was at that time G4-able, no longer exists... and as the G4 issue has been rendered moot, it is a bit tough now to stuff the genie back into his bottle. IE: We cannot say "Hey! I didn't G4 it when I should have, so let's G4 a significantly different version a year later." If the newb author cannot be made to understand that his actions in returning it a year ago was inappropriate, the article is best sent to the incubator for collaborative editing and more eyes watching over it... yours and mine included. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:28, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm of the opinion that it is still "substantially identical to the deleted version". duffbeerforme (talk) 08:45, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:35, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You say it hasn't had enough coverage, beside the 10 reference links listed (one of which is an international french site) (3 of which are some of the biggest horror film sites out) plus Horror society has 4 different articles about it, Or Google the film's title and see how much coverage this film has already gotten . . . even a writeup in Catholic Exchange (http://catholicexchange.com/things-to-come-low-budget-christian-horror/) To have that much coverage before it's even released . . . I think that is notable, plus if this film is the return of Camera Chatham after 25 years of being out of the business and has Doug Bradly attached, I think this film is notable, plus so many other users have refined the article . . . yet none of them thought as you do, or is this a personal vendetta against one of the people involved with the film? 76.120.176.21 (talk) 22:18, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Incubate (or return to its author again with careful instruction about his need to heed WP:NFF or check on with Project Film before a return) until newer sources come forward indicating it finally screened somewhere. As one of those who refined the article, it is still too soon. To IP #76.120.176.21... this is no vendetta. Please read WP:NFF to see how we deal with unreleased films. To merit being an exception to that guideline, an unreleased film needs far more persistant and enduring coverage than does this one. The problem here is that there has been no new coverge since June of 2011. It's as if it disappeared. And yes... it was mentioned recently in Catholic Exchange but only so far as to remark that last year's trailer raised some eybrows and to link us to a May 2011 interview of the filmmaker. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:04, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:14, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, with prejudice. The writer had his chance -- and given the bad-faith gaming of the system has lost any benefit of the doubt. Work on it on your own hard drive and bring it back to WP:DRV when -- or more likely if -- it's actually presentable. --Calton | Talk 22:12, 6 August 2012
Delete per WP:TOOSOON. The film does not even have an established release date, and there have been no recent sources since the article was deleted a year ago. Rorshacma (talk) 22:57, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Gran Hermano (Spain) All Stars 2011. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:55, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

El Reencuentro (Spain)[edit]

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

Information already exists at this page Fugio (talk) 19:08, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep. The above is an argument for merger or redirection - not for deletion, unless there are good reasons for removing the page history. And none have been given for doing that. PWilkinson (talk) 13:08, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Gran Hermano (Spain) All Stars 2011 per nom. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:08, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No prejudice towards renomination since we had limited participation here. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:54, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edward L. Todd[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:40, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seems not to pass WP:ACADEMIC based on information contained in article. No significant GHits for biographical information. Zujua (talk) 09:41, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Professional works are published as E.L. Todd [12], which makes it necessary to search by subject keywords +Todd; no indication if this is the individual with matching lifespan buried as a lieutenant ~Jr. at Arlington [13], but a Col. Edwin L. Todd of the 10th & 7th Air Forces postdates the academic and complicates basic searches. Dru of Id (talk) 11:38, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 04:22, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While the content appears to be a straight rip from the description of the Edward L. Todd papers at the Smithsonian Institution, the fact that Todd's named papers ARE at the Smithsonian Institution strikes me as sufficient justification for encyclopedic biography. Keeping under the policy of WP:IGNOREALLRULES strikes me as completely appropriate — use common sense to build the encyclopedia. Carrite (talk) 16:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 14:47, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I added some more sources to the article, one of which (an entry in a dictionary of entomology) may carry some weight towards notability. I'm undecided on the case myself: his publications have only double-digit citations, but taxonomy is a low-citation field. There are a lot of Wikipedia articles on Noctuidae that have citations to "Todd", which I would have to guess is this one, but the citations are all so fragmentary that it's hard to tell for sure. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:23, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:13, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus to delete after three relistings. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:58, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford Park, Estonia[edit]

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

A non-notable, planned housing development in Estonia currently selling off plan property. I can find no sources for this project which are not essentially their own press releases and blurbs. This article was essentially created by an IP tracing back to Estonia who over-wrote the former redirect page page to Oxford Park, Montreal in April 2011 [14]. Not surprisingly, this was about the same time the developers launched this, as yet, unbuilt project. Voceditenore (talk) 15:33, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. Voceditenore (talk) 15:42, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Voceditenore (talk) 15:47, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It sounds like an interesting development, but then it would, wouldn't it, cited to a press release and the developer's website! The Construction News(?) article looks good and, if anyone with a knowledge of Estonian, can find any similar coverage, I'll happily change my 'vote'. Can't find anything else online myself. Sionk (talk) 16:56, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Darn, I've changed my recommendation three times in the last 45 minutes! Northamerica1000 has found some good sources. The Estonia Public Broadcasting articles seem particularly believable. The one concern I have is that there is no confirmation (not even on the OSG website) whether the project has (or will) become reality. When I changed my vote to 'Weak keep' I hadn't fully read the most recent ERR article (Dec 2011). It actually says the OSG have fallen out with their partners but hope the project "should be completed in ten years". This does not fill me with confidence that it will ever get off the ground (after all, a housing estate can be fully built in 12-18 months). If the first sod of earth gets cut, I will be happy to see this article resurrected. Sionk (talk) 12:28, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Strong Keep - This topic passes WP:GNG:~~ Comment:

"Rapla County built a new village of 200 million euros." - Ehitus Uudised (Construction News). 21 March 2011.
UK Green Economy Lags Behind Following Launch Of Europe's Most Advanced Eco Village | Financial News
Major Sustainable Residential Complex to Be Built in Northern Estonia | ERR
Oxford Sustainable Falls Out With Realtor | ERR
Oxford Park Plans Europe's First Universal Filling Station | ERR

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:35, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The first one is virtually word-for-word from the company's own press release [15]. By the way, the translation of the title is inaccurate. It actually says "A new 200 million Euro village will be built in Rapla County". The second is from a website which accepts "contributed articles" [16] and invites press releases [17]. Unsurprisingly, the article is again virtually word-for word from their publicity materials. Ditto the first and third articles from Estonian Radio News (ERR), the only source that I would consider remotely useful for determining notability. The third ERR one explicitly acknowledges the company's press release as its source. Except for the second ERR article, all the remaining sources date from the same period when the company launched its internet marketing campaign (described here). The Wikipedia article, created at the same time is clearly a part of it.

So what we have here is a yet unbuilt housing development, whose "coverage" is derived from its own press releases and all concentrated between late March and early May of 2011, when they launched their marketing campaign. A brief article in December of that year notes that not a single off plan property had been sold and the company behind the project had fallen out with the real estate company. Then absolutely nothing. If this project ever really gets off the ground and starts generating real coverage, then it's time for a stand-alone article. Not now. At most, the material could be merged into Rapla County. On the other hand (and with tongue firmly in cheek), there are literally hundreds (possibly thousands) of Wikipedia articles consisting of non-notable projects and organizations advertising themselves here, so why not this one? Wikipedia, the PR Newswire that anyone can edit. Voceditenore (talk) 12:29, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Changed my !vote above to a comment at this time. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:42, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 14:50, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:12, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I concur with others' analysis of the sources, leaving this article as WP:CRYSTAL per lack of independent in-depth reporting. It is not obvious this thing will ever come to be (WP cannot take the sponsor of the entity at its word alone) or will have suitable references available soon, so an objective article cannot be written at this time (the basic premise for writing about a future thing). DMacks (talk) 19:31, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough coverage for WP:GNG, and as an unbuilt housing development it doesn't get notability as a geographical feature/settlement. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:36, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:11, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Conrad Lucas[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:50, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chairman of local branch of American Republican party with only insubstantial local coverage. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Article was previously deleted in 2009 and I'm assuming that the claim to notability this time is different. Valenciano (talk) 17:43, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He is a state party leader and is influential in shaping government policy. While he was deleted for losing a Congressional race a few years ago, his position of power warrents his place in wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CecilAlbertMoore (talk • contribs) 17:53, 30 July 2012 (UTC) — CecilAlbertMoore (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Redirect to West Virginia Republican Party. Fails WP:POLITICIAN; notability is not sufficient for a stand-alone article. I am not opposed to merging relevant biographical information of state party chairmen into the article about the state party. Location (talk) 17:56, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article should not be merged with the state party. Many other government and political state leaders have their own wikipedia page. This includes the WV Senate President and Speaker of the House. He is a high profile individual in the West Virginia media and it can be assumed that his presence will continue to grow as the election nears. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CecilAlbertMoore (talk • contribs) 18:19, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:POLITICIAN. On reflection, I've no objection to this being merged and redirected to the state party article. That preserves the content in the event that Lucas does become notable in the future. For now I don't see enough coverage to justify a standalone bio. Valenciano (talk) 19:31, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the criteria in WP:POLITICIAN I believe that this article should stand due to the politician holding a statewide office CecilAlbertMoore (talk 19:56, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In that context, a statewide office refers to statewide public office in which the official is elected by the general public or appointed by another governmental official. The West Virginia Republican Party has no power to govern in such a manner. Location (talk) 20:08, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that a State GOP Chairman falls under the definition of a state public official. He is elected statewide by Republican members and while he is not part of the state government he still is considered a statewide official. CecilAlbertMoore (talk 20:12, 30 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CecilAlbertMoore (talk • contribs)

A public official serves or represents the public; this subject serves or represents a party. Location (talk) 20:19, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A public official can clearly represent a non-governmental organization. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_official CecilAlbertMoore (talk) 20:31, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That article states: "A public official is an official of central or local government." The subject is not "an official of central or local government". Location (talk) 21:31, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It also states that it is someone who holds an office in an organization or government and participates in the exercise of authority (either his own or that of his superior and/or employer, public or legally private). — Preceding unsigned comment added by CecilAlbertMoore (talk • contribs) 23:35, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: private. So, we are in agreement that the subject is an official of a non-public entity or organization (i.e. he is not a public official who is elected by the general public or appointed by another governmental official). Location (talk) 00:37, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We are most certainly not in agreement. The definition clearly states that leaders of non-governmental organizations qualify as public officials. I do not understand why we are contesting the creation of a high profile public figure in regional politics. CecilAlbertMoore (talk) 01:11, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see that stated clearly or otherwise in the article, so I'll guess we'll have to agree to disagree. Cheers! Location (talk) 02:28, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Purely promotional article about a non-notable would-be politician. He has never held public office; I considered a redirect to the 2010 congressional election, but he failed to win the nomination and is not mentioned at the article United States House of Representatives elections in West Virginia, 2010#District 3. I would also oppose a redirect to West Virginia Republican Party. He can be mentioned there, but we don't normally keep (even as a redirect) pages about people who hold only a party office. --MelanieN (talk) 01:22, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:10, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This person does not meet any of the criteria for WP:POLITICIAN: he has not held any public office, nor has he been elected to it. He has not received coverage as a local politician. And the West Virginia Republican Party chairmanship is not a state office, since the West Virginia Republican Party is not a state governmental organization but a private organization. One undoubtedly covered by WP:ORG, but notability is not inherited so simply being its chairman counts for nothing much more than WP:BLP1E, if that. This person is not notable. -- BenTels (talk) 20:20, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 06:19, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zincubate[edit]

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

Non-notable company; promotional. The two sources don't appear to be reliable (one was written by the site's founder), and I can't find any others. The article, while possibly not blatantly so, is too promotional overall in tone for an encyclopedia article. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:12, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notability has not been established. Press release citations are insufficient evidence of notability. MrX 18:24, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - New company with little coverage outside of press releases and social networking sites. noq (talk) 18:28, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:08, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in independent reliable sources. One of the two refs is not independent as the article is by the founder of Zincubate. The Naples News item is actually non-significant coverage in a run down of minor happenings. -- Whpq (talk) 16:35, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:43, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Recalcitrant Interdependence[edit]

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

Does not meet the General Notability Guidelines; No secondary sources exist for this "theory". Achowat (talk) 18:32, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Basically a rehash of somebody's non-notable PhD thesis. The term finds absolutely no use at Google Scholar, and nothing but this article at Google News. Written by a special purpose account. If this article is deleted, somebody needs to follow the SPA editor's contributions, to find and remove all the other places in Wikipedia where he promoted his non-notable theory. --MelanieN (talk) 01:11, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note to self: Complex interdependence, The End of History and the Last Man, The Clash of Civilizations, Asian values, Democratic peace theory. --MelanieN (talk) 15:22, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. possible WP:OR. LibStar (talk) 01:21, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:06, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per MelanieN. I did also find some of the articles / books cited in the article - none use this term at all. (See NY Times, Wash Post & Keohane book). Nik thestoned 11:17, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It appears as though the independent sources are all used to cite theories and principles mentioned in practice. None actually mention Recalcitrant Interdependence (though, fittingly, the article doesn't claim that it does). Achowat (talk) 15:40, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 01:18, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Laniewski[edit]

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

Unable to find reliable secondary sources which evidence notability under WP:GNG, WP:MUSICBIO or WP:ENT.

Be careful with the searches, L and Ł don't produce the same search results.

Additional relevant sources, as always, appreciated.

this appears to be an event listing that is him. Not to be confused with the corporate head of the same name, for example, this I believe refers to a different individual. j⚛e decker ^talk 18:37, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:06, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the lack of reliable sources alluded to above; I couldn't find anything either. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:17, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can find no coverage in reliable sources. There are 3 links in the article, but the pages or events are no longer there. In any case, these are all simply event listing entries and would not demonstrate notabbility. -- Whpq (talk) 16:41, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 07:51, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wtphelan[edit]

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

Article on a local insurance agency firm in Massachusetts and Maine. It was flagged with a Prod on the rationale "No evidence that this firm is meets the notability guidelines." The Prod was removed by the article creator without comment; the concern remains so I'm bringing it to AfD on the same rationale as the Prod. AllyD (talk) 19:33, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Surprisingly for a company that is more than 100 years old, I could find no significant coverage about it at Google News Archive. There are lots of hits but they are trivial - so-and-so worked for the company, or the company opened a new office. Maybe this insurance brokerage is just too small or too local to attract the required media attention. --MelanieN (talk) 23:45, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:06, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete, the page is being updated with cited information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve.CohenWiki (talk • contribs) 22:00, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do not Delete This article was again updated with cited local media sources and quality content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve.CohenWiki (talk • contribs) 13:11, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:46, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not many reliable sources and 40 employees says it all TheStrike Σagle 03:58, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete me definitely. Mark Arsten (talk) 06:20, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Holden Nowell[edit]

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

Clearly not notable, this individual is simply unaccomplished with regards to anything we would consider notable. He is very cute and was in about three seconds of a currently popular music video, but in a world with thousands of music videos with millions of cuties in them that is pretty much as notable as that nice lady down the street, the article has no claim of notability and not sources supporting notability or any notability criteria not even the GNG, the sources are also not reliable sources establishing said notability so this one has just got to be deleted for now or redirected into the article about the song Call Me Maybe. LuciferWildCat (talk) 19:47, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While his work is verifiable,[18][19] it is far too soon for an article on this as-yet-to-be-notable person who so far is a WP:BLP1E. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:40, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing he has done adds up to WP:ENTERTAINER or WP:BAND or whatever else he does. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:23, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:04, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. We could only keep this article if WP:HOTTIE were a guideline rather than an humourous essay. -- Whpq (talk) 16:50, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:51, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sherry Dooley[edit]

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

Not notable. Both listed refs are from a student publication at U of Ore, and as such are not reliable sources for the purposes of notability (see WP:RSN). GNews search just turned up one hit, from the Portland newspaper on local artists. No GHits other than social/youtube/self-published sites. GregJackP Boomer! 18:33, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I was uncomfotable speedying it, but happy to endorse deletion in AFD. The JPS ^{talk to me} 19:23, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant coverage in reliable sources. I found a couple of hits in the news search for the Portland Tribune but under the heading of "Culture listings". The articles are no longer available and the heading leads me to beleive that these are very likely gallery show listings in the newspaper. There is also a paywalled [result] in the Daily Press that I was able to pull up with my Highbeam account. For those who do not have Highbeam access, the article is just a correction for a mistaken picture caption from another article. I was unable to find the other article. -- Whpq (talk) 16:58, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: unable to find any significant coverage in any source. —EncMstr (talk) 16:44, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. WP:SK#1. Nom withdrawn, no remaining arguments for deletion. j⚛e decker ^talk 17:47, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nuri Seferi[edit]

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

~~Boxer who fails to meet WP:NBOX.Jakejr (talk) 18:29, 6 August 2012 (UTC)~~[reply]

Keep Recently added info is enough to show notability. Jakejr (talk) 05:48, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Jakejr (talk) 18:29, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea why this is up for deletion, Seferi is the current WBO European champion in his weight class and was ranked 5th in the WBO rankings. That should meets the guidelines I believe. (He is in the Jr. heavyweight category http://www.wboboxing.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/WBO-Ranking-as-of-Mar.-2012.xls http://www.wboboxing.com/wp-content/pdf/WBORanking_Feb_2012.pdf (Oltianruci (talk) 04:31, 8 August 2012 (UTC))[reply]

You are right it would but there was no mention of this in the article. Notability needs to be established in the article. If you could modify the article and let us know afterwards then I am sure there will be a consensus to Keep.Peter Rehse (talk) 04:38, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep European champion information has been added.Peter Rehse (talk) 05:16, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, WP:NBOX says he must be ranked in the top 10 by Ring Magazine or have fought for the world title, but this is good enough for me. Jakejr (talk) 05:48, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:47, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shadow Cabinet of Harold Wilson[edit]

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

Not encyclopedic, WP:IINFO, only list members of shadow cabinet. Would take a major rewrite. Preferred to redirect to Harold Wilson, but was reverted by creator. Recommend redirect or deletion. GregJackP Boomer! 17:52, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: The topic is undoubtedly notable, but this... creation... needs a complete rework. Better to redirect than keep. -- BenTels (talk) 19:15, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Before today's edit I had rather seen this article go that stay because having nothing was better than having what was there. But User:Colonel Warden has cleaned the mess up sufficiently that I now feel the article should stay. Compliments to the Colonel. -- BenTels (talk) 18:00, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~userfy or redirect~~ the article can be moved to the creator's sandbox and can be worked on there. Right now, the article needs an uplift. -- Luke (Talk) 23:38, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep looks better now. -- Luke (Talk) 01:14, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Our editing policy is to improve first drafts not to delete them. The nominator first used ordinary editing and just seems to be coming to AFD to win the edit war. See List of British shadow cabinets for numerous other similar articles. Warden (talk) 09:14, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please WP:AGF. First, there was no edit war. When I looked at the article, it was in much worse shape than it is now, to the point that I felt it was better to redirect and/or delete it. So I redirected it to Harold Wilson. If the article is improved where it is more that a one paragraph list of names and dates, I don't have a problem with keeping it. GregJackP Boomer! 11:30, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't see any clear reasons to delete. What's so bad about the article that it can't be improved? Shadow cabinets typically attract press coverage en masse, listing them is clearly not indiscriminate, and it would seem to meet WP:L and likely to meet WP:GNG. A merge might be possible, but nobody has suggested it's necessary. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:40, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep -- This is essnetially is list of the opposition front bench spokeman. I can only imagine that the person who nominated this has no knowledge of British politics. A redirect to a Prime Minister would be inappropriate because the subject is too important. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:12, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - You are correct that this is essnetially [sic] a list of the opposition leaders. I can only imagine that the person that nominated this article when it was first created (i.e., the first entry in article history) realized that the article was a disgrace, completely different from the present article. Of course, that might take some extra effort. GregJackP Boomer! 17:43, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 06:23, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shlomo Shtencel[edit]

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

As far as I can tell, this is a bio of an author of a single published book, with second one in works. This does not seem to satisfy WP:ARTIST. At the same time, some serious effort went into this bio, perhaps others can find a reason to keep this? Would his rabbinical post make him notable? I couldn't find anything in our notability policies regarding religious professionals... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:36, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:38, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:39, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this article about a very notable Polish rabbi. It satisfies WP:ANYBIO: "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field" as well as WP:SCHOLAR in this case in the filed of advanced Talmudic scholarship One of his works is on file at Wikisource. The nominator's rationale makes no sense. This is NOT an "artist" this is a theologian and scholar of Judaism, a rosh yeshiva and posek, a great Judaic scholar who had his works published, as the article's plentiful citations make very clear. It is hard to put biographies of rabbis together and in this case the editors have done an excellent job. In addition a few experienced editors, (namely Users Bachrach44 (talk · contribs) and Brewcrewer (talk · contribs)), have recently been working diligently on improving the article, after it was nominated that has not been acknowledged by the nominator. IZAK (talk) 10:20, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 17:37, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looking at WP:BIO, reveals separate notability guidelines that have been thoroughly explored for sports personalities, crime victims, and even porn stars because Wiki has been bombarded with article requests around those topics. I believe we do not have a similar set of dedicated criteria around religious figures, not because of the 'stickyness' and subjectivity of religious issues, but simply because there are fewer submissions, making it so far unnecessary that the issue be completely defined. In lieu of a defined criteria, I humbly suggest that a WP:COMMON approach would be to adopt a similar guideline as that used for Diplomats - "Diplomats who have participated in a significant way in events of particular diplomatic importance that have been written about in reliable secondary sources. Sufficient reliable documentation of their particular role is required." Using this test, I believe that Shtencel "participated in a significant way" to the culture of 20th century Judaism in Poland (an issue of importance), that this can be verified in RS per the current article, and that continued improvement to the article (as evidenced by its recent editing history) will likely result in even more RS supporting this viewpoint. Celtechm (talk) 20:28, 6 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Celtechm (talk • contribs) 20:22, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Shm-reduplication ... only kidding; keep per Wikipedia:OUTCOMES#Clergy as a head rabbi of a large area. Bearian (talk) 19:18, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He was a Rabbi and wrote a book which was published posthumously. The book being viewable online at Wikisource does not aid notability. Wikipedia:OUTCOMES#Clergy refers to the Rabbi of a country, and he seems to have been the rabbi of only a town. I do not see that WP:BIO is satisfied, and I would not want to see similar bios of every clergyman/swami/mullah/practitioner of every faith who ever lived kept on a similar scant basis, just because they faithfully served a congregation or town and wrote a diary, when there is a lack of multiple instances of significant coverage by reliable and independent sources. Where are encyclopedias or histories of religion which document his "significant contribution?" Edison (talk) 19:35, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep he is the author of two books published shortly after his death, and if his work is being readied for republication at this time, as the article suggests, that would indicate that his work is held in high regard by those best qualified to evaluate it. Bus stop (talk) 00:05, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SCHOLAR and WP:PROF #6. His rabbinical posts certainly make him notable, as av beis din (head of the rabbinical court) of Sosnowiec and a rosh yeshiva (dean) in that town's yeshiva. Edison: Your lumping of all religious town authorities into one heap totally ignores the major role that town Ravs played in the thousands of Jewish communities that existed in pre-war Europe. These were not "rabbis" in the style of synagogue leaders that you may be familiar with, but Torah authorities and poskim who brought Torah study to a high level of scholarship. Any information that can be presented on rabbis like Shtentzel or his cousin, Rabbi Arye Tzvi Frommer, enhances understanding of the pre-Holocaust landscape significantly. I cut out all the extraneous details and biographical information about other people and copyedited for style. All it needs is more references to back up the information provided. Yoninah (talk) 11:19, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Yisrael Meir Kagan (1838—1933) was merely a rabbi in a small town of Radun' though his influence was considerable beyond that town and his influence to this day is great. There are 2 books by Shlomo Shtentzel. One was published in 1932, 13 years after his death, and then republished in 1973. That indicates continued interest by those best able to evaluate the merit and importance of that book. The other book by Shlomo Shtentzel does not seem to have ever been published, but our article suggests that it is being readied for publication at this time. Bus stop (talk) 14:40, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I found several reliable sources and removed the notability tag. Yoninah (talk) 00:35, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:07, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hotel Osijek[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 16:45, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article was speedied as A7 at the start of June. It was recreated today with the same content, and so I re-nominated it as A7. Armbrust (talk · contribs) removed the CSD template, with the rationale that A7 doesn't apply to buildings. I think the article is about a company, of which the building is a part. Ultimately, this company fails WP:GNG. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 16:36, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G4 Seasider91 (talk) 18:36, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seasider, {{db-g4}} is only used for a page that was previously deleted via a deletion discussion, which this wasn't. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:27, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 17:35, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete This article can't decide whether it's about the company or the building. In either case, it's an A7. Zaldax (talk) 19:25, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:07, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hive Swimwear[edit]

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

Non-notable swimwear company. Declined speedy. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:18, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:GNG Belchfire-TALK 19:14, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 17:33, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nomination. Nick-D (talk) 06:59, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:18, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Los Buzzardos[edit]

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

Non-notable band. Their only "notability" derives from being one of two backup bands for Jack White when he's touring separately from White Stripes. A redirect was attempted, but rejected by the page's creator. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is 1 of 3 different but related articles created by this author which have been nominated by the same Wiki user for deletion; comments from that Wiki user have been disrespectful and have made attempts to belittle the subject artists (including Dominic Davis, described that he merely “stands in the back with a bass”), together with an air of discrimination. The Wiki community should not support such efforts. And now here comments make it clear that they do not even know that the band the White Stripes broke up some time ago (and therefore Jack White will not be "touring" with them any time soon), something that was covered in great detail in the worldwide media and which can be learned by just reading through one part of Jack White’s wiki page. Users that do not even know that vital bit of information are in a very poor position to opine on the notability of this band. With the White Stripes now broken up, Jack White’s solo production becomes that much more notable as does Los Buzzardos' role in such. In the musical arts notability is not limited only to headliners; just because it is a backing band does not negate it from its own notability. The Wiki community clearly agrees as there are many, many backing bands with their own Wiki pages from Scarlet Fever to The Spiders from Mars. And while many of the members of this band already have their own notoriety and their own Wiki pages, a backing band does also get notability from the headliner and Jack White is one of the biggest international rock and blues artists as well as one of the most highly regarded guitarists of our time and is a multiple Grammy winner. This band is notable and this page should not be deleted. Jjjssswiki (talk) 17:32, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is no "discrimination" here (and Jjjssswiki might want to consider assuming good faith). This is merely a case of an editor (me) seeing a poor article and nominating it for deletion, and then, seeing that the article's creator has behaved in a manner indicating a lack of understanding of Wikipedia's notability guidelines, reviewing that editors other contributions and finding some of them lacking notability also. I do not know Dominic Davis, and I am not a particular follower of the genre of music that Davis plays, so I have no particular axe to grind in either direction about Davis or his projects. I am only working within the guidelines established by Wikipedia, and finding that the articles involved do not meet those guidelines. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 15:03, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cory Younts is on loan from Old Crow Medicine Show of which he's been a long-term member. OCMS certainly satisfies notability standards--and side projects of its members, particularly those involving other notable musicians such as Jack White, would seem to warrant an entry. Much enhancement would be necessary to make it a worthy article, of course. Artaxerxes (talk) 19:37, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 17:32, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty hilarious that this band gets an entry but his female band doesn't. Either an entry needs to be created for The Peacocks, or there should be member lists for both bands on Jack White's main page and no pages for the individual bands. I would vote the latter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deceasedlavy (talk • contribs) 18:48, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:00, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 06:23, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Manel Expósito[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Manel Expósito

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

He has not played a fully professional league match at a club or at international level. Article fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Simione001 Simione001 Simione001 (talk) 03:02, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:46, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mentoz86 (talk) 07:56, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:09, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:09, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFOOTBALL failure. Number 5 7 08:56, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 17:25, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:39, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 11:52, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 06:24, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ángel Berlanga[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

He has not played a fully professional league match at a club or at international level. Article fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Simione001 Simione001 Simione001 (talk) 03:06, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:45, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mentoz86 (talk) 07:55, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:09, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:09, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NFOOTBALL failure. Number 5 7 08:54, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 17:24, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:39, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 11:52, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:06, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the Course (2010 TV series)[edit]

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

Promotional piece on a tv show that does not show how it is notable. Article noticably leaves of which tv channel it was broadcast on. I didn't find which either. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Only non primary sour ce is a dead blog post. I found nothing better. (Note that this is one of multiple articles by a blocked spammer creating a walled garden around Liana Werner-Gray). duffbeerforme (talk) 07:40, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:01, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:01, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can't find any broadcast info about this show (network, dates, number of episodes, etc). WP:OUTCOMES says shows broadcast by major networks are usually notable, if we can find that information. The current article is problematic, but this could be fixed by editing rather than deletion, if the show is notable. If it hasn't been broadcast, or is only on a minor cable channel, then deletion is probably correct. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:10, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete If ever a TV series had to be deleted, it would be this one. complainer (talk) 13:08, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 17:23, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable topic. Also, per the above comments. TBran dl ey 18:52, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:05, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Helium (framework)[edit]

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

I don't think this software is notable. –ebraminio^talk 07:26, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:33, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:33, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:GNG. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:27, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 17:18, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Article is supported solely by primary sources, no reliable secondary sources in evidence. Plus it's yet another MVC framework, so it's not significant. Does not meet WP:NSOFT. -- BenTels (talk) 18:54, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:01, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kashibai[edit]

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

Reason ARIHANT SUB (talk) 05:14, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article kashibai is a ghost article written upon a "Rumored Daughter of so called Commander in Chief Sadashiv Bhau". Well known fact is that Sadashiv Bhau and his wife Parvatibai were issue less. Further not a single source anywhere on the net or in any librabry throws light on this so called daughter of Sadashiv Bhau. Citation tags are untouched for years and months the whole article is without a single source for almost 4 years. Such malicious articles only brought bad name to wikipedia and its reliability. ARIHANT SUB (talk) 05:14, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 July 30. Snotbot t • c » 05:40, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:37, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:37, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article does not cite any citation or source. No result for the search Sadashiv Daughter Kashibai available on G-Books. [22] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nitesh kumar nishu (talk • contribs) 06:41, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 17:17, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unreferenced, and no references could be found outside of Wikipedia mirrors—and there are many of those. It is possible that references could be found in Marathi language and Devanāgarī script, but right now there is nothing. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 01:41, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is against a redirect. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:51, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

St. Margaret Mary Elementary School[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 16:57, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 16:59, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A completely unsourced article with no evidence of meeting WP:GNG or WP:ORG. Searching the term on Google comes up with a whole bunch of other schools around the world that have the same name, but little about this particular school in Staten Island. Elementary schools are generally not considered notable unless they are well known because they do not receive a lot of media coverage of have records of notable alumni or significant events The Legendary Ranger (talk) 16:40, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirect to Staten Island#Education per WP:OUTCOMES, which should have been WP:BOLDly done instead of AfD. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:37, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Bushranger, and my own ideas. Bearian (talk) 19:30, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it is an ex school. No point redirecting.--Charles (talk) 20:57, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOTTEMPORARY - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:46, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nonexistent school. No point in redirecting because the school is not mentioned in the Staten Island page. Why redirect the reader to Staten Island and then leave him wondering why he is there? •••Life of Riley (T–C) 01:54, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:SOFIXIT. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:46, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-existent defunct primary school. Wasn't notable and probably ver will bes. No need to redirect.

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:47, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agonophilia[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 16:56, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable, unreferenced, and unlikely to become so.

Delete. Non-notable.— James Cantor (talk) 16:08, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Searching for sources, it seems this term does actually exist, and has some information available about it. The problem is, the definition that I'm finding is substantially different than what is presented in this article. The article presents this fetish as sexualizing combative sports and sports equipment, where as the actual use of this term seems to be about being sexually aroused by having your partnet pretend to struggle, or "pseudo-rape". With this in mind, I'm not sure if it would be easier to keep this article and then just completely rewrite it, or to go ahead and delete it and recreate it from scratch with proper information. Rorshacma (talk) 17:18, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A redirect to Biastophilia could also serve the purpose.

Delete I agree that there's a lack of notability for the phrase with this meaning. However, there's not many reliable cites for it meaning fetish for performing rape, so I'm not sure a redirect will work either without an obvious target. RightDiagnosis.com claims it can mean either fetish for fighting/wrestling generally or rape, but I'm not sure how reliable that is. An incorrect redirect isn't much use, and in any case it's closer to a dictionary definition than an encyclopedia article, so I say we delete until there's more sources with greater detail. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:53, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Note that the current article is much different than the article that was nominated, so renomination is possible if the new version is judged to be non-notable. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anthropophilia in animals[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 16:55, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:02, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable. Unlikely ever to meet WP:N.

Delete. Non-notable.— James Cantor (talk) 16:09, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This seems to me like a WP:IDONTLIKEIT nomination and there is a few sources out there through a simple search. Seasider91 (talk) 17:00, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Can you name some of these alleged sources? Google reveals 33 hits, not one of which is an RS. (And why on Earth would I NOTLIKETHIS? I am the author of very many articles among the paraphilias.)— James Cantor (talk) 17:04, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - a paragraph was added that was sourced to enotes.com. When you look at the reference, it is specifically a mirror of the WP article Zoophilia and the law, and therefore not a reliable source and not of use. LadyofShalott 17:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It is a known phenomenon. Ask anyone who breeds falconry birds. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:29, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't doubt you. The question, however, is about whether its notability can be established in RS's.— James Cantor (talk) 22:53, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but expand. The primary meaning is a preference for humans, specifically among parasites. The sexual meaning is important but secondary. Anthropophilia is a well-known phenomenon with thousands of references. There has been a lot of research and analysis on why some parasites prefer humans over other animals. Nominator is a WP:SPA who works exclusively on promoting sexual concepts he supports and trying to reduce or remove those he does not support. We had a similar problem at androphilia and gynephilia. Jokestress (talk) 01:02, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That AfD was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Androphilia and gynephilia. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:26, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Your WP:BATTLEGROUND is inappropriate. Make your argument on its own merits...such as providing the RS's. And you should probably spread your sudden and "unrelated" disagreements with me across more time, so as to avoid an appearance of hounding.— James Cantor (talk) 01:16, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - 6,140 Google Scholar results for anthropophilia. Disruptive nomination. Jokestress (talk) 02:02, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not seeing notability. Article is close to being original research. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:54, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is not original research. Many falconry bird breeders know very well about birds raised by humans being sexually inprinted on humans, and it is important in their breeding programs. It is well described in falconry books. It is also why the giant panda Chi-Chi refused to mate with An-An. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:05, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I moved all the stuff about sexual response to Imprinting (psychology). The article is now about the term as used in parasitology, with a link to wiktionary. Jokestress (talk) 05:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. That actually is/was a great idea. That prevents it from being confused with a paraphilia. I would, however, move it to just "anthropophilia", as the "in animals" is now redundant.— James Cantor (talk) 05:49, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Rajesh Pillai. Merging can be done from history (with attribution) as desired. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:48, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Motorcycle Diaries (2013 film)[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 16:53, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Has not begun principal photography, and thus should not be here per WP:NFF Nat Gertler (talk) 15:50, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Rajesh Pillai as being TOO SOON for its own article. We can source that filming is expected to begin soon, which is enough for at least the mention in the director's article which it now has. Article can be undeleted once filming has begun and we have more coverage of that fact. All we have now is the very recent announcements by the director announcing his intentions,[23] but nothing indicating that it actually has begun filming. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:35, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as per WP:TOOSOON. TBran dl ey 22:39, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:49, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ariej[edit]

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

Article does not have any references and does not seem to be encyclopedic in nature MrX 18:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - It is truly a name; however, there are no sources to support it. All of the sources are pointing to actual names of different people, not the meaning of the name. It could possibly make it if the creator can find and add sources for the claim. --SimonKnowsAll (talk) 03:09, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:29, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced, unverified, and no evidence that this first name is important or notable enough to include here. Wikipedia does not include any articles at all about people with this name, so not valid as a dab page either. --MelanieN (talk) 21:34, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 15:45, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete: G7(one author who has requested deletion). JamesBWatson (talk) 16:21, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Young Engineers[edit]

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

I created and would like to delete it. RexRowan Talk 15:44, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a speedy deletion tag for you per G7 (Author requests deletion) Seasider91 (talk) 16:18, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:49, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Kairoff[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSIC, no independent showing of notability in music; positive reviews are not themselves notability BennyHillbilly (talk) 08:15, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no independent, relibable sources. All of the references are not independent of the subject. -- Luke (Talk) 15:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:42, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 15:18, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. After all this time at AfD there's still only one independent and reliable-looking review of his music (the "Classics Today" one, copied also in the ArkivMusic link). I don't think that's enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:13, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete. Borderline for deletion as promotional, and clearly qualifies as an article on a company, with no indication of importance or significance. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:06, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GDi Techno Solutions[edit]

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

Page created by user account w/ same name. Page is written somewhat like an advertisement. Requesting feedback on article. Piandcompany (talk) 12:58, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:51, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Lainton[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

G4 was contested on the grounds that the article was sufficiently different. Regardless of which, this article still fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT, as Mr. Laiton still has not received significant coverage or played in a fully pro league. Sir Sputnik (talk) 11:32, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. As for the G4 being declined, I have issue with that - this is indeed a "sufficiently identical and unimproved copy" of the original article - if anything it's worse as it doesn't include an infobox! Giant Snowman 11:45, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:46, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per proposer and GiantSnowman Quentin X (talk) 12:09, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG Seasider91 (talk) 12:19, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:38, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article about a footballers that hasn't played in a fully professional league, or represented his country at senior level, which means that it fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Mentoz86 (talk) 22:11, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. The article meets all general and specific notability guidelines needed to have its own article. There is a clear consensus on both keeping and speedy keeping the article, as well as the assertion of its notability per the references studied. — ΛΧΣ21™ 04:09, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen (song)[edit]

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

A track from Kesha's album 'Animal' which was not released as a single. I can't see anything of substance anywhere to justify it having a standalone article - currently this is smoke-and-mirrors, sourced from various snippets from the album sleevenotes, download sites and reviews of the album. Does not meet WP:GNG. Sionk (talk) 10:36, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep and close The article clearly passes WP:GNG. The song charted, it has a music video, and there is commentary on the song and how it came about. Statυs (talk) 10:40, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Totally disagree with the nominator. The article can stand on its own since it charted and has enough information. And as per my Wikipedia knowledge all the sources are GA reliable. So, this article can totally stay. — Tomica (talk) 10:42, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then show me one review or substantial coverage about the track. There aren't any. Sionk (talk) 10:44, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Take your pick, there's plenty to go around. Statυs (talk) 10:46, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All the sources that are in the article are enough coverage. What more you want to see? — Tomica (talk) 10:46, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And which one of these sources is not a review of the album, or a brief mention of 'Stephen'? Sionk (talk) 10:48, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[24] and [25]. As Till said below, "significant coverage need not be the main topic of the source material". Statυs (talk) 10:50, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lol. That's the way it goes for all the songs that are not release as singles. See for example "Watch n' Learn, "Sins of My Father" or "Run the World. — Tomica (talk) 10:51, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. And I'm sure you agree Rihanna, Usher and J-LO are considerably more famous than Kesha. Sionk (talk) 11:03, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. Tomica said "see, for example" as an example of other types of articles that are similar. Popularity has nothing to do with it. The song clearly has notability, on the fact that it has a music video alone. Where would all this content go if it were to be deleted? Check out [[WP:BEFORE}]. Statυs (talk) 11:06, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am well aware of WP:BEFORE thankyou. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is exactly about saying 'this exists so this should too'. We need to talk about "Stephen", not other tracks by other artists. Sionk (talk) 11:12, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't answer me though. And I already explained the other part to you. Statυs (talk) 11:25, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we obviously disagree that "Stephen" 'clearly has notability'. In answer to your question, to state the obvious, if the article was deleted the content would be deleted too. Even based on the arguments in favour of keeping the article there is only enough independent reliable information for a very small stub, at best, so we would not be missing a great deal. Sionk (talk) 11:56, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS should not be an argument against showing a convention. It appears the original argument is to show a precident and not a "these exist and so this should" argument. The argument is that on the individual merits for this article, examples are… Pmedema (talk) 15:56, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep and close per WP:SIGCOV, "significant coverage need not be the main topic of the source material" — in other words the sources do NOT have to be directly about the song. It charted, there's coverage, why is this even at AfD? Till 10:47, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Gongshow ^Talk 14:54, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is coverage and source material to satisfy WP:V and WP:N. Pmedema (talk) 15:56, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep It is probably best to look at the sources themselves to see if GNG is met.

Rolling Stone interview Three sentences in response to a question.

MTV Two paragraphs in a five paragraph piece.

Digital Spy Subject of nine sentence article

Another Digital Spy piece Part of three songs mentioned in a single sentence

BBC One sentence in an eight paragraph album review

Digital Spy again Similar to the Rolling stone interview

Boston Phoenix Short sentence fragment in a short article

Music OHM One sentence in a nine paragraph album review

LA times Six words in a twelve paragraph review

MTV One paragraph in a four paragraph blog.

I don't think this clearly passes GNG like others have said, but it probably just squeezes by due to the first Digital Spy article and the MTV piece. None of the other sources provide significant coverage of the song. AIRcorn (talk) 04:52, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank goodness someone is talking sense at last. I thought I was going mad :) My take on the two more in-depth articles was that they were largely Kesha talking about the track/subject, rather than dispassionate reviews by ANOther. But I respect your input. Sionk (talk) 10:26, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So somebody is 'talking sense' when they agree with you? I would consider this bordering on a personal attack, the other keep voters have all provided arguments based on policy, so don't get pissed that other people disagree with you and consider their opinion senseless. Till 11:42, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Citing a policy with no evidence is pretty senseless. AIRcorn (talk) 13:15, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They don't agree with me. I have consistently argued for deleting this article. I've never come across so many people arguing for 'speedy' keep when the sources are not strong. Much of this article is sourced to the sleeve notes of the album, or the downloaded notes of the sheet music. Much of the 'Critical reception' section was misusing review comments about the album. The 'Music video' section is sourced from the album liner notes and a Youtube video. Two of the 'Speedy/strong keep's are based on the track charting and the fact it has a video - since when was that a criteria of WP:GNG? Sionk (talk) 12:09, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pop songs tend to attract pile on keeps. The first !vote argues for a speedy keep and close due to GNG with non-GNG rational, the second is irrelevant, the third one at least gives an argument but in a condescending way, while the fourth just asserts notabilty without saying how. I honestly thought I would be saying delete when I first read this. It is not hard to provide an analysis of the sources and the speedy keeps will get a much better response if they do. AIRcorn (talk) 13:15, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Kesha. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:01, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dirty Love (Ke$ha song)[edit]

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

This is a as yet unwritten and unreleased song for an un-named album (with no release date) by Kesha. There are various mentions online about her collaboration, based only on a tweet and photo by Ke$ha. There is one short quote from Ke$ha about a track called "Dirty Love", which makes no connection with Iggy. All in all this article shouldn't be here - it seems to be a fan page based on a tweet. I can't find anything reliable of substance online. Sionk (talk) 10:21, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Gongshow ^Talk 14:54, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Not sure whether to keep or delete, but some corrections to the nomination: The Billboard source in the article does in fact confirm Iggy Pop working with her on the song, and mentions it in the past tense, making me think the label "unwritten" probably isn't correct either. Not saying it warrants a "Keep" or anything, just throwing that out there. Sergecross73 msg me 15:05, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, thanks, it says "Iggy Pop contributed to Dirty Love". Whether everything's done and dusted we don't know ;) Sionk (talk) 15:31, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect & Merge - per WP:NSONG... Also, rename redirect without the $ per naming conventions... - Adolphus79 (talk) 15:23, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unreleased, non notable song. --Diego Grez (talk) 15:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the author is repeatedly redirecting the page to another AfD subject. Considering they are the only person who has had input into writing the article, can it be Speedy redirected to Kesha as an author request? Sionk (talk) 19:20, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete. Fram (talk) 08:16, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lucidiologist[edit]

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

Move to wikitionary. Makecat _Talk 07:34, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deleted as a hoax, Wiktionary should not be used for self-invented neologisms. Fram (talk) 08:15, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. Jenks24 (talk) 10:14, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Bricker[edit]

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

~~Removed prod. While her story is inspiring, I can find nothing that suggests notability not connected with her sister. Notability is not inherited. Fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:ATHLETE.~~ Trusilver 07:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Taking the St. Louis Tribune source into account, as well as the rather unique circumstances of the subject, I'm going to retract my position and withdrawal this RfA. Trusilver 20:17, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:21, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep or merge. Yes notability not inherited, but the story is a significant and clearly notable part to the bio of Dominique Moceanu. A separate article may be questioned, but the content cleary belongs to wikipedia. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:18, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to definite "keep", after some diligence of research. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:54, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I still fail to see anything that would suggest she has stand-alone notability. My interest was piqued at the reference to her placing fourth in the Junior Olympics. After doing a little more digging I found that she competed not in the national-level AAU Junior Olympics, but rather the regional Illinois Junior Olympics. Whereas WP:ATHLETE states that at the international-level Youth Olympic Games an athlete must medal to be deemed notable. The subject falls very short of this benchmark. You agreed that notability is not inherited, yet this would be CSD territory if not for the subject having a notable sister. And for the record and the sake of satisfying my own curiosity, I looked up fifteen random medalists in the AAU Junior Olympics (which I stress again, was above the competition the subject competed in), and none of those fifteen have Wikipedia articles. Trusilver 02:33, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Notability guidelines are ..er.. guidelines, to save time for typical arguments. This is an exceptional story here, about a person as a whole, not just a random athlete. So, what we have here so far:
      1. Multiple independent coverage from major media
      2. Verifiable information, including a chapter in a book
      3. A person without legs competes against regular ones and places high on national level
        P.S. This ref says it was actually 1988 AAU JO, not IL JO. I will dig further. (confirmed from 1998 source)
      4. U.S. Tumbling Association’s Inspiration Award
      5. Adoption mystery drama
      6. Notable sister
      Of course, each of these arguments, if taken alone, is easily defeatable, but taken nogether, it is my opinion they render the article deserving. Staszek Lem (talk) 15:59, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - I've been hunting for some kind of authoritative source on the level she competed at, and keep getting conflicting stories. I think that in her case we are looking at a journalistic version of the telephone game where each source is using the one before it as the basis for their story and over time certain facts have been misrepresented. I'm still hunting. If I can find some evidence that she actually did compete at a national level, I will withdrawal the AfD. In the case of conflicting stories, my opinion is the highest circulation source wins. (i.e. NY Times always trumps the BFE Local Tribune and Fishing Report) Trusilver 16:24, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I know what you are talking about. I believe I've found and added a credible source, dated 1998, i.e., the very year of the event. It is understandable that 2012 got chinese whispers. Power to wikipedia!Staszek Lem (talk) 17:03, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        That works for me. Nice job finding that source. Trusilver 20:17, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SNOW and WP:NOTCENSORED--John (talk) 09:53, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Meatotomy[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Wikipedia should not have pages about filthy and disgusting subjects like this. Jsar (talk) 06:54, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:59, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep and close – No policy based rationale presented for deletion per WP:DEL-REASON. This is a valid medical procedure that is sourced by three references in the article. This nomination is entirely subjective, based upon one person's opinion, rather than guidelines and policies. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:02, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per Northamerica1000. I'm getting deja vu all over again on this one.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 07:14, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball keep for the same reasons as above. And perhaps have a chat with the nominator about the idea that Wikipedia gathers all knowledge, not just Pokemon. Is it possible there are more socks operating here of the banned user who made the first nomination? Ubelowme _U ^Me 07:20, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have no idea what this procedure is about nor do I wish to know, but regardless, it is obvious due to the name and nature of the procedure that is ripe for abuse by immature people, therefore it should be kept under close watch so that graphically explicit images (which are not necessary) are not placed within the article. If somehow there is consensus to include such pictures (again, bad idea) there should be some kind of warning. I happened upon the article by chance when editing the AfD log (I thought the article was a joke at first), but if there had been pictures illustrating this procedure, it would have been a shocking and traumatizing experience. Wikipedia is here to educate and inform, not shock and traumatize, and we can achieve that goal without subjecting ourselves to such pictures. Laval (talk) 07:20, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 10:11, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mia and me List of Episodes[edit]

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

List of episodes fora non-notable show — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:45, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:43, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 06:33, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with the nominator. Non-notable, and the show itself is also. The list seems pretty messed up. TBran dl ey 17:14, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think the nominator pretty much said all that needs to be said. Zaldax (talk) 19:32, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment re notability of the show: It seems it has won an award at an international film festival [26]. 78.73.90.148 (talk) 10:30, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As it is, it is worse than a stub of stubs, direly in wait for an editor to add more data. But it does refer to some popular films, which do not have any other entry yet. --202.43.9.110 (talk) 06:29, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 10:03, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Men's Thai-Boxing at W.A.K.O. European Championships 2004 Budva -63 kg[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Men's Thai-Boxing at W.A.K.O. European Championships 2004 Budva -63 kg

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

Non-notable fill. The results are already presented in the Top Article - the W.A.K.O. European Championships 2004 (Budva) could be considered notable but not a full description of each weight class event. The other weight classes will be bundeled below.Peter Rehse (talk) 03:40, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 03:46, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

strong delete all fails WP:SPORTSEVENT. LibStar (talk) 05:12, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Pretty much per nom, the results are already listed in the main article, so there's no reason for separate articles for each weight class. If there's value to the extra information in the weight class articles, it could always be added to the main article instead. CaSJer (talk) 16:37, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all There's nothing that shows these individual weight classes are notable or have significant independent coverage. None of the divisions had more than 6 competitors which is far fewer than you'd expect for a European championship. Jakejr (talk) 18:22, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Lady Gaga. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:19, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ARTPOP[edit]

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

Merge. WP:CRYSTAL. This is basically a product announcement really. All that's know about the album is that Lady Gaga is working with producers a, b, and c, album is called ARTPOP and she's been working on it. That hardly merits its own page at the time being. --Shadow (talk) 02:37, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:HAMMER; no confirmed release date or tracklist. I suppose a merge (into the "2011–present" section of the main Lady Gaga article) or redirect might be acceptable. But at this very early stage, basically all that's been reported on this future release so far is taken from a few of her tweets and a picture of a tattoo. WP:CRYSTAL. Gongshow ^Talk 05:46, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Put down the WP:HAMMER! Statυs (talk) 11:09, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – It was just announced. Give it some time to have more announcements, please. 68.44.51.49 (talk) 16:11, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Who's to say any major information is going to come out anytime soon? A title, twelve month period of release, and some information saying she is recording and what she wants to do is not enough ot merit an article in general. --Shadow (talk) 02:58, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/possible merge to Lady Gaga, I'm aware of Wiki policies but come on, this is pretty much guaranteed to be article-worthy sometime in the future, it may not be at the moment, but there's not much point in deleting it. –Chase (talk / contribs) 20:37, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
REDIRECT An article for ARTPOP already exists and is titled Artpop (Lady Gaga album), and it is more in-depth, more sourced, longer, and better written. Either ARTPOP should be redirected to Artpop (Lady Gaga album) or ARTPOP should be deleted and the contents of Artpop (Lady Gaga album) should be moved to it. ARTPOP is gonna have some major merit in the very near future so why not leave it? PinkFunhouse13 (talk) 21:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the history here is preserved, we will need to do a history merge with Artpop (Lady Gaga album). Two articles, same topic. —C.Fred (talk) 00:22, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, the article is premature. No prejudice against a redirect to Lady Gaga. Till 02:43, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Way too early for this article to be up, either merge with Lady Gaga or put it into an incubator for now. 94.169.100.224 (talk) 17:03, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate/Merge It will likely be of importance in the future but that is hard to tell right now. I think putting it into an incubator might be best for all involved - it really would be nice to work on the article from early on. However, if not, it's only right that it be merged. It does and will continue to fail WP:CRYSTAL for a very long time. Adam 94 (talk) 17:52, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think we've got two options here. We can keep the article and have a single, curated point for information on the album to get added, vetted, formatted, and brought into Wikipedia guideline compliance. Alternatively, we can follow WP:V, WP:NALBUM, WP:HAMMER and the like and redirect this title to Lady Gaga...and then protect this page...and then clean up 300 iterations of ARTPOP (OMG guyz this is reely teh title!) as we find them. I think the former is more in keeping with big-picture principles of Wikipedia, even if we have to ignore a rule or two along the way—and maybe it will show all the Little Monsters who come to edit the article that all Wikipedia veterans and admins aren't big scary monsters. —C.Fred (talk) 00:29, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Lady Gaga. This unfinished or unreleased album has very little encyclopedic information. Early for an album article. Esc2003 (talk) 15:29, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate and redirect the title to Lady Gaga per WP:NALBUMS. The track listing and release date have yet to be confirmed, and information about the album can remain at its subsection at the artist's article for now. I do not think there is enough verifiable, reliably sourced information about the album to warrant an independent article at this time. Cliff Smith 20:53, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Unnecessary even to discuss the. Seyitahmetmrk (talk) 08:45, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Unnecessary how? Because it's Lady Gaga? That's not a valid reason to keep the page. It's about the information, sources, etc., not who the album belongs too. --Shadow (talk) 15:57, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Other artists and bands have pages for their upcoming albums. This isn't a TBD/TBA type entry.Partyclams (talk) 02:09, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Each articles should be evaluated according to their contents. The real problem is absence of encyclopedic information in this article. Esc2003 (talk) 10:12, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NALBUM. No release date, no confirmed track list and does not meet the "exceptional" requirements for unreleased material. --Tgeairn (talk) 19:55, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Random User. The more information she reveals the more relevant the article is. Don't delete it. --[[User:]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.38.160.204 (talk) 00:15, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate as per WP:CRYSTALBALL and WP:NALBUM. Seems to contain some reliable sources (I think) and shouldn't be entirely deleted. Bleubeatle (talk) 02:27, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Incubate. There isn't really enough information for it to warrant its own article right now, but there will obviously be more information in the future. Alphius (talk) 04:01, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Convoluted: I tried to close this, but then decided my editing of one of the related articles would have crossed the WP:INVOLVED line. My action in the undone close was history merge, redirect, protect. A little tough to untangle consensus here. All the policy and guideline based arguments aim for delete or merge. The ability to actually merge the material seems iffy, as the article doesn't contain a lot of well-sourced factual data that is eligible to merge. As C.Fred points out, there's a parallel article at Artpop (Lady Gaga album). So, I would install a redirect (as a portion of the merge). I'd protect the result for a few months (as a nod to the delete camp, who clearly believe that the content should not be easily resurrected). I'd history merge Artpop (Lady Gaga album) into it. Any editor that can identify any merge-worthy material is free to do so.—Kww(talk) 13:25, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No track order or release date available. No separate article warranted this far in advance. Hekerui (talk) 07:22, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 10:01, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gunjan Sinha[edit]

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

Does not pass the notability guidelines for businessmen, or the GNG. No independent sources available. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:21, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:26, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:59, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:57, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with the nominator: Notability is not demonstrated, and the only two non-affiliated source refer to one statement about the company which has dropped out of the rankings.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:50, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 06:26, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mimi Kirkland[edit]

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

Child actress who has not been the subject of in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources. The article just escaped BLPPROD because her name is mentioned in this US Weekly short article but that's just incidental coverage. Pichpich (talk) 20:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources have been added to the bio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by K-DubIII (talk • contribs) 19:36, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:56, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per TOO SOON. Article bears a striking and too-close similarity to the IMDB bio apparently written by her father.[27] She has only recently won her first film role, in a production curently filming. Career fails WP:ENT. Coverage fails W:GNG. And what coverage she does have is for one thing... making this a WP:BLP1E. While it is possible she might merit an article after her second or thrid project, for now an article is simply premature. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:47, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:57, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per [[WP:NYA|TOO SOON]. If she becomes successful in the future, an article can be re-created. In the meantime, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Zaldax (talk) 19:34, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Cute kid, but not notable yet. Ng.j (talk) 09:00, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:54, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Crossed Genres[edit]

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

A literary magazine and website that has questionable notability. After doing the usual searches, I was unable to find any sources that were not first party. I can find nothing talking about the publication in any meaningful way that would indicate notability. The PROD was declined by page creator with the argument that the length of time the publication has existed, as well as some notable contributors, were both an indication of notability. However, I disagree as neither facts alone is enough to pass the GNG without reliable sources, so I brought it here for consensus. Rorshacma (talk) 18:12, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The James Tiptree Literary Award Council recognized a story published by the literary magazine in question as an honorable mention in its 2010 award year. They have been mentioned on wired.com. Multiple articles from the Science In My Fiction blog edited by Crossed Genres have gone on to be featured as articles at io9.com. Artwork from the Crossed Genres Magazine has been shortlisted for the British Science Fiction Association Award. Two stories from the magazine were selected as "Million Writers Award Notable Storys" by storySouth. Bcseda (talk) 18:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:56, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:57, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Regrettably, I don't see sufficient evidence of notability. Having a story nominated for a prize doesn't really add notability in the Wikipedia sense, because even if it's a major award, that only goes to the notability of the story and author. We need information about the magazine, its founding, history, editorship, ownership, staff, significant incidents/controversies, what famous writers have said about it, etc, to write an article on it. Published reviews of individual issues would also be very useful. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:06, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 10:00, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sunn Leyna[edit]

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

Article has no reliable source citations and seems to have little reason to exists on its own. MrX 17:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:23, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:23, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:56, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:56, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PlasmaDragon (talk • contribs) 03:09, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Jenks24 (talk) 10:00, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Filmbank[edit]

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

Hard to guess from the essay presented as an article, but the Filmbank is a sub-section of the Dutch organization EYE, http://www.eyefilm.nl/, a filmmuseum in Amsterdam. From what I can gather, the Filmbank is a kind of repository of films viewable on the internet; there's an online shop as well. Searching for "Filmbank" is hard since there's a number of organizations with that name but I can find no evidence that this particular one received any coverage. In addition to the essay-like quality of the article (an essay on experimental film), it seems to serve as a repository for links related to experimental film and movie houses in Dutchland. Not a notable club. Drmies (talk) 17:02, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:26, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:29, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:55, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rename and keep This is an odd one, as it is effectively an article on the entire history of Experimental film in the Netherlands but has been given the over-specific title relating to one initiative. I would agree with Drmies that there is no evidence that Filmbank itself merits an article here, however if we look on the actual article content, it is an asset of value for Wikipedia. So I would propose the article be kept but renamed to a title such as "Experimental film in the Netherlands". Were it not at AfD, I'd be bold and make that change, but I'm aware that retitling during process causes problems for the closing admin tools, so I've instead noted that suggestion on the article and talk page. AllyD (talk) 20:10, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:56, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Paula Modersohn-Becker. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:21, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paula Becker House[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:55, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While Paula Modersohn-Becker may be notable, the fact she lived here doesn't make this house notable on its own, and there is nothing else to suggest this building is notable. Also the single source provided is about a street being named after Becker and only mentions the house as a possible location for a commemorative plaque Jac16888 ^Talk 15:31, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The house is opened as a private museum for the public. I think this is important enough. If I find more sources, I'll expand the article. --House1630 (talk) 17:31, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 04:22, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:51, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:12, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Paula Modersohn-Becker. If it's a museum devoted to her, it certainly deserves some coverage there. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:16, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid wasting any more of your time and that of your fellow editors, please read WP:ATA before commenting further. EEng (talk) 03:00, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a new museum. The article is easily long enough to stand on its own, & can then be sorted into Museum categories etc. The German WP is pretty strict, and has had much the same article since 2007. Johnbod (talk) 13:05, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid wasting any more of your time and that of your fellow editors, please read WP:ATA before commenting further. EEng (talk) 03:00, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:55, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious merge There are no more than three sentences in the article that belong in the encyclopedia under any heading -- and they belong in the P M-B article. EEng (talk) 03:00, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge while I don't think this discussion is wasting anyone's time, I agree that a merge to Paula Modersohn-Becker makes sense. It's possible the museum will become notable and can be spun out at that point StarM 01:26, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:14, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zweihänder (game)[edit]

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

Unremarkable not-yet-published game. No claims or indications of notability, no reliable sources, fails WP:CRYSTAL. Previously G11 speedied at ZWEIHÄNDER. MikeWazowski (talk) 02:50, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:57, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Definitely fails WP:CRYSTAL and doesn't have a whole lot of coverage - I'm struggling to find any reliable sources. Maybe worth recreating once the game comes out, if it gets some coverage at that point.CaSJer (talk) 15:45, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:54, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Unfortunately, I couldn't find any suitable independent sources for this game. It all seems to be self-promotional in nature. Regards, RJH (talk) 14:56, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I am likewise unable to find much in the way of reliable sources on this yet-to-be-released game. Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:TOOSOON with no prejudice for recreation if and when it ever become notable. Rorshacma (talk) 17:23, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 09:59, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wafi Sattar[edit]

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

Person definitely appears non-notable (BLP PROD was removed after references to IMDb, an unreliable source, were added. Per policy I can place the BLP PROD tag it back, but this will get rid of the article quicker anyways). Searching on Google Books and News for "Wafi Sattar" turned up nothing, and although a Google News archives search turned up articles, they did not appear to establish notability. Repeating the same searches in Bengali using the name given in the article (search term "ওয়াফি আযিয সাওার") yielded absolutely nothing. With no reliable sources to establish notability, Mr. Sattar clearly fails the general notability guideline and the notability guideline for people. CtP (t • c) 01:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:49, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failure to meet WP:BIO. Name is found majorly in non-rs.[28][29] The 2 minor G-news hits from 2007 are not enough to meet WP:GNG and the article contains unverifiable information, making it a failed WP:BLP. The article is at best, Way TOO SOON. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:32, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:54, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Discussion of how the article can be improved can and should be discussed on its talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 08:04, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

High throughput satellite[edit]

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

I do not believe the concept has sufficient long-term notability to justify an article - it is just an industry buzzword which will probably be forgotten as satellite capacities continue to rise.

The article could be merged - and indeed I have already proposed this, but having re-read the article it seems to have OR problems, and be somewhat lacking in third-party content and references, so there isn't much that could actually be merged, and the author's WP:OWN issues would complicate the merger process, so deletion may be a better option. W. D. Graham 06:59, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:01, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:03, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I - in line with countless sources on the Internet(e.g. this) - believe HTS - which by the way are not a concept but reality with about a dozen satellites in orbit - will have sufficient long-term notability. It is not a buzzword and despite WDGraham still hasn't understood it, HTS is not about capacity only, but about the range of applications which in contrast to traditional satellites are focussed on point-to-point services (broadband access for consumers) rather than broadcasting. WDGraham's proposal to merge this article with Fixed Service Satellite is as if someone proposed to merge the article about TV with that about cinemas. Also I consider it appropriate to categorize all HTS and therefore have already created a corresponing category which should also have a main article, which is another reason why this separate article about HTS is justified. --Cvdr (talk) 13:40, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also WDGraham's argument of my alleged ownership of the article and the resulting need to delete it is far from reaasonable. If all articles that have been started by a single author would be deleted just because nobody else has contributed to it for two three days, Wikipedia wouldn't be able to develop. AlsoWDGraham did not make any good attempt to communicate with me, obviously hasn't read the article or at least hasn't understood it and out of his limited understanding litter it up with senseless "citation required" tags. --Cvdr (talk) 14:57, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying it should be deleted because you are the only author. I considered it to be a borderline case between merger and deletion, and my initial inclination was to cleanup and merge. Your abject refusal to cite disputed statements (and claiming that I was "vandalising" the article by requesting citations) led me to decide that it was not worth my effort since you were being protective of your work, which is why I suggested that deletion would be better than a merger. I did attempt discussion, you ignored it. This is not a case of misunderstanding, or not reading the article: no matter how well an article is written, all statements must be sourced. If you do find sources, then it might be possible to merge this into FSS or another appropriate article, or keep it if notability can be demonstrated. I still don't think this is notable enough to warrant an article, and we can always recreate it in a few years if I am wrong. --W. D. Graham 16:08, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article contains far more citations than most other articles. I've explained to you that High Throughput Satellites are definied by a couple of criteria which are all listed in the article, so anybody can simply check that the listed satellites match these criteria by a click on the link to the corresponding article. In such evident cases it is not necessary to provide citations. Also you required citations for satellites like the ViaSat-1 being a HTS although the text above mentions it as such including a citation. If you start correcting articles you are obliged to do this throughly which you obviously didn't as you haven't read or understood at least parts of the short. Instead you have put in question every single word. This represents a form of vandalism. --Cvdr (talk) 18:18, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTVAND. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:56, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also there are two good reasons why not to merge this article with Fixed Service Satellite:

HTS mostly operate on the Ka band while according to the FSS article "FSSs operate in either the C band (from 3.7 to 4.2 GHz) or the FSS Ku bands (from 11.45 to 11.7 and 12.5 to 12.75 GHz in Europe, and 11.7 to 12.2 GHz in the United States)."
Further according to the paragraph FSS and the rest of the world the term FSS refers to satellites with a lower transmission power than so-called DBS-class satellites. Could you provide a citation which confirms that HTS' power output level corresponds to that of FSS?

--Cvdr (talk) 19:35, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:46, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve – This article has been expanded considerably since it's very recent creation on 19 July 2012. Conversely, Fixed Service Satellite is rather static, with no significant improvements recently. Keep per WP:PRESERVE. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:41, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:54, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Communications satellite. No need for a seperate article at this time, and it smells promotional in its current state. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:56, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability established by article's references. Merge may improve organization of satellite topics but we discussion deletion here, not merges. WP:OWN and other disputes between editors also don't belong here. Try WP:RFC. --Kvng (talk) 04:01, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Kinu ^t/_c 08:44, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of 6-passenger sedans[edit]

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

This is listcruft; that a sedan can carry six passengers is not a defining characteristic for a list or category. The old-school Wikipedians among us may recognize this page's long-banned creator; he was known for creating lists of questionable usefulness. szyslak (t) 02:42, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:58, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:59, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as over-specific list. Fair enough to have a list of sedans, or a list of minivans/people carriers, or whatever, but this list has too many problems (cars with multiple versions, cars with 3 rows of seats which are currently excluded, cars where it may not even be possible to distinguish how many seats there are, questions over whether the driver counts as a passenger, etc). If other people think this is really useful, I'm willing to change my vote. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:21, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:53, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 3-3 seating but not 2-2-2 seating? I'm offended! :P But seriously this seems to be WP:LISTCRUFT OSborn ^arf_contribs. 00:38, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A very arbitrary and random definition of what can sit six. Warren (talk) 12:58, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom. I love lists, but this makes no sense. Mr.choppers | ✎ 13:55, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No evidence of notability under WP:GNG/WP:BAND j⚛e decker ^talk 20:33, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Academy 23[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:34, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NN band fails WP:MUSIC. The only references are two reviews in zines. I'm unable to find anything in reliable sources. Pburka (talk) 13:44, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 21:31, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 11:19, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:41, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:53, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to fail WP:BAND. Zaldax (talk) 19:43, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete does not meet notability. Further I think a triple re-listing is abuse of the system. This should be considered an uncontested deletion prod at a minimum Gaijin42 (talk) 20:20, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Jenks24 (talk) 09:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New Release Tuesday[edit]

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

This website seems to fail WP:GNG and WP:NWEB. "New Release Tuesday" is a concept that seems quite common to sites offering content downloads (commercial or other) and reviews, this site just made it the name of the site. Nothing special seems to stand out that makes this site notable. BenTels (talk) 13:02, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:39, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:52, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Jenks24 (talk) 09:54, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lindeteves-Jacoberg Limited[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORP. This is the only source approaching significant independent coverage that I can find. Company reports are useless for determining notability. SmartSE (talk) 13:45, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is coverage in the Drives & Controls magazine: http://www.drives.co.uk/fullstory.asp?id=383, http://www.drives.co.uk/fullstory.asp?id=1843 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robin of locksley (talk • contribs) 15:58, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:34, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:34, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep ~~The article is a mess - in particular the references are improperly listed and not independent.~~ However there is quite a bit of coverage at Google News Archive. I added a couple of references to the article, including the fact that it is listed on the Singapore Stock Exchange; WP:LISTED suggests that we will probably find sufficient coverage. --MelanieN (talk) 01:46, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:38, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just did a rewrite for style and coherence, so the article looks a lot better now. Granted, writing style is not a reason to keep or delete, but still it is easier to evaluate an article that is properly written. --MelanieN (talk) 14:59, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:52, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Steven Pressfield. Jenks24 (talk) 09:53, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Warrior Ethos[edit]

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

There are no independent sources cited in the article and I can find no evidence of any sources that would get this through the notability guideline for books. A claim has been made on the talk page that criterion 5 is met, but I'm afraid that the author, Steven Pressfield, although he may be an accomplished author, comes nowhere close to the eminence envisaged by that clause. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:42, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 14:10, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to author Steven Pressfield. He has written some notable books, but this isn't one of them. I could find no reviews or other coverage about this book. --MelanieN (talk) 17:08, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P. S. If there is a redirect page, maybe it should be retitled as The Warrior Ethos (book), without a redirect from The Warrior Ethos. In my search for coverage about this book I found that the phrase "warrior ethos" is commonly and generically used in the military community. --MelanieN (talk) 17:12, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:38, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:52, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Loso's Way 2: Rise to Power[edit]

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

There has been no sourced content added since 2011. There is not enough information released (or current information) to keep this article alive. Delete (or redirect to Fabolous) per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NALBUMS (with a bit of WP:TOOSOON). SE KinG. ^{User page.} _Talk. 07:45, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. With no confirmed tracklisting or release date, I agree with nom that this upcoming album doesn't warrant an individual article at this time. That said, could the brief, reliably-sourced paragraph be merged into the "2010-present" section of the main Fabolous article? Gongshow ^Talk 08:12, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 14:13, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, this was certainly a case of WP:TOOSOON way back when originally created, however now it appears that ti's beginning to get coverage again - so might be worth holding off? Two from 2012-07-09: MTV, SOHH and from April this year: Hip hop DX. Nik thestoned 12:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:36, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:51, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Incubate - I agree that doesn't seem to meet WP:NALBUMS and is probably WP:TOOSOON. New sources stated above by Nikthestoned seem to imply that the album will be released soon later this year but for now just incubate it. Bleubeatle (talk) 02:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:14, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Greenlee[edit]

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

Article provides too little information to be considered a bio, only cites a page of where he may be employed and a 1998 resume hosted at CNN. Grammarxxx (talk) 02:34, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:51, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There are plenty of news and book references to Greenlee in his capacity as mayor and councilman of Boulder, his ownership of a radio station, his failed bid for Congress, and even somethings in association with JonBenet Ramsey; however, it appears that all of this brings him up to the line of notability but not over it. I find subjects like this difficult in that I'm not sure this passes the spirit of WP:GNG. I also tend to be quite tolerant of articles of former mayors, or mention of them in the various articles about cities and towns. Location (talk) 15:39, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge into an article on Greenlee Family Foundation. Without the expansion of the Greenlee Family Foundation section (which I just added a brief to the article in question), I would vote to delete this article. Bob Greenlee is more notable when he is the head of a Foundation. Expand of the Foundation info or redo the article based on the Foundation. Jrcrin001 (talk) 07:31, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:49, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As the former mayor and longtime city council member of Boulder, Colorado, a college town of almost 100,000 residents, he meets WP:POLITICIAN which allows articles on "major local political figures who have received significant press coverage". As Location points out, Greenlee has received that kind of coverage. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:56, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of coverage, even if what was in the article was a bit limited. A long time mayor of a fairly large city, a noteworthy Congressional candidate, and an owner/board member of some fairly large corporations seems like he meets notability. I've added some sources since the existing page was a big sparse, but that was a problem with the writeup, not the subject PantsB (talk) 06:23, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Boston transmitter (Lincolnshire), a properly formatted link, will be redirected as proposed The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:58, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Boston transmitter lincolnshire[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non notable transmitter, with lack of independent sources. Tinton5 (talk) 01:17, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "WP is not a directory" of transmitters. The system of which this transmitter is a part probably has an article where it could be mentioned. Borock (talk) 01:56, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:53, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- The reason is simple "low-power", which measn its is only of quite local significance. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:47, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:48, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I still say this is NN and should be deleted. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:09, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Absolute Radio#Broadcast where most of the relevant content in this article is already mentioned.--Tdl1060 (talk) 21:41, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:59, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Star Sonata[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This is a procedural nomination following the outcome of This DRV. Article was speedily deleted per CSD G4, but this was overturned on appeal. Participants in the DRV still had substantial concerns with the article, so it was relisted here. As this is a procedural nomination, I am neutral. IronGargoyle (talk) 01:41, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:45, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy keep WP:NPASR~~ No rationale for deletion, if there was no one willing to do the work to nominate this article for deletion, then there was no need to start the discussion. Unscintillating (talk) 02:55, 6 August 2012 (UTC) striking !vote as there is now a delete !vote. Unscintillating (talk) 09:40, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
consensus of the DRV was that this discussion should take place. Gnan garra 05:11, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The procedurally-started discussion ensures that there will be a discussion even if no one is willing to nominate the article for deletion. Why do we need a discussion if there is no one willing to nominate the article for deletion? Unscintillating (talk) 09:40, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The DRV discussion overturned a speedy deletion as being not valid and consensus was that an AFD was the appropriate action that should have occurred, the creation of this nomination was by the admin who closed that discussion thus the admins declaration that its a procedural nomination is correct and that by nomination "he" isnt expressing any opinion on the matter. Gnan garra 10:53, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that was not so much consensus as it was a courtesy gesture to some senior editors including yourself. The majority did not request the procedural nomination. Why do we need a discussion if there is no one willing nominate the article for deletion? Unscintillating (talk) 15:44, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep WP:NPASR I'm obviously biased being a developer on that game, but still there is no reasons to delete that article. The page is not blatant advertising and there are plenty of references and the data is accurate. Jey123456 (talk) 11:12, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
thank you for being honest in your association, this is not a vote but rather a discussion on the merrits of the topic in relation to policies set by the community what the community decides it isnt a critical reflection on yourself or the subject Gnan garra 05:11, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect for the editors above, there clearly is a rationale for deletion, which is that it's of strictly limited notability and the sources leave much to be desired. I don't see how this is a fit subject for an encyclopaedia article and although I agree with Jey123456 that it's not blatant advertising, I do think that the strong motivation to keep this piece is motivated by marketing concerns.—S Marshall T/C 11:22, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like this comment is straddling the fence with trial balloons. If you think that there is an argument for deletion as you hint, I suggest that you procedurally close this AfD and start an AfD that prepares the community with WP:BEFORE analysis. Unscintillating (talk) 22:59, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. Your position is that there's something the matter with IronGargoyle's nomination. I don't accept that at all. It's well established that deletion review closers can and do nominate material for deletion in this way, and any attempt to do the background reading to which IronGargoyle clearly links in his nomination will show you how WP:BEFORE and WP:ATD have been satisfied.—S Marshall T/C 15:57, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"No"? "Well established"? Where is the evidence? Here is where the procedural closure was added, there was no community discussion, nor IMO has the history of the procedural nomination since then shown it to be a good idea. It is always the same story–if there is no one willing to do the work to prepare a nomination, there is no need for a discussion. Unscintillating (talk) 01:13, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Someone doing the work to prepare a nomination.—S Marshall T/C 01:42, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit comment says "pfff". The nomination you point to is WP:Articles for deletion/Star Sonata (3rd nomination). It took place five weeks after six editors unanimously !voted to keep this article. As such it should have been promptly closed. The nomination states, "the article has not been improved (citation wise) since the last AFD", which is an argument from WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions:
Delete I gave them ~~six months~~ five weeks for someone to add cites, they didn't, and I have lost my patience. – ~~My Way or the Highway~~ Gone Fishing, 01:33, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
So the second problem with this nomination is that it makes no pretense to being anything other than an argument not to make. As such, third, it neither follows WP:BEFORE nor discusses WP:ATD alternatives to deletion. At the DRV, you state that you want the discussion here to be "a proper discussion", is this nomination the foundation for "a proper discussion" here?. Unscintillating (talk) 03:42, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've never had much patience with WP:ATA. It's just a laundry list of things some editors think other editors shouldn't be allowed to say in AfD discussions, and its logic is often shaky or nonexistent. Whenever I use a WP:ATA argument, you may safely assume that (1) I'm well aware of WP:ATA and (2) I'm disregarding that essay with all due forethought.
Unscintillating, do you have any objections to deletion that aren't to do with what you see as flawed processes or procedures? Do you have any fresh sources to bring to the debate, for example?—S Marshall T/C 07:08, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[Arguments from authority], this time in the guise of two questions, do not make the case that procedural nominations are "well established", nor IMO are they a substitute for a considered deletion rationale. Unscintillating (talk) 00:18, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While i would agree with you if the category were not " 2004 video games | Massively multiplayer online role-playing games | Windows games |MMORPGs in space" but they are. Those category are part of the online encyclopedia, we did not create them. So please explain to me how is "Battlestar Galactica Online" more a valid MMORPGs in space than us to only name one (there are many others i could list but i don't want to derail this post). So yea, my point is there are specific games/mmo's category on wikipedia, and i firmly believe any and all games fitting these category should be on there, otherwise it kinda defeat the purpose of being an encyclopedia doesn't it ? . Jey123456 (talk) 12:15, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Updated the page with the external links mentioned in the DRV. Jey123456 (talk) 12:57, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that argument. You have a basic expectation that Wikipedia will be consistent and fair, and that if another similar page is allowed, then yours should be. I'm afraid that isn't quite how it is; we discuss things on a case-by-case basis, one at a time, and we simply haven't got to the Battlestar Galactica Online page yet. Now that you mention it, I see that we do need to delete Battlestar Galactica Online, and I'll personally nominate it for deletion in due course. (You can read further information at WP:OCE.)—S Marshall T/C 16:46, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, i retract that argument, although your argument being that the sources are to be desired, i believe that at the very least gamespy, onrpg, gamezone would be enough independent third party sources to deserve being in the games section of wikipedia. Jey123456 (talk) 17:15, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP There are enough reliable sources to establish notability. Sure, it's an old game and hard to find new sources, but I think that for what it is we have a good amount. Ng.j (talk) 19:01, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've made the following improvements to the article's structure and content based on the do's and don'ts given in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Article_guidelines: created Development and Reception sections, removed news & review site links from External links, made player base statistics more accurate and neutral point of view, reworked opening paragraph, updated system requirements, and added references. There's more to be done, but it is a start. I suggest that editors who have not read these guidelines do so before editing the article. Thanar (talk) 23:34, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete after reviewing all the sources I'm not convinvced this meets WP:GNG the sourcing is very weak Gamespy is just a list, onRPG,com doesnt appear to standup as reliable source with editorial oversight the piece linked appears to be a blog with no editorial oversight though it is a comprehensive review, Gametunnel appears to be similar though the review is less comprehensive, gamezone posting is a blog by an annonomouse user. Additional sources are from Star Sonata which are self references, or from Reddit which isnt a reliable source. Gnan garra 05:11, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Gamezone review was actually written by Matt Eberle. I checked the review link (that I updated a few days ago when I found a non-archived version) and discovered that it omits the reviewer name, giving the impression that it is from the anonymous jkdmedia. I just reverted it to the archived review link, which correctly states that the reviewer is Matt Eberle. Matt Eberle wrote articles for GameZone, co-authored an article with Michael Lafferty, a head reviewer at GameZone, who described Matt as a “Fellow MMOer and GZ [GameZone] writer” here. Sorry about the confusion my bad edit caused. Thanar (talk) 07:57, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have been a substantial contributor to this article. I think the general notability guideline, whether "a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (WP:GNG), has been satisfied by the following 5 references to 3 independent reliable sources:

1. The GameZone pre-release article, review and developer interview provide significant independent coverage of Star Sonata. GameZone has been established as reliable in the field of video gaming per past consensus.

2. The Gamespy List - Gamespy is established as reliable in the field of video gaming per past consensus. I consider Gamespy’s listing to be significant coverage of Star Sonata 2 because the fact of being selected for such a yearly list (rather than, say, a weekly one) is significant in itself, making it "more than a trivial mention" (WP:GNG).

3. The Gametunnel review offers significant independent coverage of Star Sonata. At the time of the Star Sonata review (2005), GameTunnel had Russell Carroll as editor-in-chief (2002-2009). In one of two past discussions of GameTunnel’s reliability, Levi van Tine (t – c) noted that Russell appeared to be “an employee of a game development company, Reflexive Entertainment. Gamasutra and GameSetWatch consider him an authority on indie games, as this interview or this interview would suggest.” Also MLauba suggested GameTunnel as a reliable source because it "runs an annual independent game of the year award which has some recognition in the indie games milieu." Although some GameTunnel writers may have lacked game industry experience/education, the author of the Star Sonata review, Joseph Lieberman, worked in video game marketing. For these reasons of editorial oversight and author expertise (WP:NEWSORG), I consider the GameTunnel review of Star Sonata to be a reliable source.

The shortness of the above list suggests that Star Sonata is only minimally notable. But there is sufficient in-depth information available in these sources to write a Star Sonata article. Finally, I think certain elements of gameplay highlighted by reviewers (programmable slave AI ships and the ability to be crowned Emperor and win the MMO) supports the game's notability. Thanar (talk) 07:44, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources#List the sources listed dont have any community discussion attached to show that the community consensus has established them as reliable specifically the pages states This list is neither complete nor can it be used as definitive proof regarding a listed source's reliability determination. Additionally when you read WP:LOCALCONSENSUS participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply I reviewed each of the sources and found them questionable or outright unreliable in establishing notability. That is the same issue raised in previous AFD's the sources provided are those that have always been used to base notability, the only new source is a blog. Gnan garra 11:27, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The unanimous decision at AfD 2 and IMO the consensus view from AfD 3 made the community consensus clear that this article didn't have quite enough sourcing in 2008, and that the article should be kept in mainspace for at least six months while a search proceeded. Whether or not a source from 2012 satisfied the intent of 2008, the need for more sourcing is now answered. The G4TV source marked "blog" is from an author identified there as "G4TV Staff", so the article brings with it the reputation and legal responsibility of the organization. As per our article, G4TV is a part of NBCUniversal. Unscintillating (talk) 09:40, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: This passes WP:GNG but barely. The Gamasutra article in the references (found here) is actually a press release that Gamasutra picked up and put on their website. However, I agree with Thanar's reasoning above for the reliability of the references he cited. I also am not convinced by Gnangarra's reasoning, which was that "I reviewed each of the sources and found them questionable or outright unreliable in establishing notability", as he does not specifically cite why Thanar's reasoning is incorrect. I feel that Gnangarra must not have completely read into the reasoning behind the notability for these websites. The GameZone notability is clearly established here, and I'm swayed by Thanar's arguments about GameTunnel, the one website which I would have to put firmly on the fence. All this said though, this is a minimum, and unreliable references should be cut from the article. Either way though, I !vote for a weak keep. Nomader (talk) 14:35, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
clearly this here hasnt established anything that is one person listing, no other person reviewed the listing, no context to the list and no discussion by the community. Gnan garra 00:04, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There's enough coverage in reliable, third party sources to meet the WP:GNG. I'll concede it isn't pretty, but there's enough there to work with. Sergecross73 msg me 15:02, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Seems to pass WP:GNG as far as I can tell. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.2.132.3 (talk) 02:18, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. WP:SNOW. To be moved to Ian Wallace (ornithologist) as that seems to be what his books were published under. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:42, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

D. Ian M. Wallace[edit]

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

I first saw this article at BLPN.[30] When I searched for info on "D. Ian M. Wallace", I found children's book illustrator Ian Wallace, entrepreneur Ian Wallace, and beekeeper Ian Wallace, but not much on British birder Ian Wallace. I didn't find anything to support his being known as "D.I.M." Wallace (which is in the article). The D. Ian M. Wallace topic has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of D. Ian M. Wallace. Does not meet WP:GNG. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 01:26, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:37, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep DIM Wallace's role in the BBRC (a UK national body) alone makes him notable. I have now provided independent references including the BBC and The Guardian, as well as others calling him "DIM Wallace", one of which is the by-line on his own writing. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:39, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Bibliography alone is sufficient evidence of notability. Maias (talk) 13:08, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep DIM is a very significant figure in British ornithology. His role with the rarities committee and BWP alone would make him notable, and his books, only some of which are listed and countless articles make him a notable man of letters within his field Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:14, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Bibliography alone is sufficient evidence of notability - echoing Maias --Quiet Editor (talk) 15:37, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Move to a more conventional article name - I'm not aware of anyone who refers to Ian Wallace as D. Ian M. Wallace, and I don't believe we refer to anyone else on Wikipedia in that way. SP-KP (talk) 16:33, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge and redirect. WP:N clashes with WP:NOT here (and if not the letter of WP:NOT, then the spirit of it), and while WP:NOT trumps WP:N in general, there is nothing in WP:NOT that makes this topic unsuitable for at least a paragraph in the main Ashton Kutchner article. I will redirect the article but keep the history, so that people can merge whatever is important enough to be noted in the main article. Fram (talk) 07:43, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ashton Kutcher on Twitter[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

AfDs for this article:

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

This is a procedural relist that resulted from the outcome of this DRV. The previous AfD can be found here. Per the DRV, "participants are reminded to comment clearly on the reasons behind their policy and guideline based arguments (and/or why the arguments of other participants are not based upon policies and guidelines)." Concerns about—and defenses of—the article can be found in the DRV and previous AfD. As this is a procedural nomination, I am neutral. Baring exceptional circumstances, this discussion should not be relisted beyond the conventional discussion length. IronGargoyle (talk) 01:20, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:32, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:35, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (again) per WP:NOT#DIARY. Or perhaps more accurately, WP:NOTTRIVIA. This article provides excessive, tedious detail on what is ultimately an incredibly minor aspect of Ashton Kutcher's public presence. The article itself is nothing but a collection of irrelevant trivia, random statements with little to no context or explanation of what makes the statements notable, important or of historical value. Thus, much of the article fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Ultimately, this entire article could be condensed into a single paragraph in Kutcher's main article with absolutely nothing of value lost. And now, let the drama continue...Resolute 01:39, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- To my knowledge the process of condensing article into a single paragraph in another article is known as selective merge, isn't it? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 02:25, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If it takes this much effort to get such an obviously dumb and inappropriate article deleted, the article should be kept as a badge of shame. Formerip (talk) 01:43, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as inane as this topic may be, the references represent a veritible who's-who of cast-iron sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:46, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge to Ashton Kutcher. "Merge" because Ashton Kutcher on Twitter is the same Ashton Kutcher as elsewhere; the discussed article lacks subject and thus can't be included per WP:CFORK and WP:NOT. "Selective" per WP:NOTDIARY. Also note, per Notability policy, the "topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guideline below, and is not excluded under What Wikipedia is not." — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 02:20, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Selecting by what means, out of curiosity?~~ Huh, somehow I totally failed to parse your comment correctly, my bad. I guess I should ask, what sorts of statements would you say fall afoul of NOTDIARY, and what wouldn't? Darryl from Mars (talk) 02:26, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I believe that this discussion would be more appropriate when and if this AfD is closed with "merge" result. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 02:59, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:NOTPAPER suggests that the only policy based rationales are 'keep' or 'merge.' As consensus has previously shown, it meets GNG, it is thus entitled to the keep presumption. The sources, including two textbooks ([31], [32]) also lead to keep, as this article is about a mass media (publisher/publishing of written content) it is similar to our articles on individual blogs (it is, after all, called microblogging); twitter feeds (see eg.Shit My Dad Says); and other forms of publishing. It is thus a discrete topic, not indiscriminate, and it is not unnotable diary, or mere trivia. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:32, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS? (And WP:NEWSBLOG for that matter. Or would you call A. Kutcher a news media?) — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 02:59, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - By citing other crap exists, are you implying those other articles are, in fact, crap we shouldn't have? Darryl from Mars (talk) 03:04, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, I just cite the essay using shortcut which is more consistent with Alanscottwalker's tone regarding these articles. I didn't examine the articles he linked. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 03:12, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No. I note we have articles on various forms of publishing. A Twitter feed, like a blog, is a form of publishing. Some have their own articles because they are well sourced and the wider world is interested in what they have accomplished. Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:16, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Your statement implies that the bar is lower then other editors are trying to demonstrate. This is in line with "other crap exists", while "other stuff exists" is about enumerating items from closest common group. I would link WP:OTHERSTUFF if you mentioned Barack Obama on Twitter or ... well, whom do we have there already? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 03:21, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - No. Just the same bar. Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:26, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - That is my point. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 03:31, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- BTW, do you think that Ashton Kutcher on Twitter is not the same Ashton Kutcher as that in movies? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 03:33, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not sure I understand the question but art is different from the artist, and writing is different from the writer. Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:37, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - So you state that Ashton Kutcher is an artist IRL, but on Twitter he is a piece of art instead? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:46, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - No, Ashton Kutcher may or may not be the writer (see Washington Post Business[33]) (he may or may not be the owner, see the forward he wrote for this book [34]) but the twitter feed is written mass communication (see eg., [35],[36], [37],[38] and the other RS). Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:11, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        So you state that this feed is unrelated to Ashton Kutcher? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:03, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        We have articles about writers -- we have articles about their writings; we have articles about publishers -- we have articles about things they have published; we have articles about persons -- we have articles about works about their life; we have articles about artists -- we have articles about their art; we have articles about personalities -- we have articles about broadcasts in different medium, built around that person. All are related. So, when and why do we do so? When RS lend themselves to the study of the life of the person; and when RS lend themselves to study of a thing. The focus is different; we lose focus, and detail, and sources of knowledge otherwise. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:07, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Let's assume that calling one's twitter feed a mass media in such context is appropriate. You previously noted that this "mass media" is similar to blogs in its nature. Do you think that it is appropriate to have articles both on a blog on behalf of single user (as opposed to collective blogs, minority of which are found appropriate encyclopedic topics) and on the blogger himself? Could you please cite such case? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:54, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I assume by "appropriate" you mean within policy. The answer is yes for reasons stated by me and others. According to content fork, "related articles" are not content forks, but even if it were, such a discussion would be better suited to a well thought out merge proposal --- and in light of the current countervailing broadening proposal. This is how our consensus and our editing policy work best for article development. As to your second question, I don't know, we have hundreds of blog articles (probably because it is an older format) and many times that biographical articles. But, for example, it would seem someone could benefit from a biographical article on the first blogger, and an article on the first blog, if the reliable sources for those articles exist (it is also more likely the articles might exist, if the wiki was around then, but it was not; however, the sources may not be as varied, expansive, and deep as the biographical material, and the publication material is, here). Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:04, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, it is a weird position, given that the article in question consists of timeline trivia almost exclusively. The properly condensed version would fit the main article ideally and no need in splitting out anything is actually obvious, evident or otherwise explainable. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 02:33, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Regarding 'timeline trivia', whether that means something or not, is it the fact that most of the paragraphs start with dates that leads you to that conclusion? Also, while you did say you believe the discussion of 'properly condensing' should be left till afterwards, your arguments seemed to be based entirely on the point that such a thing is self-evidently possible, whereas I really can't see where the 85-90% of the article you propose getting rid of is at the moment. Darryl from Mars (talk) 02:58, 9 August 2012 (UTC) Don't let me get in the way of whatever you and Alan have going, of course...[reply]
        Nope, try harder. The appropriate coverage of topic would be a version of the lead, stripped of the details that are supposed to be covered elsewhere in the article, but not in the Twitter section. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:58, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Not so weird, given the sourcing, just a different perspective. With respect to article development, I thought this comment has some useful thoughts to ponder: [[39]] Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:05, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or strong merge - Previously, I've voted "delete" because of the nature of this topic. However, if only evidence proves that Kutcher uses other social media, like YouTube... Anyway, all AFDs are not cleanups. Instead, if this article must be kept, then I must propose broadening a scope of this article into Ashton Kutcher on social media. --George Ho (talk) 05:13, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my comment in the previous AfD. Nothing's changed, WP:INDISCRIMINATE still stresses that "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia". GNG is irrelevant when the article has no encyclopedic value. Till 06:18, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Nothing changed indeed; You do realize that statement still doesn't mean anything to someone else without somehow demonstrating that it isn't suitable? Darryl from Mars (talk) 06:35, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Already said it; WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Okthanksbye. Till 06:43, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We do not have clear, agreed sitewide guidance on whether "Foo on twitter/Foo in social media" is an appropriate style for an article. My personal opinion is that it is not, and that we should merge such things back to the main article—but I refuse to pretend that anything in WP:NOT or our other existing policies would actually preclude this article. WP:NOT doesn't stretch that far. Therefore, my position is keep until we've achieved a proper guideline through the normal consensus-building process, at which point it should be relisted.—S Marshall T/C 11:14, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- But there seems to be strong consensus on inappropriateness of such topics. Should we just discard it? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:14, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's not a guideline. There should be a proper RfC which is properly closed by someone independent and reaches a proper conclusion.—S Marshall T/C 20:44, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - (Later) Although it doesn't amount to a guideline, the discussion has at least now been closed. The close is not prescriptive in this particular case, saying as it does that "Foo on twitter" is generally not appropriate for an article but "there may be very rare exceptions when a person is extremely notable and/or their use of social media is extremely notable thus making it impractical to cover his/her use of social media within their main biography in adequate detail."
      The question for us to decide is therefore, could we cover Ashton Kutcher's use of twitter in his main biography without it being impractical? Clearly we could; so the correct outcome would be merge back to Ashton Kutcher. Unfortunately I can't pretend there's a consensus in this discussion to do that.—S Marshall T/C 07:27, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources such as Share This: The Social Media Handbook for PR Professionals or Television Personalities: Stardom and the Small Screen] demonstrate the notability of the topic. Those arguing against this seem mainly to present variations of WP:IDONTLIKEIT which are contrary to multiple policies. The slippery slope argument is weak because Ashton Kutcher is unusually outstanding in this field, being the "King of Twitter". Warden (talk) 12:39, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Your two big cites do not focus on "Aston Kutcher on Twitter", but rather, offer a trivial mention of him in the context of a larger topic (importance/value of a Twitter presence) that would be appropriate for discussion on the main Twitter article. For Kutcher himself, neither represents a non-trivial mention. Also, your accusation of WP:CENSOR is, frankly, ignorant as most have not said that his Twitter presence should not be noted. Rather, it has been said that a standalone article has not been justified. And really, when you get right down to it, the keep arguments are nothing more than WP:ILIKEIT, which places you equally afoul of WP:NPOV as you accuse your opponents of being. Resolute 16:03, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Kutcher is not given as an arbitrary example in these sources but appears because of the prominence of his Twitter account. The coverage appears in a wider context because these sources are books with many hundreds of pages. But we are not writing a book here and do not require exclusive coverage. Per WP:SIGCOV "Significant coverage ... need not be the main topic of the source material." WP:CENSOR seems very appropriate here because numerous nay-sayers have indicated that they find such a topic to be distasteful. You (Resolute) use lots of loaded language in your !vote, summarise your opinion as "Delete" and so are trying to expunge this material completely, edit history and all. That's censorship. Warden (talk) 16:23, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Okay, enough censorship accusations. As it is totally clear, media may think of this topic as "significant". However, meeting WP:N and/or WP:NOT is all that matters. I wonder if relisting per DRV is the right thing to do; nevertheless, I've already changed my mind. Still, this article is a bloated rehash of info about Twitter in "Kutcher" article. --George Ho (talk) 16:32, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - WP:CENSOR seems a very relevant policy, saying "Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable...". And that's the issue here. It's not that the material is false or derogatory or incomprehensible. The nay-sayers just don't want to be reading about this in Wikipedia - they object to the very nature of the material. When so many external professional authors have taken the trouble to report upon this matter, Wikipedia editors do not get to assert their own personal preferences instead. The topic is notable by virtue of its extensive coverage in numerous sources. If some editors don't like this, they should just avert their eyes and move on. Warden (talk) 16:58, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        It is not a content that some users consider objectionable. Objection goes against content forking. Why can't the whole twitter story be told at article about Ashton Kutcher? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:08, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. per Colonel Warden's comment. The references prove that the topic is notable. TBran dl ey 17:16, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep mostly per S Marshall (I don't care for the topic, but it seems to meet our guidelines/polices as they stand). I'd prefer we move the article to Ashton Kutcher on social media if it is kept however. Further, I'm having a hard time distinguishing "WP:IDONTLIKEIT" from "I don't think this is encyclopedic". I don't see a case being made that this isn't encyclopedic other than "it doesn't seem encyclopedic to me" (which is fairly weak) and "not other encyclopedia covers topics like this" which is a lot more reasonable but given the nature of Wikipedia (fast to cover topics) and Twitter (fairly new) it's not a hugely convincing argument that others won't. Hobit (talk) 17:35, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Broadening this scope must be proposed there, NOT here. --George Ho (talk) 17:51, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep/Strong Merge I'm still not so sure that this topic is deserving enough for its own article, but I won't contest that it is certainly notable. If the consensus is to keep as it, I'd support it, but overall my preference is to selectively merge into the main Ashton Kutcher article. The article could then be spun out again if it we encounter a WP:TOOLONG situation. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 19:46, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The twitter account in itself gets coverage for being a notable part of the internet, and its accomplishments, being the first Twitter account to have a million followers, and once being the most popular twitter account(for a 13 months anyway), and now has 11 million followers. Dream Focus 21:59, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Whose is this account? Whom do reliable sources attribute it to? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:14, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with fire. Trivia masquerading as an encyclopedic topic. That Colonel Warden has to resort to censorship accusations to prejudice the outcome reveals the essential intellectual bankruptcy aat the heart of this campaign. --Calton | Talk 22:26, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Because deleting it with fire is a sign of not being prejudiced, right? Darryl from Mars (talk) 22:54, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I said before that I believed this was the strongest of the celebrity on Twitter articles. These sources helped contribute to my position on the issue: [40] [41] [42]. All of these sources directly relate to Ashton Kutcher's activity on Twitter and demonstrate the significant impact that activity has had on, not only Twitter, but on broader society. My personal belief is that this article suffers from a lack of emphasis on these more important aspects of his Twitter activity. Here are some sources that just recently popped up that make the significance even clearer: [43] [44]. It appears the case for keeping this article has just grown stronger in time.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:24, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Still delete: As I said the first time, this article isn't independently notable of Ashton Kutcher himself p b p 04:00, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Why should we hold this article to a higher standard than every other article. One would be hard pressed to find sources on Willie Mays that don't place him in the context of Baseball, on Checkers that talk about him independent of Tricky Dick, the Al Gore presidential campaign, 2000 independent of Al Gore, or ale independent of beer. Notability isn't inherented, but being associated with other notable topics doesn't mean an article should be deleted, either. Two notable topics can be associated, and even overlap (one of the reasons we have categories.) WilyD 17:14, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - One of the problems here is if this particular topic has independent notability on its own. You mention Willie Mays, but The Catch clearly has independent notability on its own, even though there have been several other remarkable ball catches by Willy Mays. I could say the same thing about Billy Beer, which does have independent notability even though semi-famous people have endorsed or lent their name to other regional beers that don't merit notability or separate articles on Wikipedia. Why is this particular article necessary and why does Ashton Kutcher merit special mention in regards to his use on Twitter, as opposed to Lady Gaga (whose similar article is now deleted)? I certainly don't see any special reason why Ashton Kutcher's Twitter usage is particularly noteworthy above and beyond any other aspect of his life. This is at best an article fork for a very minor and otherwise non-noteworthy aspect of this particular person's life. What I see here is something that legitimately could be a major section of Ashton Kutcher's article (those are reliable sources). Oddly enough, why isn't there at least a hatnote to this article in the full Ashton Kutcher article? I certainly don't see problems for a full merger of this content with the main article that would violate WP:SIZE even in spirit. --Robert Horning (talk) 04:02, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - that it meets the usual inclusion guideline isn't really disputed (because it goes so far above the beyond the requirements, given the sources cited in the article. The primary argument for deletion is that the list is indiscriminate. WP:INDISCRIMINATE lists three examples: plot summaries, song lyrics, and statistics dumps, which this is obviously none of. On the more general question of "Is this indiscriminate?" - the answer is "Reliable sources say no". They cover Kutcher's use of twitter specifically, not merely things Kutcher did that happened to use twitter. (Though his foot in mouth re:Paterno is of the latter persuation). Since it meets the usual inclusion guideline, and isn't indiscriminate or trivia, it's a pretty clear keep. Merger and/or splitting could be done as makes sense per WP:UNDUE and WP:SPLIT. Kutcher + Kutcher on Twitter is about 50K, which SPLIT says is about where you should think about division, so it could go either way, and might need to change in the future. I don't know whether merger would be a problem for UNDUE or not, I could believe either position, I think. WilyD 08:21, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The WP:INDISCRIMINATE examples you have provided are just that—examples. The part being referred to is that which states "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia". Till 09:09, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Which is why I went on to address whether it's otherwise indiscriminate (and demonstrated that the answer is no). The statement "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia" could be referenced in an argument to delete any page on Wikipedia - it's a bit of a misnomer, since we have a usual inclusion standard, which nobody can even pretend isn't met here. The question is "Is this notable and encyclopaedic?" and the answer is "yes", with the only counter-point really being "Twitter is too silly to be encyclopaedic" by people who presumably imagine encyclopaedias to be academic, and academics to be stuffy (which, as an academic, I might take offence to.) Wily D 10:19, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merger won't be problem for WP:UNDUE, but the depth of this aspect of Ashotn Kutcher's coverage would and currently is a huge problem with WP:UNDUE. Merging or keeping in place, this coverage must be reduced to be in line with policy. And after being properly condensed, the content is not going to be a problem in context of size. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:04, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - why would you have a Wikipedia page for some famous person's Twitter?! Or we can keep it as a badge of uselessness and wasted time. It is absurd to me. Or how about we make a Wiki for his YouTube (if he has one, and track his views and video rankings) and one for his Facebook to note every million milestown of "likes" he gets? Noreplyhaha (talk) 10:00, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I say, next person who says something like this without making any comment about sources such as the ones I provided above, should be trouted senseless by every able-bodied patron in the thread.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 14:36, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness, there is a bunch of official looking letters to link for the only real argument for deletion, it's WP:IDONTLIKEIT. If you click on it and read, it says "Don't argue to delete something just because you don't like it", but what are the chances anyone will do that? Wily D 16:16, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Yeah, but how do those sources prove that Ashton Kutcher's Twitter is independent of Ashton Kutcher? Every single source that mentions Ashton Kutcher's Twitter also mentions Ashton Kutcher. p b p 16:20, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How do the sources about the economic policy of Barack Obama prove that Obama's economic policy is independent of Barack Obama? They prove it by the sheer number of the sources discussing his economic policy specifically. We have a large number of sources specifically devoted to discussing Kutcher's Twitter activity. Plenty of celebrities tweet, but nearly all of the coverage of that activity is little more than "x celebrity tweeted such-and-such about widgets" while this is not the case with Kutcher.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:10, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This is rather obvious: sources about economic policy of Barack Obama discuss the economic policy of the state, not those of Barack Obama personally. On the opposite, an article about Ashton Kutcher on Twitter is exactly on Ashton Kutcher in context of one of his activities. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:43, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
An idea: why have articles on autobiographies and biographical articles on the authors of those autobiographies? Surely they could never be independently notable. Darryl from Mars (talk) 23:54, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, the sources you've linked only demonstrate notability of topic, which is nether questioned nor relevant to existence of this article. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:43, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Primarily because reliable sources have taken it as a subject. When we weigh that against parade of horribles, it tends in reason to, keep. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:42, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Defer I ended up here after responding to the RfC for broadening the scope of the article back on its talk page. I've read through this discussion as well to gain more context, and S Marshall said something that I agree with: Wikipedia, as a community, hasn't decided how we are to respond to "X on Twitter" and "X in Social Media" articles in general. If "X on Twitter" articles are allowable, then this article should be too, and should remain as-is. If "X on Twitter" articles are not allowable, but "X in Social Media" articles are, then the scope of this article should be broadened. If neither is allowable, then this should be merged back into the Ashton Kutcher article. I don't think we have a clear direction here without a clear guideline as to how to handle these situations. I think there should be a broader RfC to decide this first, after which we can come back and apply those guidelines here. Arathald (talk) 02:55, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks like there already is a discussion on this Arathald (talk) 03:11, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, it looks like there was discussion on this, and now there is consensus on that. Arguably, it is not yet implemented in policy, though WP:NOT and WP:CFORK do the job. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 08:56, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - The discussion wasn't closed when I posted my comment here yesterday. Now that it is, we can apply those findings to make a better decision here. One of the points in the summary is that "There may be very rare exceptions when a person is extremely notable and/or their use of social media is extremely notable thus making it impractical to cover his/her use of social media within their main biography in adequate detail." Ashton Kutcher likely falls into that category. Based on that discussion, I think there's clear enough consensus that we should Keep this article (I would personally argue against it, but I think using that consensus is a better approach. Even if I don't really like it, this looks like the direction that the community has decided to go.) This doesn't preclude broadening the scope to "Ashton Kutcher in Social Media", but that's a separate RfC. Arathald (talk) 19:54, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - The closing admin states that consensus is that topics "X on Twitter" are inappropriate, but in exceptional cases topics "X on social media" are appropriate. This case isn't such, as the whole topic boils down to a single won race on single social media. Also note, as the closing admin note himself, he judged on then-current AfDs, so this closing comment is derived from this discussion. Still, should you read the comments themselves, there is an evident nearly-unanimous consensus that the topics "X on Twitter" are inappropriate under any circumstances. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:51, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        The closest I see to that in the summary is
        Singling out Twitter is probably unnecessary for most celebrities. Instead the topic "X's use of social media" is preferable.
        The word "most" here very strongly implies that it may be appropriate for some celebrities, and, based on my reading of comments on this topic, Ashton Kutcher is likely one of those celebrities for whom such an article would be appropriate, if there indeed are any. When I was skimming over the responses (there's too much there for me to actually go through at the time), I agree with the admin that the question was not well phrased, and leads to inherent bias in the votes. In other words, while a lot of commenters agreed that "X on Twitter" articles are generally inappropriate, very few said that they were always inappropriate, which is what you are trying to get across. Most votes did, in fact, say that in exceptional cases, such an article might be allowable. My vote is based directly on what consensus was reached in that discussion. Arathald (talk) 16:56, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break[edit]

Merge If the information is verifiable and relevent, there is no reason for it not to be at Wikipedia, but I can't find a compelling reason for this to exist as a seperate article as opposed to information at the Ashton Kutcher article. --Jayron32 03:45, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, significant coverage in secondary sources. — Cirt (talk) 21:36, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep: This is a well-sourced article with a broad coverage on the topic. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 03:53, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As the page creator, I think that this is an encyclopedic subject.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:15, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Ashton Kutcher. Most of the content of this article is trivia. Kaldari (talk) 20:15, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Ashton Kutcher. The relevant information could easily be put in the main article; no need for a stand-alone article. Just because AK has the most followers, doesn't mean it deserves its own article; maybe a section in the main article and that's it. Sofffie7 (talk) 07:33, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability doesnt transfer to everything Kutcher does, possibly worth a single sentence in the subjects article. MilborneOne (talk) 17:27, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Ashton Kutcher. Except in exceptional circumstances, I can't see any "xon Twitter" article being useful, as it's just an article that could be put into an "on Twitter" or "Social media" section. ❤ Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions ( 偉特 ) 17:50, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A trivial article covering a trivial topic. No confirmation from sources that this twitter account has any notability beyond the fan base.--JOJ ^Hutton 19:16, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per Warden. Meets WP:GNG. WP:INDISCRIMINATE is a pitiful cover for WP:IDONTLIKEIT. CallawayRox (talk) 19:51, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIARY and WP:NOT#IINFO. The topic is not encyclopedic. The nature of coverage of celebrities in the media is such that almost all aspects of their lives, even very trivial ones, will get extensive media coverage. That does not mean that all aspects of the life of a celebrity merit a Wikipedia article, which is one of the reasons why we have WP:NOT. That the subject meets the GNG is irrelevant to these considerations: meeting the GNG does not mean that something is encyclopedic, or vice versa. And before someone objects that WP:NOT#IINFO only applies to summary-only descriptions of works, lyrics databases and statistics, these are merely meant to be examples of the application of a general principle. As the policy says, The examples under each section are not intended to be exhaustive. I suppose it would be possible to do some sort of merge, but the target article Ashton Kutcher does already include coverage of his Twitter activities and a merge would have to be very selective to avoid giving undue weight to this (very small) aspect of this person's life. Hut 8.5 21:34, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What you`re looking for is、"This topic is not encyclopedic because..." Your arguements are applicable to the situation if and only if we've already assumed this is a trivial aspect. If it`s nothing more than a bare assertion of `indiscriminate, diary`; it`s far less relevant than GNG. Darryl from Mars (talk) 14:59, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please note, that per WP:N in each and every case WP:GNG is absolutely irrelevant until the subject passes WP:NOT, which is obviously not the case here. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:54, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Oh, do come off; that's ludicrous and if this were any other article you'd admit that. I call...WP:TRIVIA on Trains, excessive detail only of relevance to hobbyists. Now you're going to sit there and tell me how a nomination like that would get the article deleted, right? Obviously any arguments based on notability or relevance or popularity or whatever else may exist are tootally irrelevant as long as there's a person out there who's willing to merely -claim- the article violates something in WP:NOT, correct? The truth of the matter is, whether it's trains or Twitter, it's not really worth the slightest if you can't be troubled to justify it. It's somewhat odd that people are willing to say nothing more than 'According to this sentence in WP:NOT, some articles should be deleted. Therefore, delete this one' and honestly believe they've made a complete and logical argument. Darryl from Mars (talk) 14:07, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS again? It's amusing that if "WP:NOT" is substituted with "WP:N" in your comment, neither the reason, nor validity of this comment changes. It is absolutely logical that the article should be deleted if its subject is excluded from the Wikipedia's scope by What Wikipedia is not. Though I disagree that the article should be deleted, I see the rationale. To the contrary, I don't understand your general dismissal of WP:NOT: the page containing ";company:phone number" would also be excluded by WP:NOT, and I don't believe that there is going to be any single "keep" !vote in the discussion. This article isn't much better in this regard, as if one moved to Ashton Kutcher the several statements that belong there, this article would cover the trivia which is at very least insignificant and not encyclopedic. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:45, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Er...yes, it's perfectly reasonable that my argument should apply to both NOT and Notability, isn't it? I'm not sure you completely understood me, I was trying to explain how an unjustified argument, in general, shouldn't be given the weight you're trying to give it. I certainly wasn't arguing 'we have trains, so we should have this'. Darryl from Mars (talk) 16:27, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        So you simply reiterate the position that all these "On DATE @aplusk had N followers and it was noted by REPORTER with a COMMENT" things are not trivia? Then you probably can draw some examples of trivia which you recognize? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:50, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Firstly, let's note that 'with a COMMENT' is key, that's the whole point of using secondary sources, that they make comments on the topic. Glossing over all the significant information as 'COMMENT' is silly. Secondly, are you asking me to demonstrate what kind of thing I think is trivia? I guess something like 'he often uses multiple question marks when surprised'? A piece of information that does nothing other than exist as a piece of information, rather than relating to or having an effect on something else. kind of like 'the light-saber sound-effect is heard 74 times' would be in a star wars article, that's pretty trivia-like, no? Darryl from Mars (talk) 17:06, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        The problem is that "with COMMENT" is nothing of a key. It is just citation, which doesn't say anything about the encyclopedic value of the content that the comment verifies. And I would also note that Wiktionary disagrees with you: trivia is "insignificant trifles of little importance, especially items of unimportant information", which is the most precise description of the content of the article in question. The fact that these items are verifiable doesn't change much. And, as I noted before, WP:GNG doesn't apply in the lack of separate subject, not to mention GNG–NOT relation and WP:NOTDIARY. So the delete per WP:NOT view is quite relevant here. Still, I'm not sure that this article is eligible for deletion at all, as WP:BEFORE suggests that merge action has higher priority, and selective merge is absolutely possible here. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:29, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        You know, if you didn't really want my opinion, and you were only after another chance to say 'all this information is obviously unimportant', then I'll just have to disagree with you again. Darryl from Mars (talk) 01:50, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break deux[edit]

Keep -- WilyD's sources show that Kutcher's Twitter usage is extremely well covered by mainstream media and a great article has been written that presents it in a neutral view. I'll be happy to argue for deletion of 99.9% of X on Twitter articles if you take a random celebrity with a Twitter account and try to build an article around it. But Kutcher's twitter usage coverage is definitely exceptional. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 22:21, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This is just not enough to keep the article. As "Ashton Kutcher on Twitter" is a clear subtopic of Ashton Kutcher, per WP:CFORK it may only be kept separate if there is some good reason for that. Your statement that the content of the article in question should be condensed eliminates the last resort argument for not merging these articles. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:01, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Condense and merge When I look at an encyclopedia article I think, mmm would my great grandson in 100 years consider it an encyclopedic subject and be interested in learning about it... Unfortunately coverage in news sources has somehow become a "wikipedia must therefore cover it too". Y es you could argue it meets sourcing requirements but it still doesn't address why wikipedia actually needs to cover i as a separate article and why a condensed summary can't just be added to the biography like Justin Bieber's. Just saying.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:33, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Ashton Kutcher, per WP:NOTDIARY and above. -- Wikipedical (talk) 03:33, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This isn't trivial. Hathatehat (talk) 20:09, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge there's a difference between unacceptable WP:CONTENTFORKS versus unacceptable WP:SPINOUTS. The comments that focus exclusively on reliable sources and the notability guideline are focused on only one part of an incomplete answer. Even more important than a guideline about sourcing is our policy on What Wikipedia is WP:NOT. The spirit of the policy matters as much as the letter. The exact letter states that:

"Even when an individual is notable, not all events he is involved in are. For example, news reporting about celebrities and sports figures can be very frequent and cover a lot of trivia, but using all these sources would lead to overdetailed articles that look like a diary."

This policy of WP:NOTDIARY is itself sufficient to warrant deletion. In addition, the opening statement of the WP:NOT content section discourages articles that are assembled by a complete exposition of all details (for example, every single time that Ashton Kutcher passed another celebrity in terms of twitter followers). There are numerous other sections of Wikipedia policy that discourage this kind of "X in Y" article except under unusual circumstances. If mere sources were enough, we wouldn't need WP:NOT. WP:NOT is to say that even some articles with proper sourcing do not provide enough encyclopedic information to be treated as a separate subject. In the alternative, I would support a merge back to the main article once all the details about who passed who when are substantially trimmed and summarized (e.g.: "Ashton Kutcher had the most followers on twitter from date X to date Y, and again on date A to date B.) Shooterwalker (talk) 21:55, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a place to indiscriminately collect information per WP:NOT. The Ashton Kutcher article makes sufficient mention. WP:NOTDIARY applies. Hekerui (talk) 16:44, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's no need for another article; this is covered just fine on Ashton Kutcher. Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 01:44, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Jenks24 (talk) 09:49, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Narrative Music[edit]

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

~~Not notable, fails WP:MUSICBIO~~, previous article was The Narrative which was CSD'd 3x on A7, creator repeated removing CSD on his own articles and has been referred to AIV. GregJackP Boomer! 00:54, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:10, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The page not deleted. All article is from google. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Murilo Grillo (talk • contribs) 20:01, 5 August 2012‎
- The comment above was reverted for incorrect placement and lack of a signature early in the discussion. It seems to me better to place it properly and attribute it using {{unsigned2}}, particularly since the user is now blocked, so that his comment can be seen, for what it is worth. Simply reverting the comment of an obvious newcomer seems a bit WP:BITEy to me. DES ^(talk) 04:50, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I prod-ed this earlier, but after some research I have found at least two significant mentions in Reliable sources, now added to the Critical Reception section of the article. By the way, a much better search is: (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) -- far less overwhelmed with false positives, particularly on the 2nd and 3rd results pages of the web search. This band doesn't meet the specific criteria of WP:MUSIC but i think it does meet the genreal notability guideline, being discussed non-trivially in multiple independent reliable sources. The article creator is obviously new to wikipedia, and hasn't been listening as well as he should, but that should have no bearign on the merit of the article itself. DES ^(talk) 01:41, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to clarify, creator info and article previous deletion were not meant to be arguments for deletion, but were for general background. My argument for deletion is primarily musicbio, followed by GNG. GregJackP Boomer! 03:36, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Oh, if kept, this should be moved back to The Narrative or perhaps better to The Narrative (band). By the way, the A7 speedies were probably a mistake, as shown by the dclined speedies (twice) on this version. It may not be notable, but there are clearly "claims of significance" here, IMO. DES ^(talk) 01:46, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to The Narrative (band), following Mr Siegel's suggestions. Inclusion in Newsday and The Star-Ledger is sufficient to establish notability. Meph^talk 02:19, 6 August 2012 (UTC).[reply]
- I'm up to 5 cited sources in the article now. DES ^(talk) 02:59, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the improvements made to the article after the nomination. Enough coverage exists in independent reliable sources to meet WP:GNG and criterion 1 of WP:BAND. Name change would be the right call, as well. Gongshow ^Talk 05:12, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep – per WP:HEY, because the article is being improved with reliable sources comprised of significant coverage and per meeting WP:GNG:

Star-Ledger article
Newsday article
Newsday article

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:26, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: The article has been moved, by another editor, to The Narrative (band). I would have done this after the close, assuming this is kept. DES ^(talk) 21:00, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:14, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mathias Ibo[edit]

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

I do not think that what is asserted is notable. I recognize we have difficulty finding sources in this area, but I find it hard to imagine sourcing which would be sufficient to show notability. DGG ( talk ) 00:20, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. Lack of sources is irrelevant. --Merbabu (talk) 08:29, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:56, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:56, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:41, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:53, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is no indication this article meeat WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 12:09, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:40, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 09:47, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ZeroDivide[edit]

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

Promotional article on relatively minor non-notable philanthropy. It's been here since Jan 2009. I have been unable to find sources to show notability. DGG ( talk ) 00:51, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:N.-PlasmaDragon (talk) 02:48, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:39, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:39, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All I could find at Google News Archive was passing mentions and press releases. The article has two External Links, but they do not appear to mention the group. --MelanieN (talk) 21:13, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, seems to be a worthy cause, but clearly does not meet the general notability guideline. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:45, 12 August 2012 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 09:47, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Wu[edit]

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

Promotional article on non-notable relatively minor non-profit executive, added to wikipedia in 2009. I'm listing it here instead of Prod to call attention to it, and to the problem of older articles of this sort. I like to think that nowadays we would have spotted articles like this. The editor is no longer active, but I am checking their other articles. DGG ( talk ) 00:50, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:27, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The nominator pretty much hit the nail on the head. This is certainly an issue that needs to be tackled across the wiki, but for now this article is certainly a strong candidate for deletion. Zaldax (talk) 19:48, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete does not meet WP:GNG at this time. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:19, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, seems to be a worthy cause, but clearly does not meet the general notability guideline. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:44, 12 August 2012 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:48, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Florida sex sting scandal[edit]

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

This is WP:SYNTH, possibly to promote the blog http://floridascandal.blogspot.com/ . All of the facts given seem to be true, and they seem to appear in the sources they're cited to. Nevertheless, the way that they are put together into an article about something called the "Florida sex sting scandal" seems to be solely a creation of the above-linked blog, and does not appear in reliable sources. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:07, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted the link to the Florida Blog, i have no association with that blog, I am only trying to address a serious issue here in Florida, which is ruining many peoples lives unfairly. I have linked to numerous sources showing these stings are in fact illegal and entrapment, thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matahari847 (talk • contribs) 01:03, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia does not expose the truth. MsFionnuala (talk) 01:18, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:43, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:43, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insect bites to the genitals are certainly an important problem, but not a fit topic for WP.Just kidding. The real reason is... the whole article is classic WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, and any number of other fundamental no-nos. EEng (talk) 03:29, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Original research: this is written like a report or presentation seeking to prove a point, not like an encyclopedic article. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:12, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ. It's not like a presentation seeking to prove a point; it is a presentation seeking to prove a point. EEng (talk) 12:39, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is classic WP:OR Zaldax (talk) 19:48, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete All synth/or. unless reliable sources can be found discussing from this POVGaijin42 (talk) 20:16, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no independent and reliable sources. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. -- Luke (Talk) 23:34, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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