Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 August 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 8 August 10 August >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 14:01, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Townsend[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Eric Townsend (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is not the subject of significant coverage by multiple reliable sources (fails WP:GNG). His accomplishments are not notable as far as WP:ANYBIO or WP:CREATIVE. The article and its claims entirely lack reliable sources (because there are none). In fact, it's hard to tell what is notable about any of the claims that appear. Instead of participating in deletion discussion, a proponent of this page has simply recreated it. JFHJr (㊟) 00:15, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per previous nomination. Not independently notable in his field from the few credits I could find, and no assertion of notability in the article anyway. Should probably have been a speedy. ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ 13:31, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, failure of notability, alas. (Note that as the previous nomination ended in a WP:SOFTDELETE, G4 was declined on August 3). - The Bushranger One ping only 06:31, 16 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 00:59, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Lee (murderer)[edit]

Nathan Lee (murderer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to be notable for only one thing — that he was the last person hanged in Texas. Is that alone enough? (And why is the article at "Nathan Lee (murderer)" when there are no other Nathan Lees with articles?) Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:36, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — TPH is correct: this is not a significant accomplishment. The subject seems not to enjoy significant coverage along the lines of WP:GNG, nor have any accomplishments that actually indicate WP:ANYBIO, either. This subject is/was not terribly well-known, and being last in history for the location and method of execution is simply trivial. JFHJr (㊟) 00:39, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. The last person hanged in the United States would probably be notable for that reason, if we could figure out who that was. Actually it would be the event, rather than the person, that would be notable. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 01:40, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:PERP. No need for merge/redirect in that the title makes this an unlikely search term and everything in the article is already in Capital punishment in Texas. Location (talk) 00:43, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:PERF and WP:GNG; this is not a significant accomplishment. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:35, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not a notable person or accomplishment. Seems to be a run-of-the-mill murderer—if there is such a thing. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 01:40, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - per WP:BEFORE, if somebody can add more information about his life and crimes, it would be enough to keep. Bearian (talk) 20:56, 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 keep. The Bushranger One ping only 00:58, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

EdCamp[edit]

EdCamp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No sources provided. Not sure whether this is significant. Content is very unclear about what the whole thing is. Veryhuman (talk) 21:07, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]


This article needs work, but the EdCamp "movement" seems significant enough to warrant keeping the article. See http://edcamp.wikispaces.com/ for an example of the breadth of EdCamps. There have been hundreds of EdCamp events held all over the world and hundreds more are planned for the future. --benwildeboer D(talk - contribs) 15:23, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I just did a complete rewrite, making it clearer what these things are, and adding references. This appears to be a reasonably notable type of Unconference. --MelanieN (talk) 02:47, 9 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, The Bushranger One ping only 23:11, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep New references establish notability. Thanks for improving this article! --Kvng (talk) 03:13, 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) 03:36, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hassanain Rajabali[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Hassanain Rajabali (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The person does not seem notable and the sources do not seem reliable. More eyes needed. Anbu121 (talk me) 20:21, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt. Not enough sources for WP:GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:28, 27 July 2012 (UTC).[reply]
  • Neutral We are not experts in Shia Islam to know if he is or is not an expert in Shi'ite Islam. Many of the sources are youtube presentations. But when the Islamic Community of Afghans in Canada here invites him to make a presentation, clearly he must be a respected scholar of some degree in Islamic Shia theaological matters. --Artene50 (talk) 04:28, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. You don't need to be an expert in Shia Islam or anything else to assess a BLP for AfD. All that is needed is to find an adequate number of independent reliable sources to demonstrate the subject's notability. In this case a search of the links above shows that there aren't enough. Xxanthippe (talk).
  • Do not Delete. I know this man. He is definitely a well-known Muslim scholar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:F470:12:5:39AB:5DBD:6128:6F0C (talk) 17:00, 27 July 2012 (UTC) — 2607:F470:12:5:39AB:5DBD:6128:6F0C (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 2607:F470:12:5:39AB:5DBD:6128:6F0C (UTC).[reply]
  • Neutral Both Dan Barker and Richard Dawkins refer to Rajabali as a Muslim Scholar in their book. here
  • Weak Keep I added some independent sources to the article, so please take another look. Sources at Google News routinely refer to him as renowned or acclaimed, although some are behind paywalls. The article currently does not mention that he is a Hajji and a Shia, since Reliable Sources I found did not verify those descriptions, and he does not seem to emphasize those aspects of himself. --MelanieN (talk) 16:57, 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) 19:59, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Several reliable sources have been added. The sources reveal that he is a prominent figure in the Islamic community. Article should be kept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keyan2 (talk • contribs) 19:47, 6 August 2012 (UTC) — Keyan2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Weak delete. The Oklahoma Daily source looks reliable and in-depth, but one local newspaper story is not enough for WP:GNG for me, and none of the rest of the sources look very good. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:19, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: There are sources, but they aren't good enough (aren't strong, don't pass verfiability) to help this article clear hurtle of WP:GNG.Jimsteele9999 (talk) 01:06, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
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 23:10, 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 redirect to Great books. The addition of a hatnote can be discussed independently  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:46, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great Book[edit]

Great Book (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A dab page wherein all the entries fall afoul of WP:PTM. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:08, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I have removed the entries that violate PTM and two remain, neither of which are partial title matches; both are often simply referred to as "Great Book". Neelix (talk) 03:37, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. With only two, I suggest a redirect to Great books, with possibly a hatnote to the second one (I'm not totally convinced it's not a PTM). Clarityfiend (talk) 04:45, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Great books per WP:TWODABS. bd2412 T 20:26, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, with the addition of {{in title|Great Book}}: All pages with titles containing Great Book, and the large number of titles that a reader might be looking for, (but don't warrant inclusion in the page directly, per WP:PTM), the page serves a valid purpose. -- Quiddity (talk) 22:10, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • That would seem to violate WP:PTM, since virtually all of the titles returned would be partial title matches. Furthermore, is there any reason that information couldn't be kept at Great Book (disambiguation)? bd2412 T 14:48, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Whatever is decided, All pages with titles containing Great Book should not be added. Neelix (talk) 18:58, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I disagree. If a disambiguation page is kept (regardless of title), it should include {{intitle}} (or perhaps {{look from}} or perhaps both). These are intended to forestall the addition of partial title matches. older ≠ wiser 20:03, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Indeed. Check "What links here" for either of those templates. The vast majority of usage is on Disambig pages. It's the tool we've always used to clarify the dividing line of PTM vs DAB entry. It's in the MOS:DAB#"See also" section and has been for years. :) -- Quiddity (talk) 21:34, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • I was not aware of that note on MOSDAB. Thank you for pointing it out to me. Neelix (talk) 18:47, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • To the extent that books exist that contain "Great Book" in the title, these can be catalogued well enough at Great Book (disambiguation), while keeping the title Great Book as a redirect to the most exact match, Great books. bd2412 T 16:55, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • A disambiguation page requires at least two entries not including the primary target (if there is one) and not including the "intitle" and "look from" tools. Either this disambiguation page should remain as is or it should be redirected to Great books and The Great Book of Ireland should be linked in a hatnote there; Great Book (disambiguation) should only be created if another non-partial-title-match entry can be found for "Great Book", of which there are none at the moment. Neelix (talk) 19:35, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                  • The purpose of WP:TWODABS is to avoid taking people to an unnecessary disambiguation page when their likely target is either the redirect target, or the sole article listed in a hatnote. In that case, a "Foo (disambiguation)" page might not be needed, but it harmless to have. bd2412 T 13:20, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                    • I disagree; it is harmful to force users to click on two links before getting to their desired target when only one click is required. The link to The Great Book of Ireland should be provided on the page that is presented to users when they type "Great Book" into the search bar, whether that page is a disambiguation page or the Great books article. Neelix (talk) 00:51, 16 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. SarahStierch (talk) 05:45, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sigma Omega Phi[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Sigma Omega Phi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Very small local sorority with fewer than 7 chapters; geographically limited to Southern Northern California; not recognized by any national umbrella organization; fails general notability guideline's requirement of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", as all sources are either WP:SELFPUB or minor mentions. GrapedApe (talk) 23:07, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete—Per nom; there's no coverage in RS other than routine mentions, and not many of those. Maybe you meant Northern California?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:17, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; lacking substantial coverage by independent sources, it seems to fail the GNG. bobrayner (talk) 12:16, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I spent a little time today looking and find hardly any mention in independent sources.Fayedizard (talk) 10:41, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I did a search to see what i could find and nothing. So, this should be deleted per the lack of reliable sources. — ΛΧΣ21™ 01:46, 16 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 (nomination withdrawn with no other arguments to delete; non-admin closure). -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 21:41, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abdullah Baqui[edit]

Abdullah Baqui (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article was declined 6 times in "Articles for Creation"; This persistence makes me suspect strong WP:COI. An average MD. Besides run-of-the-mill awards, the only notablility claim is that his UNICEF allegedly based some recommendation of his research. (which may be true, but now it is original research, by the way) Which is kinda overstatement. There were A LOT of people doing the same kind of research. For example zinc was linked to diarrhea and a number of other postnatal problems at least in early 1970s (when the honored doctor was not yet). Unless there is an independent source which says that he was pioneering, not just reproducing the same study but in a different country. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:58, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • withdrawn I guess snowball keep. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:15, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, clearly meets the GNG, has received significant coverage in The Financial Express and by Bangladesh's national news agency. The latter says: "His work on micronutrient has led the WHO and UNICEF to recommend the use of zinc to reduce mortality in children with diarrhoeal disease. His research in the field of vaccines against respiratory infections has led the governments of Bangladesh, India and Nepal to introduce the HIB vaccine in their countries." I wonder whether the nominator bothered to look at the references. Per the same source, one of his papers was selected Paper of the Year by The Lancet in 2008. That seems more than just a "run-of-the-mill" award, too. The article definitely needs work, but just as definitely OR and notability are not among its problems. Huon (talk) 23:22, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • A Bangladeshi newspaper is not an expert in medicine and clearly not neutral internationally. I say zinc was known since early 1970s, and to claim that this random doctor is credited with zinc is wild exaggerration. However of course I respect opinions of other wikipedias. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:48, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are sufficient independent sources for GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:08, 10 August 2012 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep not sure why this is here. Significant coverage and press. Yes, it does need some rewriting, but the sources are definitely there. MountainMan11 (talk) 20:35, 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. Jenks24 (talk) 14:06, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SkyFireOS[edit]

SkyFireOS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No independent sources, none found (wikis and forum posts not counting); non-notable. Keφr (talk) 08:47, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:04, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:30, 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) 20:43, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Even though they may fail to be sourced now, SEAL and derivatives are remarkable as the last desktops of DOS era. Also, SEAL and its derivatives (as well as oZone and its derivs, which may have a common predecessor with SEAL) could be of interest to those preferring a graphical menu inside DOSbox or on their FreeDOS - some people are overly accustomed to GUIs... the software found in oZone seems to be simpler than that in SEAL, but some software is similar - such as labyrinth game. This may come from common predecessor, possibly a pre-Win31 desktop GUI. So, please put those GUIs in a single article. I understand immediatists, but don't fully support them - the article may be put on a "sourcing backup" wiki, but NOT deleted. Seriously, I'd rather mark the article as a work in progress and find worthy sources before saying "kick it". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yura87 (talk • contribs) 12:19, 12 August 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]
    • Note, that this is not a SEAL derivative; it is a FreeDOS distribution that either yet or (which is more likey) ultimately didn't catch up. Given its alpha status and initial release in 2010, I wouldn't advise you to attempt at defending SkyFireOS as significant part of DOS era. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:05, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep This is seemingly a work in progress. Limemine (talk) 18:46, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please elaborate. The article has been "a work in progress" since 2010 - the content has not changed substantially since then. Even if someone takes up the work, they will need reliable sources, which do not seem to exist. Keφr (talk) 10:32, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:GNG. Article does not contain any reliable third-party sources. Do not see any from Google (including News and Books) searches. Logical Cowboy (talk) 13:44, 16 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 Deleted as G12 WilyD 07:12, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kodenshi AUK Group[edit]

Kodenshi AUK Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article is written in a non-neutral POV, like an advertisement. The creator and the main contributor of the article seem have a conflict of interest on the company. The references do not establish how the company is notable, per WP:N. The article was submitted at AfC before (Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Kodenshi AUK) and its creation was declined. Wylve (talk) 20:39, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: This page is not written like any advertisement, the references are solid and the article seems pretty neutral. Please indicate which parts do not seem neutral so that it may be corrected. Dstrausser83 (talk) 20:43, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT: These articles are two totally different and totally differently formatted articles. I do believe that you have confused the articles or have not read them both. Can you please confirm what you are talking about specifically? The "denied" article is vastly different. They invented robotic opto sensors at a 50% cheaper cost than other companies, that's pretty big I'd say.Dstrausser83 (talk) 20:47, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • "They invented robotic opto sensors at a 50% cheaper cost than other companies" — you wanna speak English? That sounds like a bunch of buzzwords thrown together at random. Also, large portions of the text are copied wholesale from Kodenshi's homepage. You can not copy text from another page for the most part. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:55, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The references only provide trivial information. Please see WP:CORPDEPTH. Mere information on mergers, the resignation of a CEO, and annual announcements do not contribute to the notability of the company. --Wylve (talk) 05:29, 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 speedy deleted CSD G5: Creation by a blocked or banned user in violation of block or ban. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:57, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Giuseppe Battista Balsamo[edit]

Giuseppe Battista Balsamo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable criminal. TheLongTone (talk) 20:22, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is one of a string of similar articles by this user, all very like User:King Genovese, who also had a couple of sockpuppets going. (dodgy references, overcapitalisation, use of phrase 'immigrated to' On the other hand, the article creator did respond pdq on my talkpage, unlike KG, who maintained a strict code of omerta.TheLongTone (talk) 23:13, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Vic49 (talk) 22:55, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Vic49 (talk) 22:55, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @ Lenin & McCarthy, I did not use those sources. I loved Mafia since I was a child and my family had some strong connections to, I usually know things about the real inside of the Mob but I dont really know Sicilans very well like Giuseppe, I find he was a major figure in the Brooklyn criminal underworld. I mean to be called "The Brooklyn Godfather" then this guy deserves an article. I also dont like articles which havent been made for example: The Gambino crime family page has Caporegime's without articles made about them and looks like a blood page with the full red, thats the reason why Im here. I dont find the point on putting them onto the page when they havent got an article made about them, All these Caporegime's, Underbosses deserve articles. I try to put as much Information as I know or I can find. User:Im a mob guy —Preceding undated comment added 11:38, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:CRIME, notability is based on very poor sources as shown by the main source for this article, Balsamo. - DonCalo (talk) 01:56, 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 Stop. WP:HAMMERTIME The Bushranger One ping only 00:52, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled Mario Kart (Wii U)[edit]

Untitled Mario Kart (Wii U) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Prod removed without explanation or improvement, Future video game with no significant coverage in independent reliable sources GB fan 19:55, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Textbook WP:HAMMER, just some drooling fanboy who was wetting himself over being the first to spread the news the instant he heard it. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:34, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per CSD A7 - no indication of importance (just because its a MarioKart game does not signify importance per WP:NOTINHERITED). If not, CSD G3 as a hoax. First Mario Party 10, now this - wow... CyanGardevoir (used EDIT!) 21:39, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • A7 does not apply because it only applies to specific types of subjects and video games is not one of them. G3 only applies to "blatant and obvious misinformation" which this is not. GB fan 23:13, 9 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) • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete while It very likely that the Mario Kart franchise will not skip the Wii U there is nothing of note here yet so it is way to soon for this article. I don't see enough to even warrant a merge to the series article.--70.49.81.140 (talk) 02:33, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow Delete - There's an IGN source out there somewhere that says that the head creator is thinking of ways of how to use the Wii U for a Mario Kart game, or something like that, but this absolutely fails WP:HAMMER. Game not formally announced, titled, or anything. Sergecross73 msg me 03:03, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per above. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 18:53, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You guys dont delete this page, wait for the future — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fldljkflkfl (talk • contribs) 17:23, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Let it be known that not only is User:Fldljkflkfl the article creator, but also a disruptive editor. For instance, he's recently threatened an editor that they would be banned if they edit an article again. His talk page also suggests he's going around making other articles that are either hoaxes or being deleted right away... Sergecross73 msg me 19:23, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's also likely he tagged Super Smash Bros. (Wii U/3DS) for deletion as a knee-jerk reaction to this nomination. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 23:28, 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. SarahStierch (talk) 05:48, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of politicians of Croatian ancestry[edit]

List of politicians of Croatian ancestry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Created back in 2006, completely unreferenced since at least April 2011. Seems to fail WP:N, WP:V, and especially WP:NOTDIRECTORY, rule #7. Timbouctou (talk) 18:47, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Timbouctou (talk) 18:50, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Even if it was sourced, I don't see how being a politician AND being of Croatian ancestry is notable. Lugnuts (talk) 07:22, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I agree with the nom, at least in substance. The Croation descent categories are subdivided by the individual's nationality, which makes sense. Subdividing by occupation, less so, because it seems arbitrary to lump together anyone of Croation ancestry who became a politician, regardless of where in the world that happened. That information isn't unverifiable, but I would expect that grouping to be notable as it is not an obvious indexing method, thus making the NOTDIR #7 criticism applicable here--unencyclopedic cross-categorization, or trivia. So delete, in the absence of any good argument I can see to keep this kind of list. postdlf (talk) 13:55, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I kind of agree with the WP:NOTDIRECTORY one. Too many lists on Wikipedia. And some of these people are not directly of Croatian ancestry while others don't even have an article for themselves. Bleubeatle (talk) 07:42, 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) 14:08, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Xianyuzhao[edit]

Xianyuzhao (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm having trouble even telling what this article is about. AFAICT, it was a small geographical region that does not exist any more. It's not listed in its parent article Dingling, and I can't find any quality references to support new content. As it stands now, it's entirely unreferenced and lacking any useful content. This may be useful to flesh out in the future, if we can find quality sources for it, but at its current state, absolutely none of the content belongs here, and so the article should be deleted.   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:24, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to apply equally to Na (state).   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:27, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think we can speedy delete this under A1 or similar. (Or is that term only used for the process initiated by an editor on an article having an administrator look at it immediately?) Hello71 (talk) 02:59, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if this is an A1. The article is confusing, but it seems to have enough context to distinguish it as a topic. I just simply don't know what that topic is. The confusion could very well come from a language barrier, which another editor may find less ambiguous. You're welcome to CSD it if you'd like, but now that an AfD has started, I think that's the best bet. CSD is supposed to be off the table at this point, short of IAR.) Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 04:21, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Article appears to be a translation of zh:鮮于趙 220.231.34.3 (talk) 08:22, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unintelligble to the point of being unable to make out what it's supposed to be about. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:23, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for many of the above reasons - total confusion and lack of citations etc seem to make this just irritating to decipher and perhaps in the future, but..not now. SarahStierch (talk) 06:30, 16 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. SarahStierch (talk) 05:49, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It Takes Two (2012 TV series)[edit]

It Takes Two (2012 TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Series won't air until November 2012, and so is precluded by WP:CRYSTAL. No citations indicating this has received any media attention whatsoever.   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:13, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. TBrandley 18:15, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. TBrandley 18:15, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As of now, it doesn't have any WP:RS available, so I guess its a WP:CRYSTAL. Recreate in October/November. TBrandley 18:19, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 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 deleted by Jimfbleak as G11: unambiguous advertisement. (Non-admin technical closure)Ymblanter (talk) 07:41, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Salman bin Abdulaziz bin Salman bin Muhammad Al Saud[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Salman bin Abdulaziz bin Salman bin Muhammad Al Saud (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability is not inherited. No indication of notability supported by sources in article. 1st ref is a blog (not a reliable source, 2nd ref has 2 photos of subject but nothing in narrative, appears to also be a blog, 3rd/4th refs are a blog or forum, 5th is an article (unsure if reliable or not) that mentions that he sponsored a horse race. CSD'd G11 and reintroduced, autobiography. GregJackP Boomer! 17:35, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 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. SarahStierch (talk) 05:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Guinane[edit]

Thomas Guinane (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:40, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Military achievements fail to be notable and are unreferenced. Clarityfiend (talk) 17:28, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Routine military service as a sergeant does not make a person notable. The article is unreferenced, and it is unlikely that reliable, independent sources can be found. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:57, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not routine military service but recipient of the Military Medal. However that is not sufficiently notable as it's a third level award. Kernel Saunters (talk) 11:05, 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. Closed early per WP:SNOW. I've also blocked the article creator for spamming.  —SMALLJIM  12:17, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Time Boss Parental Control[edit]

Time Boss Parental Control (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:39, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unremarkable software. No indications of notability, references are questionable/promotional. MikeWazowski (talk) 16:50, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Had a search round, but couldn't find anything in reliable sources that asserted notability. Of the existing references, I think anything that says "Network edition of famous award-winning parental control" without saying what the award was, combined with a tenuous grasp of English, is about as reliable as the gasman turning up to read my meter at the actual time he said he would. --Ritchie333 (talk) 19:48, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I did the initial prod of this article, about which I wrote: Non-notable software. I looked, and couldn't find any verifiable and reliable independent third party sources with significant coverage. That's still the case. Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 21:38, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as spam. The "external reviews" are really just ads written by the software's publisher on various sites. The article author's edit history indicates that he might be related to the software's publisher, as he has published only article's about their products. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:40, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:37, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in the lack of independent reliable sources. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:42, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - none of the refs provided meet the standard of reliable 3rd party coverage, so no indication of notability, created by an SPA as likely promotional.Dialectric (talk) 00:42, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Editor seems to have COI issues. Limemine (talk) 18:49, 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 keep. SarahStierch (talk) 05:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Graphito[edit]

Speedy Graphito (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:37, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:38, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of notability or importance. Qwerty Binary (talk) 16:45, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery representation seems substantial even if limited to just the one gallery I can find just now. I'd be tempted to "Keep" the article. Also a source called "PR Newswire" lists Speedy Graphito among "Five of the Best Urban Artists for 2012". Bus stop (talk) 18:03, 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 keep. SarahStierch (talk) 05:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

JonOne[edit]

JonOne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:35, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:36, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Granted, as a graffiti artist and painter, it's somewhat difficult to establish yourself, there is essentially nothing on "JonOne" that establishes him as a noteworthy individual. I thus nominate this article for deletion on the basis of a lack of notability. Qwerty Binary (talk) 16:45, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep – This person passes WP:BASIC per the sources above presented by User:Cavarrone. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:17, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep as passing WP:BASIC per the sources presented by Cavarrone. Nothing else to note. — ΛΧΣ21™ 01:51, 16 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 06:22, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2011 India–Pakistan border incident[edit]

2011 India–Pakistan border incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:26, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:27, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:28, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:29, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

None notable border skirmish fails WP:GNG Darkness Shines (talk) 16:00, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:GNG and WP:NOT#NEWS, Nothing to state why this incident is notable enough. --DBigXray 16:32, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per DBigXray. Shots only allegedly fired, no apparently casualties, and no significant news coverage or WP:PERSISTENCE. --BDD (talk) 16:35, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • which I have CSD A10ed.--DBigXray 20:54, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which I have deleted as a housekeeping mop-up. No opinion on the substance of this AfD. Bearian (talk) 22:09, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are no strong evidences that this incident happened. So, I think there should not be a redirect. --Anbu121 (talk me) 10:34, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am afraid there is nothing to merge here per WP:INDISCRIMINATE--DBigXray 12:03, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirects are cheap, but they are used when there is a possibility of readers searching that title. Given the media coverage this incident got, and in fact whether this incident happened or not, I think deleting is the best option here. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 11:59, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also note that the article is an orphan; we don't need to worry about incoming links, so a redirect only makes sense if we think this is a likely search term; I don't. --BDD (talk) 16:24, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Incident? Such a vague term. Why do you want it to be a redirect? Also there might have be hundreds of "incidents" on the vague place "border", of this nature or other. Should we have redirects for all such? Check this news article. "Nearly 21 ceasefire violations have taken place this year followed by 51 cases in 2011, 44 cases of ceasefire violations along the LoC in Jammu and Kashmir were registered in 2010 and 28 were in 2009." Should we make 144 redirects for all these dates? Like 11 August 2012 India-Pakistan border incident and 7 August 2012 India-Pakistan border incident and so on?? §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 21:18, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above reasons. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 21:18, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above reasons. Bharathiya (talk) 09:06, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and merge the citations - it appears to have happened, but is minor enough that 1 or 2 lines should be added, while keeping the two citations in the main article. Bearian (talk) 20:54, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Would you please respond to my above comment against redirection? §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 21:13, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above. Not meeting the basic criteria for inclusion. Not enough information to showcase notability. — ΛΧΣ21™ 01:50, 16 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. SarahStierch (talk) 05:52, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Borce Ilievski[edit]

Borce Ilievski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:25, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of notability as a coach. Qwerty Binary (talk) 15:53, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I can't even tell if the clubs he's coached are top tier, but even if they are, the Icelandic Basketball League is not inherently notable. As far as I can tell he's a run of the mill coach. Jrcla2 (talk) 19:42, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Jrcla 2 is looking for Breiðablik_UBK, which is a multi-sport club. I don't know if they're in the Icelandic Basketball League; the article only covers their football (soccer) teams. But if they are, they're notable. That doesn't mean the coach is notable, though, per WP:NOTINHERITED. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 19:41, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Jorgath's comment above. No presumption of notability for Icelandic basketball league head coaches; fails to satisfy WP:GNG. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:05, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Jorgath above. — ΛΧΣ21™ 01:50, 16 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. SarahStierch (talk) 05:53, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Genari[edit]

Michael Genari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unable to find reliable, secondary sources which verify or establish the notability of this actor. j⚛e deckertalk 15:26, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unable to find significant coverage in any reliable sources. J04n(talk page) 02:03, 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 Speedy deleted as copyright violation. Fram (talk) 14:36, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clare Munn[edit]

Clare Munn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional article about a run of the mill business person Harry the Dog WOOF 14:31, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deleted, copy from [1]. Fram (talk) 14:36, 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 redirect to KTMW#Original programming. In the future, please remember that redirecting a page that has an open AfD is a no-no. The redirecting is done as part of the closing; redirecting first is both blanking and removal of the AfD tag from an article at AfD, and is, therefore, against deletion policy. The Bushranger One ping only 06:17, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Polygamy: What Love Is This?[edit]

Polygamy: What Love Is This? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

For more than 3 years, this article has been unable to demonstrate evidence of notability, has been unable to meet verifiability and reliable sources requirements. Reference 1 is Self-published. Reference 3&4 are not directly related to the show, nor is it mentioned, but the person and Ministry running it. Only Reference 2 has anything to do with the show itself, and it is only WP:ROUTINE local coverage.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 14:10, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, the article creator Eli Macs has made only 19 edit since the pages creation. A full 75% of which were on the article itself, adding links to the article on other pages, and adding links to the "Ministry running it". I would suspect this article is a Self-promotion.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 14:26, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --BDD (talk) 16:37, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Merge and redirect. I did a search on the show and there's just not enough sources out there that are reliable, independent, and show a depth of coverage. The sources in the article that aren't primary tend to discuss the ministry more than the show and even then there aren't enough sources to show notability for the ministry. (I checked to see if an alternative would be to create an article for the ministry.) Their aims might be honorable, helping women escape from polygamist households that are abusive, but they just aren't notable enough for an article.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 16:39, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge verifiable content to KTMW#Original Programming per WP:ATD. I agree it doesn't appear notable; I do not agree that deletion is the appropriate policy-based outcome. Jclemens (talk) 16:52, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing vote to merge. Redirects are cheap and some mention of this on the station's programming section wouldn't be a terrible idea. I'm ashamed that I didn't even think of that.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 17:15, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with at merge. As Tokyogirl79 says "Redirects are cheap"--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 17:25, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I added the information that is on Polygamy: What Love Is This? to KTMW#Original Programming. It would be appropriate on KTMW#Original Programming in any case. So this page can be "Redirected" at any time, if that is the consensus. I have no objection.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 17:53, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since two of us don't mind and you (the nom) endorse this option, all that we need is an admin to close this so we can redirect the article.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 18:20, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm fine with this outcome, but it does seem to be a case where people resort to merging as polite alternative to deletion. ARTEST4ECHO, I appreciate the work you did to KTMW#Original Programming, but look at it now—why does "Polygamy" merit this sort of detail that the others shows don't have? It seems likely to be removed at some point. Deletion is appropriate if a line of mention on KTMW is sufficient; merging is appropriate if "Polygamy" deserves more coverage but not a standalone article. We can agree to disagree if you believe the latter. For now, it looks like we're just feeding the WP:SPA. Closing administrator, please don't let my editorializing get in the way of an expeditious outcome. --BDD (talk) 18:33, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The solution to imbalance is to bring the other stuff up to the same level of sourcing, IMHO. Jclemens (talk) 19:40, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • BDD, I am fine ether way. My issue has always been that the article fails notability, verifiability and reliable sources requirements. While I don't mind a merge, I don't mind an outright deletion, ether. I have just never seen a justification for having an article on this program, while others, both on the same station and hundreds of other station, don't have articles. However, I don't know enough about KTMW to "bring the other stuff up to the same level of sourcing" as Jclemens so wisely suggested.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 13:09, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I just noticed. KTMW#Original_programming has been expanded, just as suggested by Jclemens, by 208.81.184.4. Unless BDD has other issues that we can work on, then I see no reason to not merge these pages.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 13:23, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's really been done already, hasn't it? All that's left is to make this article a redirect when the AfD is closed. I think this would be an appropriate case for an early closure. --BDD (talk) 16:11, 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. There is a clear consensus that the subject is not notable. The question of whether the article should be merged, redirected, or deleted was trickier to judge. I did not find the arguments for any of these positions particularly compelling, and so I am basing my decision to delete purely on the number of editors who recommended it (six "deletes" versus two "merge/redirects"). — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 17:06, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Muhammed Qasim[edit]

Muhammed Qasim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

On a living Guantanamo prisoner using an opinion piece and primary source as reference and tagged for multiple issues since 2009. Fails WP:BLP1E, WP:NOTINHERITED, WP:BIO. There are no secondary sources to claim notability of the subject and the citations used are WP:PRIMARY sources (WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 84#Reliability of US military summary reports) DBigXray 14:00, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as an individual the subject does not appear to pass WP:BIO or WP:GNG.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:24, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-notable due to lack of "signficant coverage" in reliable sources per WP:GNG. Anotherclown (talk) 10:41, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Another Guantanamo article which fails the notability guidelines. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 13:40, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Afghan detainees at Guantanamo Bay. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:03, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 August 17 for the reason why this AfD has been re-opened.—S Marshall T/C 23:16, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am now growing seriously concerned about these nominations.

    Geo Swan is one of Wikipedia's most active editors with many, many articles to his credit, and reading the DRV will show you that the repeated nominations of things he's written, all by the same user, are causing him to feel distressed and demoralised. For whatever reason, DBigXray is going through systematically destroying Geo Swan's entire corpus at a rapid rate. When I raised my concern about the effect this was having in the past, DBigXray strongly took offence at my words and made a number of quite virulent accusations against me.

    It is accepted that not everything Geo Swan has ever written complies with Wikipedia norms, but in my opinion one editor should not be allowed to wipe out another editor's entire corpus. Please read Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Geo Swan for the history that underlies this.—S Marshall T/C 23:22, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yeah, and this constant haranguing has been going on for years. I'm impressed that Geo has persevered. -- Kendrick7talk 00:44, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I take the opposite view: Geo Swan has created a large series of articles on Guantanamo Bay, many (most?) of which cover individuals whose only claim to notability is that they have been imprisoned there. It appears that his motivation for doing so was to highlight how horrible this all is (and, from what I can make out, I think that I actually have similar views to him on the morality and legality of Guantanamo Bay). He was asked to clean up these articles as part of the RfC, but has failed to do so. As a result, there's now a clean up operation underway, and I commend DBigXray for this. Claims that "one editor should not be allowed to wipe out another editor's entire corpus" are not justified by the process through which these deletions are being handled (consensus-based AfD discussions), not to mention the concerns raised in the RfC. Nick-D (talk) 01:49, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • At a rough count, you've nominated 65 articles written by Geo Swan for deletion in the last month. I asked you whether you were on some kind of cleanup crusade. You said you were "very offended by this" and described it as a violation of WP:CIVIL. I explained my concerns, and you then called my concerns an "assumption of bad faith", which it is not. You have consistently been angry and accusing with me when I raise this, and it's quite apparent to me that you do not wish to discuss it. My position remains that 65 XfD nominations on the same editor in the same month is totally unreasonable, and may constitute wikihounding.—S Marshall T/C 08:40, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moved discussion about this deletion discussion to the talk page --62.254.139.60 (talk) 08:26, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • And moved back. The closer should read this.—S Marshall T/C 08:28, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As someone involved I think you should have left it alone someone else would have undone it if it was needed, the appropriate place for discussion about the deletion discussion is the talk page. Your attempt to sideline the discussion away from the article but onto people is not something I'll edit war over, but I think this attempt to poison the well is frankly disgusting. If you believe that people feeling upset should be placed in front of building an encyclopedia, then he can take that discussion to the appropriate place, not individual AFDs. AFD is not dispute resolution --62.254.139.60 (talk) 08:36, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually I've just decided that the appropriate place for this discussion is AN/I.—S Marshall T/C 08:43, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Link Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Geo_Swan_and_AfDs
  • Merge somewhere. BLP1E and GNG do not mandate deletion, not in general, and not in this case. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:04, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per BLP1E Nick-D (talk) 01:49, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a BLP issue. Wikipedia places no limit on the amount of another editors articles that can be listed for deletion and indeed it shouldn't, and article not appropriate should be removed no matter who is listing it. --62.254.139.60 (talk) 08:37, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is one specific WP:BLP issue that you see with the content? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:06, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per lack of significant coverage by secondary reliable sources. Manifestly fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 13:22, 18 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, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:35, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Fable[edit]

Golden Fable (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject of article is not notable. Qwerty Binary (talk) 12:35, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as the band in not notable, and has no sources to indicate otherwise. The sources present in the article already are not reliable sources as they consist of things such as blogs and local coverage. I have tagged the article as a Speedy in the hopes of closing this early. Rorshacma (talk) 17:21, 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 delete, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:35, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Floods (band)[edit]

Floods (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails to establish notability; perhaps, in an absolute sense, non-notable. Qwerty Binary (talk) 12:35, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as the article makes no claim to notability, and multiple reliable sources about the band do not exist. Rorshacma (talk) 17:24, 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 Keep. — ΛΧΣ21™ 01:56, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

State Socialism[edit]

State Socialism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

duplicate page of state socialism made by using lower case letters. editors have suggested one is otto bismarck, and the other not, yet he appears prominent in both pages. many of the sources for both pages use uppers, or lower case not aligned with the specific article cases. Darkstar1st (talk) 11:30, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The term "state socialism" may refer to different things, which justifies separate articles, per WP:DISAMBIG. The social welfare policies developed by the German Conservative Party in the 1870s and 1880s are a different topic from the economic policies developed by Communist parties in the 20th century. The first btw is normally capitalized, italicized or parenthesized. It could be that one of the articles should be trimmed so that it covers a discreet topic. TFD (talk) 14:35, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The distinctive Bismarckian system, which raided some of the ideas of the international socialist opposition in order to undercut and fight it, was indeed known as "State Socialism." That is what this article is about. It is the object of extensive scholarly study and meets GNG with flying colors. The other piece is a general article on the concept of State Socialism. The current piece needs to be retitled, that is all, and a disambiguation link placed at the top of the piece on State Socialism In General. Carrite (talk) 15:06, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - There is something wrong with the code on this particular AfD, which automatically duplicates itself in two places on this page. Can somebody fix that? Carrite (talk) 15:14, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - As to titles... Perhaps a change to State Socialism for the "State Socialism in General" page (including the caps) and changing the piece in question here to State Socialism in Germany? Carrite (talk) 15:14, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • We need a clearer distinction in the titles. What about "State Socialism (Germany)" and "State socialism" with a hatnote saying not to be confused with State Socialism (Germany)? (My reading is that there are only two concepts.) TFD (talk) 16:39, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep along with hatnotes, or a dab page. Bearian (talk) 22:10, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Bismarckian state socialism is a notable and well covered topic although, as per Carrite, some solution regarding disambiguation needs to be arranged, most likely with this article being moved and the general article holding the generic title. Keresaspa (talk) 00:44, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keresapa, or any of the above keeps, what is the major difference between Bismarckian state socialism and state socialism, and how does that justify it's own article instead of a section on the articles page? Darkstar1st (talk) 01:30, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bismarck's State Socialism was social welfare policies developed by the German Conservative Party in the 1870s and 1880s, while state socialism refers to economic policies developed by Communist parties in the 20th century. TFD (talk) 03:37, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
that's weird, the 1st source for State socialism is websters, the second was written in 1873. Darkstar1st (talk) 04:24, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Websters defines "state socialism" as "an economic system with limited socialist characteristics" and says the first known reference was 1879.[4] That certainly includes Bismarck's policies. However it does not appear to describe Communist states in th 20th century that had more than limited socialist characteristics. We should be relying on books about political science not entries from abridged dictionaries. The second reference (from 1873) does not use the term "state socialism" but describes "statist" tendencies in Marxism, which would influence the type of socialism that Marxists would impliment when they achieved power in the 20th century. TFD (talk) 14:04, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
exactly, two poorly sourced articles in place of one article and a section on how Bismarck was different. Separate articles are for terms like mercury( element/planet, not different shades of state socialism, as it is refered to in BOTH articles references and NOT in the case reflected. Darkstar1st (talk) 14:53, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, a better analogy would be one article on the general topic Communism and another on Economy of the Soviet Union. Carrite (talk) 15:46, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
agreed, will you put in the request to change the name to economy of bismarckyz germany? Darkstar1st (talk) 17:01, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Carrite. These are two different things and they're both important and they don't belong in the same article. The name thing is unfortunate and should be fixed immediately after this AFD closes as keep.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:01, 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. SarahStierch (talk) 05:55, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Carles Gil[edit]

Carles Gil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Deleted by PROD back in November and recently re-created by the same editor; nothing has changed, this player still fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 11:12, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 11:13, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As pointed out in the nomination, not much has changed since the last deletion. This article still fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 11:23, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do NOT delete - Creed7(talk) 13:30, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Sources:

http://www.elchecf.es/noticia-primer-equipo/carles-gil-se-suma-al-proyecto-del-elche

http://www.elchecf.es/noticia-primer-equipo/carles-gil-voy-a-darlo-todo-por-el-elche-y-voy-a-dejarme-la-piel

www.goal.com/en-us/news/88/spain/2012/07/22/3258677/valencia-4-0-rodinghausen-guardado-features-in-preseason-win

  • Delete – of the sources presented above, 2 are primary and 1 has got questionable reliability and minimal coverage on the player. Nice try, but still fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. – Kosm1fent 13:48, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - meets WP:GNG with articles such as [5], [6], [7], my gosh, there are many others recently too. Nfitz (talk) 21:30, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All of this is routine transfer news, which is insufficient for notability under WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:47, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously Nfitz shows poor understanding on what constitutes non-routine coverage. – Kosm1fent 07:43, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - article about a footballer who hasn't played in a fully pro league or represented his country at senior level, which means that it fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Mentoz86 (talk) 22:23, 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 No Consensus. Although the article meets the general notability criteria, there are several concerns over several other notability guidelines that this article may not meet, and were named by the voters. As a still-ongoing event, this may or may not meet the inclusion criteria in the future, but by now, there isn't a clear consensus on wether to keep or delete the article. As this discussion is going nowhere into finding a clear decision, i'm closing it as no consensus. — ΛΧΣ21™ 02:17, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disappearance of Tia Sharp[edit]

Disappearance of Tia Sharp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

another disappearance of a child story. Clearly WP:NOTNEWS LibStar (talk) 11:10, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Even though WP:NOTNEWS is one of the most fake guidelines on Wikipedia as Wikipedia in fact is news I have to agree that this girls disappearance has not becomed notable. Perhaps in a few months time. Lets see.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:13, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
However if someone can convince me otherwise im open to change my stance. As in these cases new developments can happen fast.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:21, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's why WP:NOTNEWS was deprecated into a soft redirect. We have news, sure enough, but we're not a newspaper, so incidents like this probably don't make the cut. --BDD (talk) 16:40, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. BabbaQ (talk) 11:29, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - too many people have edited the article for it to be a G7. I apologise for my summary. I am an ass. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 15:04, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good thing I checked here before making an ass of myself on your talk page. I should explain, though, that at the time I placed the G7 tag on the article I believed that none of those other editors had made substantive changes, which meant it still qualified for G7. However, after taking another look at it, this edit that I had written off as vandalism was probably good-faith (but misguided and likely a BLP violation) and therefore disqualifies the article from G7. —KuyaBriBriTalk 15:33, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Edited my post but kept my delete opinion in place as the keep arguements here have not solved the issues at hand - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:05, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. A bit iffy (talk) 15:14, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well actually the story does not lack WP:PERSISTENCE as it has been covered by multiple media every single day since it happened. Also persistence of a article/story can not be evaluated after a week. But still.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:50, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, that's a bit WP:CRYSTAL on my part. I'll just say very few such cases achieve persistence. This is WP:TOOSOON at best. --BDD (talk) 18:06, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep generally when there is this much fuss in the media, and this much coverage, something more than just a 'missing child' has happened. Veryscarymary (talk) 19:14, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep more sources by the hour, meeting notability requirements by now. Egg Centric 20:34, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - I actually have to agree that the case is in fact recieving a huge amount of media attention and as Egg Centric points out the sources keeps coming. Notability requirements are met. WP:GNG are met and definitly also WP:PERSISTENCE per persistent media coverage of multiple media. I have been convinced.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:18, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A search on Tia Sharp disappearance, gave 539 000 hits on Google about the same amount as Joanna Yeates another highly notable disappearance and unfortunate (in that case) murder, at the beginning of the search etc.. And I know certain users will point out that Google is not reliable when it comes to searching on a persons name but it is still a great indicator of notability.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:23, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Questions: Do four stories over 24 hours indicate persistence? Has anyone found additional sources from the past 48 hours? Can we discuss this for a few more days? Bearian (talk) 22:14, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You know very well that we are talking about the overall persistency of media coverage. But an update is definitly needed with the multiple new developments and sources that are available I agree. Have you yourself tried to find any sources for the past 48hours or are you just awaiting deletion? Because they are all over the place. And yes we can discuss it for a few days, as this Afd will be up for atleast a week.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:17, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy incubate  There is no deadline at Wikipedia, and wp:notability here is not stable.  This could use a bold admin to move this article out of mainspace to the incubator for one or two weeks and give a specific date when it will be returned to mainspace WP:NPASR.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:01, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That will make it be recreated constantly and also confuse a lot of would be editors. It's completely anti a collaborative editing environemnt. Egg Centric 23:26, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with user Egg Centric incubating this article is unproductive. Yes indeed this article needs a bold admin who gets this article kept for now so the article is available for all users to edit. This is the Joanna yeates AfD deletion discussin in a flashback it seems.--BabbaQ (talk) 08:32, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't pretend to understand the previous two comments, we don't need bold admins keeping articles, and an article temporarily incubated for one or two weeks is not "re-created constantly".  Unscintillating (talk) 22:56, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • We don't need admins, bold or otherwise, doing anything. We need Wikipedia editors to engage in discussion and arrive at a consensus. 146.90.141.14 (talk) 23:19, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Below in your 23:52 10 August statement you argue that sources are still being written.  What kind of discussion and consensus do you want to have about articles that don't exist?  Do you agree that we don't know the future?  Unscintillating (talk) 02:26, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course sources are still being written. That is true of hundreds of thousands of Wikipedia articles. I want to have a discussion about this article, which does exist. Yes, I agree that we don't know the future. My argument is that this article meets all of the criteria that an article needs to meet in order to be included in Wikipedia. 146.90.141.14 (talk) 12:01, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • And yet your !vote below uses the future tense "will" five times.  What is to be gained in keeping this debate open and the article in mainspace while editors discuss that which we agree cannot be known, when we can temporarily move this article to the incubator while events continue to unfold?  Unscintillating (talk) 15:33, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm using the future tense to argue that coverage will outlive "a single relatively short" news cycle because we are still arguably within that cycle. I can't write that the article has outlived the cycle if we are still in the cycle. By your argument, no article should exist until that first news cycle is over. That is not the current policy, and if you want to make it policy, the place to put the case would be on the policy page. The reason that the article should be left in mainspace while editors discuss it is that that is the policy. We have the deletion discussion, and when the discussion is over the article is kept or deleted, depending upon the result of the discussion. By your argument, every article listed on AfD should be incubated until the discussion is complete. 146.90.141.14 (talk) 15:48, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As per our policy at WP:NOT, "Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories."  Your first edit as an IP on 2012-08-06 shows you commenting about a dead link, why are you editing while logged out?  What accounts do you have on the English Wikipedia?  Unscintillating (talk) 17:11, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You've misunderstood the policy. A newspaper report is not a first-hand report. That was not my first edit as an IP. It was my first edit as this IP. Whether I'm editing logged in, logged out, or swinging from the chandelier is none of you business. How about we continue the discussion of this article and wp:AGF? 146.90.141.14 (talk) 17:28, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See also WP:Articles for deletion/Serene Branson and the following DRV.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:33, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Of course there are lots of sources, and they are accumulating by the hour - it's a live news story. What else would you expect? And how does that make it a topic that needs to have an entry in an encyclopedia exactly? There are far too many pages of this sort about one-off incidents of no enduring or substantive notability, however tragic they might be. Let's not have another. This isn't, indeed, a newspaper. N-HH talk/edits 13:24, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, for those citing WP:PERSISTENCE, here's what that part of the notability guidelines actually says - "a burst or spike of news reports does not automatically make an incident notable. Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article." N-HH talk/edits 13:31, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So your reason for deletion is that there are too mamy articles of this kind? A faulty reason at best and very speculative. One could argue about the newspaper reasoning for days but in the end Wikipedia is built on news why else do we use sources from other "news" sources for million and million of articles?. I dont buy your reasons for deletion a bit. Sorry.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:06, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is like I would argue that we shouldnt do articles on sports people because we have too many of them. No matter how notable they are. It is just a non-reason for deletion.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:07, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't understand my reasoning, it's probably best not to comment on it rather than try to fill up yet more space on this page underneath everyone else's comments by misrepresenting it, even if unintentionally. My reason for arguing for deletion was not that "there are too many articles of this kind" - it is because I think pages like this have no place in an encyclopedia that I think there are too many of them. You have it back to front. And the reason I thik that, in turn, is explained in the very quote I supplied but which you have happily ignored. And no, Wikipedia is not "built on news". Using news sources - along with others - to derive content for articles about notable topics is one thing, deciding a topic is notable simply because it has been in the news is another. N-HH talk/edits 15:41, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the time being, following fresh developments in this case. Paul MacDermott (talk) 16:13, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. I just have a feeling that certain aspects of this case will keep it in the public eye for some time. If that turns out not to be the case then it can be deleted later. Melishe (talk) 17:21, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:SPECULATION. Also, feelings have no place on this page. Please take them to http://www.feelings.com/. Only automatons with hearts of stone may operate in this jurisdiction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.103.196 (talk) 18:12, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Very funny. Perhaps rather than nitpicking at the words I chose, you could focus on my opinion itself. I think that while we are unclear as to the lasting notability of this topic, it should be kept, added to, and then reviewed again. I think this is the most straightforward and logical option. Melishe (talk) 12:01, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While the case is undoubtedly tragic, it's impossible to assert encyclopedic significance at this stage. It's not so unusual or iconic (yet) that it is likely to have a lasting impact on the public mind - it's not in the same category as (e.g.) the Murder of Jamie Bulger. N-HH's comments above are broadly correct. Prioryman (talk) 18:25, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you own a crystal ball? Because all you write is about the future and pure speculations.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:24, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It doesn't need to be unusual, iconic, or to have a lasting impact on the public mind. It needs to meet Notability, and it does. 146.90.141.14 (talk) 23:52, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The "crystal ball" argument works of course against keeping, not against deleting, since if we don't yet know - as we obviously don't - we haven't yet established that it will have a lasting impact. Someone saying that it is unclear wherther it will have a lasting impact is stating the obvious and rather clearly, one would have thought, not speculating in the same way as someone who claims it will, and that hence we need the article to stay. Equally, simply asserting that "it does" meet notability requirements already doesn't do much to illuminate the issue. N-HH talk/edits 10:41, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete as an article "created on flimsy, transient merits" per WP:RECENTISM. There is very little information in the article to suggest this is notable or historic in any way and it does not seem to be a very obvious or prominent case like Disappearance of Madeleine McCann (I have not heard anything about this at all, even on the news, before finding this discussion). Wikipedia cannot have pages for every single missing 12-year-old London schoolgirl.
  • Also the article has been moved to Murder of Tia Sharp and filed under Category:Murdered English children, despite the lack of actual evidence that the child, if she exists at all, is even dead, never mind murdered, only that "a body" has been discovered. The tag "UK-crime-stub" is also prominent despite no indication of any crime being committed (nobody seems to have considered that the child could have run away or been killed by falling down a hole or out of a tree or window). Serious BLP concerns are indicated here. Somebody should sort it out. ASAP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.103.196 (talk) 18:27, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems like purely speculations by an IP. To compare the Madeleine McCann case to this one is like comparing appels and oranges. If you havent heard of this case at all you can not be considered one to likely know if this case is notable or not. because I and everyone I know have heard of it and it is the main news on all British media and has also been reported in other countries. You have only unfortunatly made it even more clear that this article is notable. I rest my case.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:24, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is a reasoned interpretation based on available data. Bombardment by 24-hour news media and your close connections to/emotional involvement with the topic does not constitute notability. It is a terrible thing that a child has disappeared but this also does not constitute notability. Your status as a "named user" with an account does not constitute a capacity to determine notability either, or to dismiss valid criticisms by "anonymous users". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.103.196 (talk) 21:36, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The event is notable because it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Coverage of the case will almost certainly meet the persistence criteria because it will last beyond a relatively short news cycle. If the man in custody is charged, there will be coverage of subsequent legal proceedings. If he is not charged, there will be coverage of the continued search. Questions are being asked about the efficacy of the police operation; those questions will result in yet more coverage. 146.90.141.14 (talk) 23:03, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All very sad, but there's nothing about this case that is especially significant. There has been a lot of media attention, but there's no indication it will last beyond a relatively short news cycle.--A bit iffy (talk) 23:18, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • A girl is missing, possibly dead. A man is arrested on suspicion of murder. The missing girl and the arrested man spent a night alone in a house. The police have found a body in that house. The body had not been discovered during 3 previous police searches of the house. And you don't think there is any indication that coverage will continue beyond a relatively short news cycle? 146.90.141.14 (talk) 23:52, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd have to agree with A bit iffy. What 146 has stated may or may not be true but this is no indication that coverage will continue beyond a relatively short news cycle. Little girls go missing and die all the time all over the world. Men are arrested all the time all over the world. Police search for bodies all the time all over the world. This is one of the things police do. It is a sad fact of life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.107.17 (talk) 20:07, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Significant coverage in reliable sources independent of subject: [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]. Several national UK newspapers, as well as some Irish sources have covered it. Autarch (talk) 02:09, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think discussions of this sort are inherently subjective: developing events like this often won't satisfy WP:NOTNEWS or WP:EVENT, but there's little point in deleting them if it's clear they soon will. In this case I think 146.90.141.14's logic is sound: it's hard to see the story dying down anytime soon, so coverage will go beyond a short news cycle (as required by WP:PERSISTENCE). I could be wrong though. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 03:14, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Many news articles have been created about this case, and I think it's important enough to be kept in enwiki. --Olli (talk) 05:07, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Have any encyclopedias covered it? WP is an encyclopedia, not wikinews. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:14, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage in encyclopedias has never been part of Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 11:57, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikinews exists for a reason. This is it. If, in five years time, this has proven to be as prominent a case as, for example, Murder of James Bulger, Soham murders, Disappearance of Madeleine McCann, etc. there is nothing to stop someone creating it on Wikipedia. Going "missing for 8 days" is too little time to determine notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.107.17 (talk) 20:12, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This case has significant traction and is very likely to become a significant murder case. I think it should remain. ICabrit (talk) 09:17, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"very likely to become" That's just the problem - NOTNEWS and CRYSTAL both apply. Bring it back if and when it does, and when there's more to write about than a speculative news story. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:35, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Granted, yes it is a problem currently and yes, in my view the page should not of been created until there already was enough significance to create the article. Perhaps the page could be deleted and then re-added at that time, although I feel should be kept for now. ICabrit (talk) 09:39, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well I "feel" it shouldn't be kept. And others do too but they are able to say why. By that logic, our feelings cancel each other out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.107.17 (talk) 20:33, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to resolve your issues with the word "feel" before you look at this page again - it's been used several times, and I don't want you to get yourself upset. ;) Melishe (talk) 08:27, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are now issues as to how the investigation was handled (see here), which suggests a fairly strong reason why we should keep this. There is going to be more coverage, not least a potential police inquiry into their conduct. Paul MacDermott (talk) 09:42, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But that's just begging the question. What makes a possibly mishandled disappearance/murder investigation encyclopedia-worthy? Yes, it's newsworthy - as evidenced by the sources we have - and yes there's likely to be more news coverage as the investigation continues and any trial or inquiry takes place, just as there is for many other murders, accidents and violent assaults. Fine, if it all leads to a formal and major overhaul of national police procedures of lasting significance, or if we find out the Duke of Edinburgh was involved, we have a worthy encyclopedia entry of historical note. If not - and until then - it's not clear we do. N-HH talk/edits 10:27, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Our arguments need to be based on policy. Whether or not you or I feel it is "encyclopaedia-worthy" is irrelevant. It is notable, and that's all that counts. It doesn't need to be of historical importance, or to result in a major overhaul of policing in the UK. 146.90.141.14 (talk) 12:17, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do all murder cases lead to an investigation of police procedure? I don't think so. Do all our murder case articles cover issues that have lead to a change in the law? Probably not, but the vast majority have longevity in one sense or another. The truth is there are now aspects of this case which make it more than a mere run-of-the-mill murder inquiry, and we have a lot of media coverage. I think it may have been a little early to start this article, but as the days progress it's beginning to satisfy our guideline. Paul MacDermott (talk) 12:27, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Saying "it's beginning to satisfy our guideline" indicates it doesn't. Maybe it will in future, but that's not an argument for retention.—A bit iffy (talk) 13:35, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly, but it could also indicate that it's just over the threshold, which is what I giess I actually meant. Paul MacDermott (talk) 14:39, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@IP: my argument is based on policy, as per my previous comment, which actually quoted specific provisions. I didn't specifically cite a policy this time round, no. The fact that you linked to the guideline page while simply asserting, with zero explanation, that "it is notable" doesn't magically make your comment, by contrast, become "based on policy" rather than "what ... you feel", or give it any more force than mine. And sorry, but I still don't buy that police cock-ups or a brief burst of coverage make something notable in any enduring sense. And that is what guidelines say -
  • "it takes more than just routine news reports about a single event or topic to constitute significant coverage" ... "a burst or spike of news reports does not automatically make an incident notable. Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article". N-HH talk/edits 13:32, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well then, we both missed each other's more detailed explanations first time round I guess. Now we've each seen them. Anyway, again, the facts about the case no doubt make this story especially newsworthy and give it some longevity in terms of news coverage. Of course it will receive further coverage and "analysis" - quite a lot I suspect - and I have never denied or doubted this. But again, they attach to and are concurrent with the event itself, or the series of sub-events - the disappearance, the death and any subsequent trial or inquiry. Hundreds or even thousands of years later, people still write books and ruminate on the importance of the Egyptian Pyramids, the Norman Conquest and the Assassination of Abraham Lincoln. More closely related, people still do discuss the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann, while events such as the killing of Damilola Taylor, Jamie Bulger and Stephen Lawrence have become genuinely iconic - unfortunately - and/or have been the driver for significant subsequent changes, long after the coverage of the deaths per se has faded. Will anything like that apply to this case? Until we know that it does, we should be wary of creating lengthy "encyclopedia" entries about what are basically news stories, albeit temporarily high-profile ones. N-HH talk/edits 14:15, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're raising the bar far too high. The article satisfies the notability criteria. From your statement above, it's clear that you feel that it will outlast "a relatively short news cycle", and if that's the case then it satisfies the criteria. It doesn't need to be iconic, have a longevity measurable in millennia, or an impact comparable to the Lawrence case. 146.90.141.14 (talk) 15:20, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No I'm not. Obviously I'm not asking for 1000s of years of coverage and analysis - those first cites were of extreme examples, to make the point. Plus when you refer to the news cycle point, you are a) quoting a section sub-heading, not the substantive guidance, and b) selectively quoting it. Even that headline does not say "any media coverage beyond a short news cycle [and that alone]" is sufficient to satisfy the notability criteria - it says "Notable events usually receive coverage beyond a relatively short news cycle", which is a rather obvious truism. What the actual text of the guideline says there, again, is "a burst or spike of news reports does not automatically make an incident notable. Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article". So, what we need is coverage that goes beyond the event itself, or sequence of events, and analysis or discussion following on from it. We have that with the Lawrence case, which is still regularly mentioned and discussed in significant sources on its own terms (ie "iconic") and in terms of its consequences and implications (ie a driver of wider change). We do not yet, by definition, have that here. We have a news event/story, with uncertain prospects. N-HH talk/edits 15:51, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Does that facetiousness apply in a country that is more than 92% white? Nick Cooper (talk) 18:47, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You've seized on the "white" bit but you've ignored the "young", "upper-middle class" and "woman or girl" bits. So yes it does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.107.17 (talk) 20:18, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Upper-middle class!?!?!?!?!?!? Is that a joke? Have you read ANYTHING AT ALL about the family? Egg Centric 06:42, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Whereas you've seized on the "upper-middle class" bit but have ignored the "young" and "woman or girl" bits. --86.40.101.83 (talk) 18:56, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Agree with WWGB.Boneyard90 (talk) 14:11, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Recent developments mean that this is no longer a "disappearance" story, and it is now top story across most UK media sources: BBC News, Sky News, Daily Telegraph, Daily Mail, Daily Mirror, etc. And, alas, also that it will now meet the WP:PERSISTENCE guideline. -- The Anome (talk) 15:05, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This applies more to events and not people, other than her disappearance and possible murder what is Tia known for? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:30, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So an English child goes missing and BBC News, Sky News, Daily Telegraph, Daily Mail, Daily Mirror, go to town. I doubt the same standards would apply if an Australian/Cambodian/Congolese/Irish/Mexican/Uruguayan girl went missing and was featured across the 24-hour local news media where they lived.
It does not matter it seems that Tia is only notable for her death I see no coverage outside of that scope. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:42, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I was responding to The Anome's assertion that the coverage they cited would make this notable. I don't believe it would either.
Placed WP:BIO1E as she is presumed dead. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:49, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable case not just for murder and disappearance but for Police mishandling of the case.Blethering Scot 16:29, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, several family members initiating a huge search and then being suspected of (in one case, charged with) involvement in her actual disappearance. This aspect of the story has resulted in various comparisons to the Shannon Matthews case in the media. This is why I think it to be a notable enough case for Wikipedia. Melishe (talk) 08:27, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- BBC reports the discovery of a body. When the identify has been confirmed in the press, this will need to be renamed as the Murder of Tia Sharp. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:29, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
BBC reporting the discovery of a body does not make this notable. BBC (and other media outlets across the world) regularly report the discovery of a body. Wikipedia is not a cemetery. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.107.17 (talk) 20:28, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep -- rapidly-devloping and widely-reported case with ramifications far beyond the disappearance/murder itself. Nick Cooper (talk) 18:47, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again other than the possible murder what news coverage does Tia have? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:09, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: that's beside the point. The article is about the events surrounding the disappearance, not the person. -- The Anome (talk) 22:24, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion which has nothing to do with the actual AfD process. Should be continued at talk pages if necessary.
What "ramifications"? Vagueness personified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.107.17 (talk) 20:30, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First of all IP86.40.107.17, learn how to sign your comments. Secondly it is not your job to question every single Keep sayers opinions at this AfD. Especially when you are at the verge of assuming bad faith and also on the verge or personal attack against Tia Sharp in some of your comments. Also it is your first day it seems on Wikipedia, and i would suggest you taking sometime to actually read the guidelines of notability. --BabbaQ (talk) 20:34, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am quite familiar with the guidelines thank you very much. And, no more than anyone else here, where have I personally attacked Tia Sharp? My comments have been completely respectful. This is a discussion about the Tia Sharp article, not Tia Sharp. I think you could do well to remember that yourself.
Sign your comments. Be respectful and don't assume bad faith. And if possible please don't answer back to every single Keep sayer if you don't have justifiable reasons for it such as a clear guideline mishap or similar. Otherwise it will probably just be seen as an annoyance and disruption of the actual AfD discussion. End of discussion from me.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:52, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have been entirely respectful. Please back up with evidence any more of your outrageous claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.107.17 (talk) 20:55, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are removing my comments to you at your talk page so I don't see much reason to spill time providing the evidence that is clear when checking a few of your contributions at this AfD. As you will only revert the edits and leave a grumpy/bad faith assumption edit summary. Also a AfD discussion is not the place to continue a meta-debate.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:21, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Significant coverage beyond that of a typical murder. - hahnchen 22:53, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Reading WP:N/CA, it reads The disappearance of a person would fall under this guideline if law enforcement agencies deemed it likely to have been caused by criminal conduct, regardless of whether a perpetrator is identified or charged - this is a disappearance and a body has been found in one of the family houses. (Although it isn't relevant under that rule, a suspect has been charged: [17].) Autarch (talk) 03:22, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What WP:N/CA actually says in more detail, emphasis and comment added ... "As with other events, media coverage can confer notability on a high-profile criminal act, provided such coverage meets the above guidelines and those regarding reliable sources". N-HH talk/edits 09:41, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - all very sad, but as this story has developed away from the blazing publicity of last week that the poice actively create when searching for a lost chid, this is now simply coming down to a non-notable murder of an innocent 12 year old by a serial criminal. WP:NOTNEWS would easily seem to cover this, something for WikiNews pages but not an encyclopedia article. Rgds --Trident13 (talk) 03:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sad but run-of-the-mill disappearance/murder of which there are hundreds around the world every day. Only if this case results in changes in law or procedures as in the Soham case, or some other lasting impact, will it become notable. Otherwise, this one is no more notable than the others that quite rightly don't have articles. Harry the Dog WOOF 10:30, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please see also WP:CRYSTAL we can only go on what we have now and I dont see enough notability here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:35, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I understand WP:CRYSTAL - and I'm not suggesting speculation, just the facts to be recorded of the case as they happen. if we are talking about notability, then there are millions of articles that would need removing based on the fact that I personally have not heard of the people involved. this is not a WP:LOCAL issue either, as the media sources cover the whole of Europe with much more to come. Christophermiller1981 (talk) 11:14, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is that those cases (and Bulger, most obviously) had encyclopedic significance for the novel precedents they introduced to the UK legal system. This case so far appears to be nothing of the sort, just another tawdry domestic murder where yet again an adult in a position of family authority turns out to be unfit as such. This has happened before, no doubt it will happen again. This is obviously regrettable morally, clearly a news item, but what encyclopedic importance does it have?
It's possible that this case will yet throw up some encyclopedic significance, maybe a change of police practice on conducting searches for bodies. If and when that happens (per WP:CRYSTAL), then we might create such an encyclopedic article. However we're not yet at that point, nor do events so far indicate that we will be. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:04, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're setting the bar much higher than the policy does. You're assessing the article using your own criterion of "encyclopedic significance", making no reference at all to policy. In my view the article meets the requirements of wp:notability, and so it should be included in Wikipedia. This is event is now part of the collective consciousness of millions of people. 146.90.141.14 (talk) 13:10, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you are setting your "bar of significance" much too low. Boneyard90 (talk) 13:14, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to argue from policy. I just have the impression that in these kind of discussion people tend to argue from gut-feeling instead of from policy. It doesn't really matter where my bar of significance is; it's where the policy's bar is that counts. In my view, policy says that this article should be included. As a matter of fact, personally, I detest the way any kind of gruesomen event automatically finds its way to the top of TV bulletins and newspaper headlines, but the fact is that they do. Many people will remember this event, even if only dimly, for a long time. If they want to looki it up in WP a few years from now, then I think should be able to. Also, there is a possibility that collation of this kind of material might be of genuine interest to people conducting research. 146.90.141.14 (talk) 13:37, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The policy I'm following is WP:NOTNEWS. I see nothing in this story as yet going outside news coverage. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:14, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
wp:notnews gives as examples of things not to include "things like announcements, sports, or celebrities". This article clearly doesn't fall into that category. It links to wp:Notability (events) which says,
Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards (as described below)...It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable.
The case has clearly had widespread national coverage, and the lasting effects are yet to be seen.146.90.141.14 (talk) 16:50, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, despite a murder is itself hideous, an encyclopaedia is not a newspaper. If we were talking about the murder of JFK (for example), then it would certainly be encyclopaedic. But, who is going to remember this murder in the next centuries? Eynar Oxartum (talk) 13:17, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not in centuries time, but perhaps in decades time. The murder of James Bulger (1993) and the murder of Rachel Nickell (1992) are both still high-profile and known of by millions of Britons. 188.29.144.41 (talk) 14:14, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Though those cases were unusual (the perpetrators' age in the Bulger case, and the bad police practice in the Nickell case). There was also tabloid demonisation in each case, as perhaps there has been in the Tia Sharp case, but it was in a much greater scale.—A bit iffy (talk) 15:53, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not a run of the mill murder case. These may have minor coverage in the national media, but this has headline coverage in the national media, which makes it notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:11, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Which is more than can be said for this case, which also has its own WP page and is also currently up for deletion, and which might be of interest to commenters here. I guess the fact that the deletion discussion there has seen fewer eyes and contributors than this one is evidence in itself of the relative notability/interest of each case, in the widest sense of the terms. N-HH talk/edits 17:35, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE! A major investigation is brewing... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maria Ashot (talk • contribs) 17:37, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Wikipedia shouldn't be a place for every missing person that makes the news to have an article about them or their disappearance. Also, this case hasn't the notablity of say the Murder of Sarah Payne or the Soham murders, which had international coverage. This seems very localised. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 20:04, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. At the risk of teaching my grandmother to suck eggs, I'd like to ask whoever closes this RfD to note that many of the delete comments compare this case to very famous murders (Bulger, Lawrence, even Lincoln) and conclude that this case not being notorious as those is an argument for deletion. We should be deciding this discussion by reference to policy, not by comparison to some of the highest profile articles in WP.
This case has had huge national coverage in the UK, and I don't think anyone is arguing that the article doesn't meet the general notability guidelines. Several people have mentioned wp:notnews, but nobody has pointed to specific bullet points within it. Nobody has described exactly how or why it fails wp:notnews, which specifically states that editors should develop articles on significant current events. We can't yet know what future coverage the article will receive; WP:PERSISTENCE covers this difficulty and states, "That an event occurred recently does not in itself make it non-notable". Similarly, wp:Notability (events) states "This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable".
Some editors have referenced Missing white woman syndrome, an article in article space, with no connection to WP policy. A close reading of that article reveals that Professor Provost, et al, are not saying that cases such as those of Sarah Payne, Milly Dowler [and Tia Sharp] receive too much attention, rather that cases such as those of Damilola Taylor receive too little. Some have said this a "run of the mill" murder case. Well, whatever such cases might be, I'd have thought the arrest of Tia Sharp's grandmother on suspicion of her murder would mean that this case isn't one of them. 146.90.141.14 (talk) 13:52, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The point about the Bulger and especially Lawrence cases, for example, is that they had significant ramifications above and beyond the killing itself. People citing them are not ignoring policy and guidelines, but are merely pointing to them as an example of the bar that is reasonably expected for inclusion in an encyclopedia that aims to be more than a round-up of court and crime news reporting. Arguing by reference to example as to how to interpret rules is quite normal and quite instructive. As for those guidelines (and they are guidelines btw, not policy) ..
  • NOTNEWS indeed says: "editors are encouraged .. to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events". It then goes on: "However, not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia" and, later, "most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion". It also says: "Wikipedia does have many encyclopedia articles on topics of historical significance that are currently in the news", suggesting that "historical significance" matters when it comes to evaluating the notability of "topics .. that are currently in the news".
  • PERSISTENCE says: "Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article". This event - the disappearance, apparent murder and subsequent trial - is ongoing, so of course we still have ongoing coverage, and we have not yet fulfilled this requirement. Yes, the guideline says, as does EVENT elsewhere, that recent events are not necessarily non-notable. No rational person would expect it to say anything else, and no one is using recentness specifically as an argument for non-notability. However, saying it might not be non-notable is not the same thing as saying it is notable. As proof of notability, the guideline calls for "further analysis or discussion" or, for example, the event to be "cited as a case study in multiple sources after the initial coverage has died down".
Determining notability for current events is always going to include some element of prediction and the unknown, but with some things we can exercise our judgment and ability to spot the obvious. If Barack Obama were assassinated tomorrow, we would of course create an entry for that, even though at this stage we would be wholly reliant on news reports, because it is so clearly going to be an event of historical note that will be subject to "analysis and discussion" for years to come. With "ordinary" crime and killings, it is much harder to tell, and surely we should be waiting until we do know that it will be such an event - based on the rules set out in our guidelines - before creating articles that essentially round up, as I say, crime and court reporting. N-HH talk/edits 15:11, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • To pass WP:EVENT, the event would need Significant national or international coverage is usually expected for an event to be notable. While this had coverage during the news-spike, nothing beyond replicated PA News releases ever made it outside the UK & Ireland. The apperance today of the main murder suspect via video to the Old Bailey presently doesn't make the frontpage of BBC News. I find this story very, very sad, and if there is a story that will in time be encyclopedic enough then its probably around the activities of the authorities and the prepratator. But as an event it presently doesn't pass the required criteria for inclusion. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 16:15, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • But that again tends to hyperbole. Nobody is saying that WP should be a "a round-up of court and crime news reporting". To characterise the keep argument in those terms misrepresents it. This story was on front pages and at the top of news bulletins for days. It surely is not the kind of article wp:news warns against: "announcements, sports, or celebrities". And you're back with assassinated presidents :) If every article has to be as notable as the assassination of a US president, then we're going to end up with a very small enyclopedia.
A fundamental difference between the way we're seeing this is that you want to wait a period of time (how long?) before we create the article. I believe now is the right time to create it. And I believe that wp:news tells us to do just that: "editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events". Following the route you want to take, we would have to wait until the article is no longer current before creating it. All of the policies acknowledge that is often very difficult to know at the time of an event whether or not it will have lasting impact, and all of them say that that is no reason not to create the article. 146.90.141.14 (talk) 17:09, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that's a key difference - while notability/significance is not clear, we should indeed hold off. Plenty of murders from way back waited long enough for their WP pages to be written. My point is that until we know it is "significant", with the benefit of some perspective, or can make a fairly sure guess, we should not be building it. The alternative, once we accept there is currently a debate and an element of the unknown, is to allow people to expend time and effort on it, only to delete it five years down the line if it becomes clear it will not be significant. The point about presidential assassinations was not that these are the only killings that merit inclusion, but as an extreme example of one we would immediately, from the off, know did merit it. Equally, the "announcements, sports or celebrities" exceptions are cited in the guidelines as being "examples" of the kind of "newsworthy" reporting we don't need standalone pages on. I've always read that as taking the obvious extremes to illustrate the point. It's definitely not written as being an exhaustive list. And @Trident, I struggle to comprehend a delete for this page and keep for the Carole Waugh one. I don't think currently either qualify, but this case at least has genuinely seen front page and top-of-the-bulletin coverage, often for successive days, and a plausible case can be made that it is now, or likely will be, thought of as a major/significant murder case in UK history. The Waugh case pops up on the inside pages occasionally when there's any new development and is unlikely to ever be thought of as such. N-HH talk/edits 17:41, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now, and reevaluate in, say, a month. We cannot yet tell if coverage will die out, or if it gains as much prominence as the Soham murders. cmɢʟee☎✉ 17:25, 15 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 and rename to Carpenters Bridge, Delaware, which has already been done. — ΛΧΣ21™ 02:07, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Carpenters Bridge[edit]

Carpenters Bridge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails to meet WP:N requirements. Only one print source, and search of the internet yields no other reliable sources. Rjp422 (talk) 20:31, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Needs work to improve and expand, but the structure is listed in http://delaware.hometownlocator.com/maps/feature-map,ftc,2,fid,213761,n,carpenters%20bridge.cfm, http://geonames.usgs.gov/pls/gnispublic/f?p=gnispq:3:791814287212855::NO::P3_FID:213761, http://uglybridges.com/1077384, and http://www.lat-long.com/Latitude-Longitude-213761-Delaware-Carpenters_Bridge.html. Celtechm (talk) 21:51, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I just looked at the page and new secondary internet references has been added and links making it no longer an orphan. I find it interesting that a bridge, has a road named after it and two Zip code designated communities (on either side of the bridge) has changed from not notable to being notable. The article may need to be renamed 1) because there is two other Carpenter Bridge articles on Wikipedia and adding the state may help. A disabig page may need to be done. 2) I think most of the confusion is that the bridge is referred to as Carpenters Bridge susing an older name for it, while Kent County and the community refer to it as Carpenter Bridge. No doubt the pre-1962 was named for someone. The article is a stub, but I can see it being expanded a bit more. Jrcrin001 (talk) 05:26, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Internet search yields no reliable sources, just the typically unreliable GNIS and Hometown Locator type sites that have been designated as not being enough to establish notability in the past. The argument that it is a ZIP code designated place seems at best disingenuous as the government recognizes no such designation, only census designated places. Thousands of roads, trailer parks, and subdivisions are designated by postal areas in order to route mail more directly and they are certainly not worthy of having an article about each and every one as has been shown in past AFD's. Having lived in lower Delaware my entire life, there are absolutely not any communities named after Carpenters Bridge, or whose naming was "influenced" by Carpenters Bridge. There's Autumn Glen, Woods Edge, Tuscany Estates... Nothing to do with Carpenter or Bridge. Superman7515 (talk) 16:22, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - See: Carpenters Bridge Crossing Homeowners Asssociation and Carpenter Bridge Properties LLC through Lessard Builders who began the housing developement near Carpenters Bridge in 2006. See also: Land designated as Carpenters Bridge on pages 8 & 9 in the lower left of image. Jrcrin001 (talk) 08:02, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good find on the new material. My issue, still, is that the bridge itself does not carry notability per WP:N. The sources you've just provided are all about a housing subdivision named after the bridge in its proximity. If anything, it seems like there's more sources for a page about the housing subdivision than the bridge itself. Rjp422 (talk) 15:07, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The comment was to refute the "absolutely not" in the statement prior. If we take the bridge by itself, it is marginal. I still think Keep But ...then add the road named after it and the HOA/community/LLC with the bridge then the area of Carpenter Bridge is more interesting and notable. Question - If the article was rewritten focusing on the collection of CB, would this be more acceptable to others here? Jrcrin001 (talk) 21:26, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification! By collection, do you mean the residential area such as the sources you provided? I'm not an expert on Delaware, but if it proves that the area around the bridge is considered to be the "Carpenters Bridge" neighborhood, then I agree and I think that would be a better approach.Rjp422 (talk) 17:31, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the homeowners association was started as required by law prior to the development being started, however, the development itself was never built because of the housing crash. No such development exists and no community in the area is named after Carpenters Bridge. The closest developments, on the north and south sides of the crossing, are Riverview Estates (north) and Coursey's Point (south). Superman7515 (talk) 20:52, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Superman is right regarding construction. Compare the maps on pages 8 & 9 at the following link to the temporary Google maps posted below. See referred to link here: http://stateplanning.delaware.gov/plus/projects/2009/2009-10-02.pdf
You can see that the Delware planning has progressed to the point of adding roads and plots. See: http://carpentercousins.com/temp/CarpenterBridgeCrossingMap.jpg
Yet, based on the satlilite map of the same area, construction has not started for the Carpenter Bridge community/Crossing/HOA/LLC. But there appears new construction nearby. And planning indicates future building when the economy improves. See: http://carpentercousins.com/temp/CarpenterBridgeCrossingSat.jpg
So Carpenters Bridge should really be an article about' the bridge, the road named after it (Road 35), Carpenter Bridge, LLC, and the Carpenter Bridge Crossing HOA. How many bridges have a road and construction company name and a planned and approved, but pending community named for it? I think the combination is rather unique, notable and worth keeping. Maybe rename it Carpenters Bridge area, Delaware? Jrcrin001 (talk) 00:39, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The construction company isn't named after it, it's just the LLC that will be handling the subdivision until such time as the HOA can take over. That's not uncommon and is in fact required by law in Delaware. Same case for the HOA, this would be opening a whole can of worms where suddenly dozens of trailer parks, random roads with nothing built but a dream for the future that may never come true, etc are suddenly deemed worthy of an article when nothing may never be built there. They applied for the permits 6 years ago (have to double check the dates) and haven't built anything yet, after 10 years the county and state consider it scrapped and they can't build without going through the whole process again, so it's possible it will not happen in this economy. Superman7515 (talk) 16:30, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Small bridge over a small river. Nothing special about it. Dough4872 00:29, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete->Keep- This article deserves to be kept given the new direction of the subject and the organization of the info on the page.
Did you forget that you nominated the article for deletion above?  Unscintillating (talk) 23:23, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am aware that I nominated. I wasn't sure my vote was logged by nominating, and circumstances had changed during the discussion but I still felt this way. Changing my vote now, regardless. Sorry for being a newbie, I hope you can forgive me. Rjp422 (talk) 01:45, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is a strange case. The topic appears to be a road bridge. Since there's some fairly diverse sourced content, but it doesn't appear to be particularly notable as a bridge, logically it might make sense to merge it into an article about the highway or the locality. First I investigated merging it into the article about the numbered connector road (Road 35) that it's on. However, Road 35 doesn't even appear on the Wikipedia list of Delaware roads, much less have an article; Delaware state documents about the road generally seem to call it Carpenter's Bridge Road (or some variant spelling of that). There's also no place clearly associated with the bridge. Indeed, the name "Carpenters Bridge" shows up in contemporary documents and as far back as 1890 (the NYTimes news piece cited in the article) as a place name -- and there seems to be no other place name for the local area near the bridge, but GNIS recognizes it only as the name of the bridge. Given that "Carpenters Bridge" is documented to exist as a bridge, a place name, and the namesake of the road that crosses it, and there seems to be no broader article to which the content could reasonably be merged, I conclude that the topic merits an article of its own. --Orlady (talk) 20:08, 8 August 2012 (UTC) I find it particularly noteworthy that this is the place name associated with an 1890 murder and a recent plan for a solar energy development. --Orlady (talk) 22:02, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe there's no article for Delaware 35, because the route doesn't seem to exist - maybe it's a county road? - The Bushranger One ping only 22:04, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bushranger is right, it is a county road, Road 35 - that is named Carpenter Bridge Road. Google map shows hundreds of street addresses with "Carpenter Bridge Road" and by using the street view, one can see the street signs marked "Carpenter Bridge Road." Jrcrin001 (talk) 00:39, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Non-notable bridge, non-notable road. Carpenters Bridge, Delaware may be verifiable as a populated place name - if it can be, then moving the article to that name and making it about the place might work, but if it cannot be (and I can't verify it as being anything other than "there's a bridge here so we call it that" through Google - 0 gNews hits, 0 gBooks hits for "Carpenters Bridge, Delaware"), deletion is warranted. Note that if kept, a page move will be needed for disambiguation as there are quite a few other Carpenters Bridges. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:04, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Carpenter Bridge disambig page exists. What do you think of Carpenters Bridge area, Delaware? Jrcrin001 (talk) 00:39, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's also Carpenters Bridges in Tennessee, Louisiana, and Ljubljana. As for a potential rename/rescope, though, perhaps this might be of interest? - The Bushranger One ping only 01:32, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If kept, the article definitely should be renamed to include "Delaware" as a disambiguation term (e.g., Carpenters Bridge (Delaware). It's not a WP:primary topic for "Carpenters Bridge". --Orlady (talk) 15:07, 9 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, Black Kite (talk) 10:45, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - based on the above comments and an effort to rescue the article, I rewrote it and sectioned it as appropiate. How is this re-write? PS I am not the original author.
The article still needs to be renamed. I am not sure of the procedure while pending the discussion above. So I leave renaming to a more expirenced editor. I like Orladys naming suggestion of Carpenters Bridge (Delaware).
And as a minor item, I corrected my goof above referring New Jersey instead of Delaware. Jrcrin001 (talk) 18:33, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all the leg-work in saving this article and getting it up to shape! You rock.Rjp422 (talk) 01:45, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Superman, on the article page, asked for a citation in the lead regarding locations near the bridge that are referred to or part of Carpenters Bridge. I am answering here, because this discussion is still open. I rewote the line to be more clear. "Locations near the bridge are sometimes referred to as being part of or using the name Carpenters Bridge. This is outlined in the sections below." I did not remove the citation tag. But I think it is now clear that the article and citations indicate directly or indirectly that the area has an association or identify referring to Carpenters Bridge. Jrcrin001 (talk) 00:21, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It still needs to be cited though, because there is no location in the area that locals ever refer to as being part of "Carpenters Bridge," you either say it is in Frederica, Felton, or Canterbury. At worst you'd say near Killen's Pond, which is a state park and much more widely known than this non-descript bridge. There is no association of the area with the bridge, the only "community" near-by that was planned to use the name in it was never built and is less than 4 years away from being permanently scrapped. Feel free to contact Lessard Builders, http://lessardbuilders.com/, they currently have no plans to begin construction on that site. The only site they are building on Carpenters Bridge Road is named Dickinson Creek, http://www.lessardbuilders.com/html/community.php?id=2. Internet searches don't turn up any reliable sites identifying Carpenters Bridge as a community, nor are there any saying that an area of Delaware is commonly referred to as "Carpenters Bridge" and nothing "outlined below" meets the citation required of the sentence as written.Superman7515 (talk) 03:43, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Potential keep as Carpenters Bridge, Delaware. As far as I can make out this is not so much about a bridge as a community that takes its name from the bridge. I live near a town called Stourbridge. The bridge is probably NN, but the town is certainly notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:22, 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 no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:29, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tamás Romhányi[edit]

Tamás Romhányi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG. While, to the letter, he meets WP:NSPORT, his only claim to notability pursuant to that guideline is having played stoppage time in one Hungarian top flight match six years ago. This remains valid. The original article's creator recreated it within 24 hours of it being deleted. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:52, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:52, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am loathe to counter with WP:OTHERSTUFF, but is the obvious response, to say nothing of the fact that American football is a completely different sport. The simple fact of the matter is that his only claim to notability is a single, incredibly brief event six years ago for which he has received nothing resembling significant coverage. He only barely meets notability in the specific, but very clearly fails notability in the general. The purpose of WP:NSPORT and the list of fully professional leagues being to determine at a glance which subjects are likely to meet the general notability guideline, it seems only common sense that an which so clearly fails WP:GNG should be deleted. Sir Sputnik (talk) 11:10, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Relist rationale: more discussion needed as to which guideline should take precedence here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 10:42, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If people think playing one game in the Hungarian league should not automatically confer notability, they ought to concentrate on trying to gain consensus to change NFOOTBALL/FPL accordingly. As things stand the wording indicates that one game is enough. Eldumpo (talk) 13:12, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, by and large, the Hungarian League should confer notability. The lede of WP:NSPORT explicitly says that it is to be used as rule of thumb, and that not all articles that meet it must be kept. Given that he's not received significant coverage for this one appearances, and the fact that it was extremely brief, suggests to me that this is one of those instances where to the letter adherence to the guideline as fewer merits than not. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:41, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But the lede of NSPORT also says in bold that "The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below", which from my point of view means that an article must either meet WP:GNG or WP:NFOOTBALL. Mentoz86 (talk) 21:53, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One of the major criticisms of WP:NSPORT, and rightfully so, is that it can be incredibly arbitrary, which is why the section the lede states "Please note that the failure to meet these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept." (emphasis theirs). In an article like this one, which only barely passes NSPORT, he's only ever played one fully pro match and only the stoppage time at that, where coverage of any kind is minimal, to say nothing of significant coverage, the only source listed is unreliable, and others are hard to come by (google provides exactly 1 reliable source on the first four pages when looking up his name), and the evolution of the article much beyond the microstub it currently is seems very unlikely, it only seems commons sense to me that the article should be deleted. I'm not suggesting the article fails WP:NSPORT, I'm just saying in this particular case it's not relevant. Sir Sputnik (talk) 10:18, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Sir Sputnik. Indeed, NSPORT contradicts itself, but don't play with the wording to argue that either GNG or NSPORT must be met, because that's not what NSPORT says at all. Those who believe that one appearance is enough should prove this made him more notable than before (by presenting appropriate sources), and not support keep only because of NSPORT's confusing wording. Cheers. – Kosm1fent 06:06, 15 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 23:38, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mile High (band)[edit]

Mile High (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

AS far as I can tell, this band doesn't appear to be signed to any label nor have they released a full album at all. Coverage about the band is limited. I found this item in Aukland Now. This Timaru Herald article doesn't really cut it as it appears the coverage of the band was lifted straight from their own website bio. Whpq (talk) 10:34, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I am novice to editing pages in Wikipedia, but I actually tend to disagree with you in regards to Mile High. This band has already achieved enough to be considered worthy of a wikipage. Their song "Now" was extensively played on the radios in New Zealand and 2 years ago was selected as one of the Top 1000 best rock songs ever in a vote by NZ's The Rock radio audience, beating songs by bands like Perl Jam (I am sure I can find a proof of that). They played in the Big Day Out which was the biggest musical event in NZ and till today they have faithful audience and full-house gigs in places around NZ. Lately, their song "Now" was selected by NASCAR USA for an ad, and here the official youtube video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0hkLNSux8s4. The fact they are not signed means absolutely nothing because they chose to remain independent like many other bands (big and not so big). What is really required in my opinion is to update their page accordingly with fresh information and proper links etc. I am happy to spend some time on this if this page is not deleted. I will check it in a week to see if anyone replied to this message of mine. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.252.156.11 (talk) 11:15, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well... the only thing is that they have to pass WP:BAND. Being voted as "top 1000 best" is nice and would be something good and quirky to mention, but accomplishments of this nature aren't really something that is considered to give notability because polls of that nature are hard to verify (could be that the same group of people voted under socks, for example) and because most titles and awards aren't notable even if it was verifiable. Only about 1% of awards (and I'm counting a radio survey under this category) give notability. That is not one of them. As far as being a theme song for a NASCAR ad, that helps but it isn't entirely enough to show notability. Even if a band provides a theme song to a notable show, if there aren't reliable sources to show notability then that isn't enough to keep an article by itself. Now as far as being played on the radio goes, if it can be proved that it was a national rotation by a major radio or music television network, then that would qualify them for an article. Be aware that only playing in certain areas or by local stations does not count by itself. It's not easy to get on the local radio, but it's not such a hard task that it gives automatic notability. If the music concert they played in is notable enough and there's enough coverage to show notability, then that would also count. Really what it all boils down to is whether or not you have enough reliable and independent coverage. Fan blogs, pictures, posters, routine announcements of performances, fan-made videos, and the like do not count towards this notability. I'll see what I can find, but I just wanted to state that we need the reliable sources to show notability. If it can't be found, don't take it too hard. Passing notability guidelines is pretty strict as you have to find multiple sources to show notability, with 4-8 being the "magic" number that usually (but not always) secures notability.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 11:29, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Big Day Out does appear to be notable as a concert, so if we can find sources that are reliable and in-depth about their performance, then that would help the notability claims out.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 11:31, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, on a side note... never assume that in a week someone will do the work for you. Since you're an IP I'm going to assume that you're potentially new to Wikipedia and figuring out what's a reliable source and such might be daunting to do, but it's better to dive into an article and do the work rather than hope someone else does. I learned that the hard way and I've seen articles deleted because of that.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 14:17, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If we look at the various criteria of WP:BAND, it does not appear that any are satisfied.
    1. The two items of coverage I found are arguably insufficient coverage, especially with one of the articles including bio material copied from the band's web site. However, more coverage might allow the band to meet point 1 (but I was unable to find such coverage)
    2. The charts identified in the article are individual station charts and not recognized national charts.
    3. No evidence of a certified gold record
    4. National tours are asserted but there is no evidence of coverage of these tours (and to be honest, I'm not a fan of this criterion)
    5. Not signed to a label
    6. Individual members are not independently notable or members of other notable groups
    7. No evidence they are prominent representatives of of a local scene
    8. The awards are not major
    9. The music competitions are not major
    10. Music for a NASCAR ad does not qualify as the ad is not a major media work
    11. The claim for placement in rotation is for a couple of stations and not a network
    12. There is no indication they have been covered in a substantial segment on Radio or TV.
  • -- Whpq (talk) 15:28, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah... I'm not fond of the national tour coverage criteria either, as most times those are over a very set period of time and doesn't necessarily show a depth of coverage, especially since "tour" can sometimes be stretched to pretty much only cover a band's appearance at a festival that is set in one location. (I.E., a band has 2-3 articles in relation to the festival but they go on to a few other cities beyond that so it technically counts as a national tour because they went far enough.) It's sort of vague, is it?Tokyogirl79 (talk) 16:19, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I really did look for sources and initially there was some promise, but ultimately the only two sources I could find that were reliable and independent were the two currently on the article. The band might have played at a high profile festival, but there's no depth of coverage of their performance here or really even of the band in general. Two sources does not show notability, nor do any of the claims made earlier in the article. They might have planned a tour, but that tour seems to have not attracted the amount of coverage needed to show that it passes WP:BAND. Being independent doesn't mean that a band can't be notable, but it does usually mean that it's harder for smaller bands to gain media attention. In this case the band has gone a lot farther than other unsigned bands, but it's just not enough to pass Wikipedia's very strict guidelines.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 16:29, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the arguments above. Doesn't appear to meet any of the criteria of WP: MUSIC; if they could find some reliable 3rd party tour coverage to scrape a pass under WP:MUSIC 4 that might be more persuasive depending on the nature of the coverage, but as things stand there's not enough here. ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ 13:48, 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. SarahStierch (talk) 05:56, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Big Air School[edit]

Big Air School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Originally the subject of a declined CSD A7, after remaining tagged for notability for two months this article still fails to produce in-depth established media coverage or reliable sources to assert notability per WP:ORG. Further research has remained unproductive. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:06, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Founded only in 2012, this youth engagement program has not yet had sufficient longevity or activity to be notable under WP:NONPROFIT. --Lquilter (talk) 18:05, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Regardless of when it was founded, it needs reliable and independent sources. All that I found (via HighBeam) were for the Afghan Air Force. This article will probably make it in the future, but it simply MUST have the sources to back up the content. --MalcomMarcomb11376 (talk) 18:47, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Not enough coverage in any reliable source to assert the notability of the subject. — Bill william comptonTalk 23:33, 15 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. SarahStierch (talk) 05:57, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Joomag[edit]

Joomag (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No independent reliable sources that discuss the company in detail, therefore not notable per WP:GNG. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:35, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 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. SarahStierch (talk) 05:57, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MyQick[edit]

MyQick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No independent reliable sources to establish notability per WP:GNG. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:31, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:47, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:47, 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. SarahStierch (talk) 05:58, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sweat365[edit]

Sweat365 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There seems to be only one independent reliable source per WP:GNG: namely, the Seattle P-I article in the references. I've looked and can't find anything else. GNG requires multiple independent reliable sources. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:28, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I found a couple passing mentions and press releases, but no other significant coverage beyond the Seattle P-I profile. Subject does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:WEB.  Gongshow Talk 16:17, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A non-notable corporation. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:13, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not meeting the correspondent notability guidelines. — ΛΧΣ21™ 02:24, 16 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. SarahStierch (talk) 05:58, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exeter Entrepreneurs[edit]

Exeter Entrepreneurs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

does not meet the notability requirements under WP:ORG. Ironholds (talk) 07:01, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:25, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:25, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete A university society is going to have to show itself as something pretty out of the ordinary for such things to be notable. This isn't. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:20, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Founded only three years ago and limited to a single university does not show notability under WP:NONPROFIT. --Lquilter (talk) 18:06, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non notable student club or society. Fails to meet WP:ORG. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:47, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As a non notable topic with no realible sources to back up any notability per WP:NONPROFIT. — ΛΧΣ21™ 02:25, 16 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 by nominator. WWGB (talk) 23:36, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hermano Pablo[edit]

Hermano Pablo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability not established, sole reference source is a Christian blog. Fails WP:GNG. WWGB (talk) 06:38, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 06:59, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 06:59, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possible keep His death attracted a lot of media coverage in Latin America.[18][19][20][21][22][23][24] (Note: these are mostly not obituaries but news stories reporting his death, discussing arrangements for the funeral, reporting people's reminiscences of Pablo, etc.) At the moment I'm having trouble (as someone with little Spanish) finding info from before his death, but he was certainly well-known in more than one countries of South America. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:54, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rewrite. Multiple coverage in English and Spanish demonstrates that he passes GNG. GNews search for "Paul Finkenbinder" turns up coverage as far back as a July 11, 1971 Los Angeles Times story (paywalled, unfortunately) entitled "Unknown Here, He's Revered by Latins".[25] Another LA Times article reports that as of 1997 the program "airs on more than 2,000 radio stations and in more than 27 countries."[26] This article will obviously need a major rewrite to eliminate the current POV. --Arxiloxos (talk) 14:51, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

‎

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 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. SarahStierch (talk) 05:58, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of best top division goal scorers[edit]

List of best top division goal scorers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

unsourced. random inclusion criteria. included by Top association football goal scorers in a single season Koppapa (talk) 06:27, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:29, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:29, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Redundant with the superior Top association football goal scorers in a single season. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:03, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - OR/POV/general nonsense. Not even sure the other article cited is notable either. GiantSnowman 10:58, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - confusing in terms of inclusion criteria making it hard to tell what should/could go in this list. Clarity of the other article dubious also.--Egghead06 (talk) 11:06, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Original research, unsourced with no inclusion or exclusion criteria. Mentoz86 (talk) 22:22, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As not meeting GNG and also a dubious inclusion criteria, that could be driven by original research and POV. — ΛΧΣ21™ 02:27, 16 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 Divine Fits. SarahStierch (talk) 05:59, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A Thing Called Divine Fits[edit]

A Thing Called Divine Fits (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article about and upcoming debut album from a band without their own Wikipedia article fails all criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Recordings for "albums" and "unreleased material." Senator2029 • talk 04:32, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I'm doing a quick search on the band and it looks like the band itself would pass notability guidelines by having two notable members from other bands (Britt Daniel of Spoon, Dan Boeckner of Wolf Parade and the Handsome Furs}. I'm going to propose that if notability for the album can't be found, one of us (probably me since the one suggesting should do the work) create an article about the band and have this album get directed there with the article history kept. The Divine Fits article should be created anyway, but it's an option.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:39, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Divine Fits. I've created an article for the band, but it's pretty bare bones. (And that's being generous.) When the album eventually releases it'll be notable, but most of the talk about the album has been as a side mention to the band. It's just not notable enough at this point in time to have its own article, although odds are it probably will be. However since Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and there's no guarantee that it'll get that coverage, I suggest a redirect for right now. On a side note, if any users savvy with creating music articles wants to turn the Divine Fits article into something more befitting Wikipedia, I'd be much obliged.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:01, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 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 Speedy delete by Jimfbleak for G11. NAC by GregJackP Boomer! 11:39, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Salman bin Abdulaziz bin Salman bin Muhammad Al Saud[edit]

Salman bin Abdulaziz bin Salman bin Muhammad Al Saud (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability is not inherited. No indication of notability in article. Declined PROD by creator while removing content. GregJackP Boomer! 03:08, 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 redirect to The Glitch Mob. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:25, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Glass Air Records[edit]

Glass Air Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:48, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:50, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable record label. No independent refs. No claim of notability. Nothing obvious in google (although I'm location-blocked from some hits) Stuartyeates (talk) 06:37, 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 01:50, 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) 02:03, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not a peep on Google News. Minimal notability asserted. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:27, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect to The Glitch Mob. They seem to be a pretty notable band, and this is one of their personal projects, so it doesn't seem like a stretch to have a small section on the record label they started.  The Steve  12:15, 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 redirect to Phi Delta Theta#Concern and criticism. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:23, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Phi Society[edit]

Phi Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:43, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable single chapter college club. No national fraternity affiliations. No third party sources to establish notability, as required by WP:N. No sources at all, in fact, just links to the club website. It is comprised of a single chapter. Fails all WP:ORG alternate notability standards. Only exists on 1 college campus. Awarding the "Horny Korny Award" to the member who is "not successful with dating" is insufficient to demonstrate notability. Oh yeah, there's only 1 chapter in the whole world. GrapedApe (talk) 12:12, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 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 01:52, 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) 02:03, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the appropriate section of Phi Delta Theta , where it is mentioned as one of the two chapters that split because they refused to adopt a no-alcohol policy. DGG ( talk ) 06:26, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:19, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Military space shuttle[edit]

Military space shuttle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is a sorry mess of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR, mixed with just a smidge of WP:FRINGE. It takes several military spaceflight programs and tries to stich them together - claiming that the X-20, X-40 and X-37 form a lineage, among other things - and in general appears to be somebody's essay. An article on military use of reusable space vehicles might well be worthwhile - but this is not it. The Bushranger One ping only 01:14, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger One ping only 01:16, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger One ping only 01:16, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:33, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete, per nomination. Entire article is presently subject to WP:BURDEN. It can be argued that the subject passes WP:GNG given that there are about 200 plus mentions in books, but none necessarily as their primary subject.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:02, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While I think that it would be possible to write an article on this topic (preferably with a title such as Proposed military applications of space shuttles), this sure isn't it. The content is speculative and lumps unrelated topics together. As such, I think that it should be deleted per WP:TNT. Nick-D (talk) 09:06, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete WP:OR on a stick. There's room for a sourced article on "military use of the space shuttle" or similar, but this seems to be arguing instead for the existence of a separate black program in parallel, except that it then concedes there wasn't one. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:25, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - we do not state something "would be" or make hand-waving conjectures, nor do we publish every fringe theory out in teh Internet. Bearian (talk) 22:20, 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 Withdrawn by nominator. Darkness Shines (talk) 03:50, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rape in Northeast India[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Rape in Northeast India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fork of List of rape cases in India There is nothing new in this article. Any content usable belongs in the Rape in India‎ article Darkness Shines (talk) 00:41, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep and close: article was nominated a month ago and kept with overwhelming support. This nomination is disruptive. --lTopGunl (talk) 00:44, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, just coming to the point, didn't an admin (cannot recall at this point) say something somewhere (in regard to this) about renominations not supposed to be taking place within six months of an article being kept? If so, this seems like disruptive/tedentious editing and should probably be brought into notice as well. Mar4d (talk) 01:31, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think it was Magog, or some one on his talkpage maybe, said that "re-AFDs" can't be done for 6 month after being kept. I'm not sure about that guideline though. A closer will know that better I guess. --lTopGunl (talk) 01:36, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
AfD policy puts no restriction on how soon an article can be renominated and I'd just as soon assume good faith on the part of Darkness Rises (having just reviewed his user and talk pages, it seems he's an experienced and well-intentioned editor); however I do agree that, as with the first AfD, the criteria for nomination has not really been met. Snow (talk) 03:33, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In fact, this is the first ever time I've felt like advocating a speedy procedural close. While I happen to agree, and have previously advocated, that a merger between this and several other similar articles would be best way to organize the content, an AfD, especially come so immediately on the heels of another with an overwhelming "Keep" vote is certainly not the way forward. Though I am loathe to reiterate the obvious points already noted in detail in the last AfD, I'll nonetheless point out again that the article is well-sourced and easily clears the bar for both notability and verifiability and is thus not a candidate for AfD. The nominating editor should have pursued the notion of a merger through an RfC and, if anything, has only set back the effort to amalgamate the material with that of other articles since any such effort will now, as after the first AfD, almost certainly be seen as an effort to do an end-run around around the AfD decision (which is all-but guaranteed to be another keep). Snow (talk) 03:22, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2012_August_9&oldid=1142635809"