Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 December 12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 11 December 13 December >

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. MBisanz talk 23:37, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Porn for the Blind[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Porn for the Blind (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)

It has been 4-5 years since it was last nominated for deletion. Other editors agreed back then that it was a joke and poorly sourced (2 articles in 2008-9 only & nothing since then). The sources never attempted to verify this was a legitimate site, and only a pseudonym is provided to the sources, making their reliability questionable.). This is not listed in any charity database. The website has not been updated since 2009 (see copyright on site). The Whois traces to a student's dorm room. If you play some of the mp3 files of the supposed "porn" for the blind, you'll hear 2 guys laughing in the background 1/2 the time. I do not know / understand how this survived as long as it has. There are some useful old comments from the AFD from 4 years ago (it does not conform to WP:WEB or WP:NN) - please click the links to the right to read more. Nothing has changed since then, and no new sources can be found backing them up as any notable (or legitimate)website.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Angelatomato (talk • contribs) 23:17, 12 December 2012

  • Comment. This would probably be hard to speedy as a hoax. It sounds like the kind of thing that was clearly created as a gag website (no sexual pun intended), which means that the website is not real as far as its intended purpose as a sex website for blind people. However the website itself does/did exist as a joke website, so it's not really a hoax because it did exist in some format. It just isn't what the article is currently trying to describe. Of course this doesn't mean that it should exist on Wikipedia, just that AfD is probably the best way to go about talking about whether or not this passes notability guidelines. One thing for incoming editors to take into consideration is that if the site only got initial attention that talks about it as if it's a legitimate site, that's probably a good sign that it doesn't have any lasting notability.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:23, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This didn't show up properly on the AfD, so I did some tweaking to where this would show up properly. Cheers!Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:17, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment: This contained some text and delete arguments from the 2009 AfD, so I'm removing those comments to avoid confusion.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:25, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional. I'm coming up with search results for a Canadian artist that is creating erotic art in braille that is unrelated to the website, so there will be some false positives here.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:31, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there is the Canadian artist and also there is an Irish rock band with the same name. So, thanks for pointing out the potential false positives for other editors. The main issues are pointed out well on the 2nd nomination...now, with the passag of 4 years we can see that some of the editors during that vote were wrong about a few things. Thanks for fixing the AFD - I thought I did it right - by pasting the script in the edit summary (after like 3 tries - was embarrassed already) but I guess it was still messed up.Angelatomato (talk) 17:24, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. There is nothing out there that shows 100% that this is either real or fake. It looks like enough people had taken the site seriously when it was initially announced to where even if it is a joke website, some uploaded clips without the intention of actually providing audio narration for blind people while others clearly meant for the clips to be used for that purpose. However here's the big issue: despite claims that the website was launched back in 2006/2007, the site really only gained notice in 2008 when it was first announced to exist. Other than one or two brief articles that came out a short period of time later (as in 1 paragraph type articles), the website has attracted no further attention. I also notice that its Alexa rank is rather low for any type of website, but especially a pornography website, although I know that this isn't in itself a reason to delete. Why I mention that is because it looks like the site got a brief spate of articles in 2008 that announced it exists and was then largely ignored by the world in general. There is this Vice article (unsure if this is just a random contributor or a staff writer, though) and this German website, but neither really seem to suggest that they're the type of long term coverage that would show that this website passes WP:WEB. If there were a little more than this could potentially pass, but right now there just isn't enough for me to really think it passes notability guidelines. It's close, but not close enough.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:03, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 13 December 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. MBisanz talk 23:37, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of the Line[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Battle of the Line (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 fictional battle. While there is some independent coverage of this topic in reliable sources, none discuss it in sufficient detail (i.e. more than a few lines) to warrant a full article, and there are no sources which suggest that it has any significance outside the Babylon 5 universe. Claritas § 22:39, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep 14 sources, 5 of which are pretty much unassailably independent reliable sources, discuss it. GNG is met and then some. Jclemens (talk) 02:04, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unassailably independent reliable sources ? Let's go through them.
The Babylon File Volume 2: The Definitive Unauthorized Guide to J. Michael Straczynski's Babylon 5 does not qualify as a a reliable secondary source. If you have a look at it, it contains no useful secondary analysis of Babylon 5, it's a completely inuniverse description of the plot. It's published by a minor publisher by an author with no scholarly credentials. Science fiction is a topic which is widely covered by academic journals, so there is no need to use non-academic texts unless they are of the highest quality.
The Lurker's Guide to Babylon 5 is a fan produced guide, obviously not a RS.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/yates/yates73.html is a reliable source by a scholar (although not one with relevant expertise), but it mentions the "battle of the line" only once, and has a much broader primary topic.
Role-playing game obviously a primary source.
Johnson-Smith is arguably a RS, but only trivially mentions the main subject of this article, no significant coverage.
"Babylon 5's Blueprint for the Archetypal Heroes of Commander Jeffrey Sinclair and Captain John Sheridan with Ambassador Delenn" is obviously about the characters, and not the battle, but it would be helpful for you to quote from this article to see which text you are using to verify notability due to the paywall.
Novelisation is a primary source.
TV.com, space.com do not have adequate editorial standards to be RSs.
Please explain how this constitutes significant coverage in multiple third-party reliable sources. Claritas § 09:35, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sure: your definition of a "reliable secondary source" and "trivial" as used above are, respectively, unsupportably more narrow and expansive than consensus. And again, per WP:SOURCEACCESS, your inability to read what I have found isn't my problem--if you want to call it not RS or trivial, then the onus is on you to get access and disprove its applicability. Jclemens (talk) 15:34, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's completely incorrect. The burden falls entirely upon you to verify notability. It's quite clear from our policy on reliable sources that sources should be scholarly or of a scholarly standard. --Claritas § 18:28, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BURDEN is about verification of article content, not verification of notability. If anyone was to quote enough of a source to verify that it contains significant coverage then that would go beyond fair use, and so would be a copyright violation. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:51, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jclemens has not shown that the sources cited even verify the article content. This is just a strategy to prevent the deletion of this worthless trash. Claritas § 21:36, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's right, I haven't. WP:BEFORE expects you to find deficits with them--which you have not--before nominating an article for deletion. I don't need to do your job for you; you need to do it. Jclemens (talk) 04:55, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:FANCRUFT --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:32, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, on the grounds that reference 6 ("About Michael O'Hare's Departure". GEnie, via The Lurker's Guide to Babylon 5.) is a direct quote of series creator J. Michael Straczynski and therefore constitutes a reliable, non-fictional-world source per WP:RS, regardless of its inclusion via The Lurker's Guide fansite; and further that references 3, 10 and 11 from The Lurker's Guide to Babylon 5 should constitute reliable secondary sources - since the WP article on the guide itself quotes Straczynski acknowledging "The Lurker's Guide and Grimm for his years of help and support, illustrating The Guide's significant central role in the development of Babylon 5 fandom, and the series itself"<emphasis mine>. The quote is from the Babylon 5 5th season DVD release (which in the context of the Lurker's Guide article is a reliable secondary source).Vulcan's Forge (talk) 04:47, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per WP:GNG, sources don't just have to be RSs, but also "significant" and "independent", and all the sources for this article fail one of these criteria. If you neglect these fundamental aspects of notability on Wikipedia, I can't see how you could possibly recommand to keep this article. I encourage you to either try to find new arguments or to change your recommandation.Folken de Fanel (talk) 17:57, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the arguments of Jclemens and Vulcan's Forge. BOZ (talk) 15:34, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Both Clemens and Vulcan's Forge arguments have been rebutted.Folken de Fanel (talk) 17:57, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • In the sense of "making a contrary argument", perhaps, but in the more common sense of "presenting contrary evidence" I see nothing that I would say that reaches that level of argument. I see a lot of "no it isn't" and other such basic contrariness, but nothing that actually attempts to understand the sourcing. Frankly, I simply don't think your understanding of fictional element notability has ever been sustained, anywhere on Wikipedia, but you've not yet taken my advice to upgrade your understanding as far as I can tell. Jclemens (talk) 22:16, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • You've just demonstrated all your talent for self-persuasion and contempt, but as far as arguments go you remain desperately stuck at sub-zero level, and this is getting old. I'm sorry but you're not entertaining anymore, and I don't have time to play with you. You'll have to find something else to distract yourself from boredom. Folken de Fanel (talk) 23:31, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with Jclemens's comment from the previous AFD for this we were both in. "as a notable plot element of a major fictional universe which has received print coverage outside the work itself." This major bit is found in the television series, made for television movies, books, and the comic books. The coverage found is sufficiently referenced in the article to prove its notable. Dream Focus 14:07, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Jclemens' essay on notability and his very loose criteria are not what should prevail here, but only the GNG. And GNG is obviously not met, as the coverage is insufficient to prove any notability.Folken de Fanel (talk) 17:57, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, because the sources proposed either do not meet WP:GNG (not independent or significant enough) or are not about the subject of the article. Those who /voted "keep" on claims that GNG is met or that sourcing is "independent"/"sufficient"/etc clearly need to take a closer look at WP:GNG, which they obviously don't understand:
  1. Creator Straczynski's comments (sources 6 and 7) from GEnie are his own, personal messages self-published through the GEnie online service and are the 1990's equivalent of personal blog comments. Though they can be used as RS, they cannot be used to assert notability since GNG requires sources to be "independent of the subject", which "excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator. For example, self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, the subject's website, autobiographies, and press releases are not considered independent". As the comments are not part of an interview (for example) from an independent magazine and the Battle isn't brought up by an independent commentator, these GEnie comments are not independent and don't demonstrate notability.
  2. As to The Babylon File, source 2 (as used in the "Plot significance section") isn't about the Battle but about "Sinclair's memory loss". Doesn't pass GNG which states that "sources address the subject directly in detail" which is not the case here, the subject is not a character's amnesia. Other than that, The Babylon File vol. 1/2 are exclusively used for plot summary, which does not qualify as "significant coverage" going beyond "a definition of that topic" (WP:WHYN).
  3. Source 8 contains nothing "more than a trivial mention", indeed, a single sentence.
  4. Source 9 isn't a comment "directly" about the subject, but about the character itself. The Battle in itself is not even mentionned but only alluded to and bundled up with all of the character's "past", this is even less than a trivial mention.
  5. All the other sources are just episode recaps (so trivial mentions not going beyond a definition of the topic) or about something else entirely.Folken de Fanel (talk) 17:50, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that you think that dealing with Sinclair's memory loss isn't dealing with The Battle of The Line demonstrates a serious lack of understanding in the place of the fictional battle in the series' narrative. The mystery of why Sinclair survived the battle of the line, why he was taken POW, and what happened to him during that time forms the underlying mystery for the show's first season. The rest of your assessments again expect too much from individual sources, and downplay the coverage that's present for a fictional element that's approaching two decades since it originally aired on television. Jclemens (talk) 22:10, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Battle of The Line is background fiction. The memory loss is an actual plot device within episodes and directly tied to the main character. The Battle isn't a plot device, as you say, it's all about the character's situation to which the battle only serves as a backdrop. The Battle of The Line could have been The Battle of Helm's Deep or Bilbo's 111th Birthday and it wouldn't have changed a thing about episode structure based around memory loss. You don't seem to ~understand much about fictional writing and narrative structures. I'm not expecting too much and I downplay absolutely nothing; I didn't write WP:GNG, if you have a problem with it, then try to change it. But as long as it is the tool with which notability is determined on WP, then that's how we'll assess individual sources.Folken de Fanel (talk) 23:13, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The guidelines are suggestions, not absolute law. And I added in a link to a reliable source that mentions it throughout in various places and how important that event was in the series. [1] Anyplace that reviewed the show, or various episodes, will mention this battle. Google doesn't index everything of course, and the show is old now. Dream Focus 23:41, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Guidelines are not "suggestions" but "sets of best practices that are supported by consensus". Intentionally going against them is going against consensus. Mentions are not enough to make an article notable.Folken de Fanel (talk) 18:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, while guidelines are "generally accepted" standards, each guideline page is headed with the caution that they are "best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply," as they are NOT policies. It is through discussions such as the one we have here where those common sense "occasional exceptions" are discussed and approved through consensus. Ignoring the greater understanding that occasional exceptions may apply is what might be seen as "against the consensus" that built our guidelines in the first place. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:53, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For the principle of exception to apply, there must be a debate that leads to an agreement on why an exception should be made (ie why would the topic be so tremendously important that rules should be violated, and what can actually be done with the article to improve it). I have seen none of that here, only a swarm of inclusionist votes. You should also beware of the excuse of exception, if all articles are kept on the basis of exception, then there is no exception anymore, it's become rule. So could you show me how this article can be an exception compared to other articles that would be deletable ? This is important to determine whether the "exception" mentionned in AfD really exists and would benefit WP, or if it's just an inclusionist fallacy and an attempt at gaming the system.Folken de Fanel (talk) 12:31, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:31, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:31, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:31, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per being a decently enough sourced spin out of Earth–Minbari War. A topic is not expected to always or ever be in the headlines, as long as sources expert enough in the topic discuss in enough detail. We do not expect perfection as long as we DO enlighten our readers on the topic being discussed. I find the disparaging use of the neologism "fancruft" to not be helpful, as it is not policy nor guidelne, and even fan-related topics can be considered notable enough for a comprehensive encyclopedia.Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:05, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you please elaborate on "decently sourced", because there are too many elements pointing to the contrary. It is not a question of "making the headlines" but meeting our inclusion criteria for fictional topics, which is obviously not the case here.Folken de Fanel (talk) 18:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many people believe the article is decently sourced, and you just keep arguing with all of them since you disagree. You believe the coverage should be longer perhaps, others believe its fine. Dream Focus 18:39, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Folken de Fanel. With respects toward your opinions, I read all the arguments toward delete and all the arguments toward keep. I need not repeat them all again simply to underscore that I agree with the keeps. I never said sourcing was perfect, only that it was "decent enough" so as to serve the project, and yes... it could certainly be further improved over time and through regular editing by those editors with an interest in improving our coverage of this topic. My understanding is that Wikipedia is a work in progress with no demand for immediate perfection. What can be addressed through regular editing is a reason to allow it be done... and rarely a reason to delete. And while I do not expect that editors who wish it deleted would bother to improve the article, those that DO have an interest will be the ones to make it even better. Thank you. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:53, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately you're wrong, coverage is not decent enough. Coverage must meet the criteria developed in WP:GNG to be decent, and that's not the case here. Your reasoning is erroneous from the start, not all articles can be improved, many of them are actually useless from the start and don't correspond to WP's aims, such as this one...There is no point in claiming that fancruft articles can "improve", because years of existence have proved they can't. You're just pushing an ideology forward, and as with all fancruft articles, inclusionists who fight to keep articles just for the sake of it, will also be the first to abandon the topic because they know nothing can be done with it. If you believe this article can be improved, I'm very curious to know how and with what you're going to do that. That's the best way I know to check whether an AfD comment is an inclusionist vote or a true belief in improvement.Folken de Fanel (talk) 12:23, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There's enough to meet the requirement. htom (talk) 03:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:AFDFORMAT, "When making your case or responding to others, explain how the article meets/violates policy rather than merely stating that it meets/violates the policy". So could you please explain what would meet what criteria, instead of just making an allegation that blatantly ignores solid proof (exposed for example in my own recommandation) that this article does not meet our inclusion requirements that you can find in WP:GNG ? Folken de Fanel (talk) 18:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • They stated there is enough coverage to meet the requirements. Is that not clear enough for you to understand? Dream Focus 18:39, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not enough because proof has been given that the topic doesn't meet GNG requirements. Given that AfDs are not votes, the inclusionists here will have to explain why requirements are met, in their opinion. Statements such as yours, or htom are no more than votes and don't belong in an AfD.Folken de Fanel (talk) 12:23, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I agree there's enough to meet the requirement. - Ret.Prof (talk) 18:05, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • They did explain it. They agreed there is enough coverage to meet the requirements. Dream Focus 18:39, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. They haven't explained anything. They have stated their ideology. They haven't provided a careful examination of the sources explaining why exactly the requirements would be met. AfDs are not votes, they are debates, and serious proof has been given that criteria are not met, so ignoring proof is not going to give strength to inclusionist votes.Folken de Fanel (talk) 12:23, 19 December 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. MBisanz talk 23:33, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

La Vie en Rose (Gundam)[edit]

La Vie en Rose (Gundam) (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 the general notability guideline. Plot only description of a fictional element. Claritas § 22:29, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Calathan (talk) 21:46, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Just too in-universe without any real-world notability or real-world coverage to have an article. Information about it would probably belong better in another Gundam article. Once mentioned in a relevant article, the article can be recreated as a redirect. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:26, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:NOTPLOT, WP:FANCRUFT article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:43, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:43, 18 December 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. MBisanz talk 23:33, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strategic Naval Research Institute[edit]

Strategic Naval Research Institute (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 fictional think-tank. I could not find reliable secondary sources which discuss this topic in depth. In addition, it is unreferenced and completely in universe. Claritas § 22:26, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Calathan (talk) 21:46, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Just too in-universe without any real-world notability or real-world coverage to have an article. Information about it would probably belong better in another Gundam article. Once mentioned in a relevant article, the article can be recreated as a redirect. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:26, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:NOTPLOT, WP:FANCRUFT article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:44, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:42, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete fails WP:GNG. No demonstration of wider coverage. LibStar (talk) 07:02, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. The issues of the article being promotional have been resolved and this alone is no grounds for deletion if it can be salvaged. As it has been, and people believe they can write an article from the sources given, I can find no consensus to delete. - filelakeshoe 09:56, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Black Spark[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Black Spark (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)

Several readers are complaining in feedback that this article reads like an advertisement, and it has notability issues that possibly make it fall short of having multiple reliable sources outside the artist's fandom. Notably, this made a stir in blogs but seems to have since closed down without having a larger impact outside the blogosphere. Shii (tock) 13:10, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • STRONG Delete The anonymous person who is the subject of the article is already a self-admitted sock-puppetteer, Not notable in any event, and there is -0- reliable seconday sourcing. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 02:01, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If "the subject of the article is already a self-admitted sock-puppetteer", I do not see anything indicating that this article was written by a banned or blocked editor, even if about one so purported. And no matter its topic, the point here here is that even if the topic is disliked by some for various reasons, it appears to have received enough coverage to be worthy of note.[2] Sources listed in article are not so much blogs, as they are reports in genre sources about reactions to this performing artist and his works and identity. WP:GNG is met. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:05, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm seeing only one reliable source that is independent of the subject. Can you list them just to make this more clear? Shii (tock) 05:11, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Which one? As the article itself contains several others, we have someone who just ekes over the line. Just. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:57, 12 December 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, —Theopolisme 22:19, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteNeutral - Seems overly promotional and not notable outside of a few blogs. Even then, the subject seems more like a meme than something that should be covered in an encyclopedia. - MrX 23:02, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • A perception or opinion of advert in the content of any article on a notable topic is best addressed through regular editing. And rather than a "meme" spreading from person to person, we have the stage name of a singular anonymous individual who is covered in multiple non-blog sources. Wikipedia allows articles on such if properly souracble (IE: Alan Smithee,George Eliot, Émile Ajar, David Agnew, Walter Plinge, et al. ). What we do for such is articles is explain that it IS a pseudonym and expand to cover the works presented under such name and expand the reasons behind use of the name... much as was done here. And a topic also being also covered in blogs does not denigrate the topic's real-world coverage in reliable sources. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:43, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the promotional tone is not, in itself, a reason for deleting, but it is a reason to investigate further. As far as I can tell, the only reliable source cite is Out Magazine. I guess my main point is how can this article can made encyclopedic, when the available sources treat the subject in such a trite manner? The Facebook sources are completely unacceptable, in my opinion. Show me one additional, non-trivial mention in a publication such as The Advocate or Genre and I will happily change my !vote. - MrX 00:33, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just one? How about the lengthy authored article in Xtra! [3] Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:58, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That review is not a very strong source, but sufficient for me to alter my !vote to neutral. - MrX 01:18, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:56, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:00, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP and CLEANUP It may or may not pass WP:XXXBiographies, but it is very obvious that it passes WP:GNG, at the very least. Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 13:35, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This is just promotional. There is no reliable secondary sourcing at all. Perhaps when this person's identity is revealed there may be something there, until then, it's just a meme. --Sue Rangell ✍✉ 21:37, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well... to be fair, all articles on Wikipedia which speak in detail about their topics could be called "promotional" in some way by some body. The difference between Advert and Article herein, no matter the topic being covered, is our own editorial constraint and our keeping an article neutral and encyclopedic. As the name "Black Spark" is used by one person and/or his film company, and not spreading haphazardly from person to person, we do not (yet) have a true meme, but instead rather a demonstrable example of stage name or pseudonym. We can write about such if they have coverage. We need not ever know just who uses the pseudonym, as long as we can report on how and where and why it is used. I offered examples above. For decades, no director admitted to being one of those using the anonymity of Allan Smithee. And here and now, just as then, it was being an "unknown" that gave the name attention. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:58, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Given the interviews I think this reaches past GNG. Insomesia (talk) 22:28, 13 December 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 Sikh. MBisanz talk 00:35, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mona Sikhs[edit]

Mona Sikhs (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 is no such term 'Mona Sikhs'. This article have not any source. This has not any value. However, this article also express personal opinion of the creator. It should be deleted. This article can be called Duplicate of Patit. Patit is actual as well as legal term used for Sikhs who cut or trim their hair. Thanks. Theman244 (talk) 02:02, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge I did not believe this article was quite of unique enough content to warrant its own article in the first place, and had suggested it might be merged with Sikh in order to benefit both the above article as well as the suggested parent, and I still believe this to be the case. This also appears to be a separate socio-religio-cultural group from the aforementioned Patit, which appears merely to be how one group of Sikhs defines another, not how the latter perceives and refers to themselves, nor does it necessarily begin to cover the cultural and historical distinctions. Any verifiable or unique content that can be sourced should be merged instead, as I do find many references on a simple google search, such as here and here, the latter of which was originally published in 1989 by a credible publisher, so without doing significantly more research, I'd have to presume it's a real cultural distinction of merit and satisfies notability for a merge, if with significant general cleanup and improvement. besiegedtalk 02:52, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This article is written by only one person without any source only express his\her personal opinion, not the whole community or others. Many sentences in article also contradict with each other and contain original research and many other major/minor errors and problems. Before merge with other article all problems should be sorted out otherwise should be deleted. If not deleted then merge with Patit not the main article. Merger with Patit will be more appropriate rather than main. Thanks Theman244 (talk) 23:55, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While I wholeheartedly agree that the article would need a significant amount of cleanup from experts or others with more knowledge in the area than I can provide, my limited research (completely independent of what is covered in the parent article) indicates this is a specific socio-cultural group, whereas Patit seems to be little more than a definition of religious law in how the main body of Sikhs defines a subsect, whereas the Sikh article has appropriate and in-depth coverage of the socio-cultural and historical aspects of Sikhs and Sikhism. Barring reliable sources/evidence to the contrary, I must continue to contend that Sikh is the appropriate article for merger. besiegedtalk 04:58, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sikhism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 1 December 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) 15:07, 6 December 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, —Theopolisme 22:18, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/merge The term mona, meaning shaven, is certainly used of Sikhs who cut their hair and there are numerous sources which support this such as Sikhism. Warden (talk) 23:21, 13 December 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. MBisanz talk 23:34, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Muslim reformers[edit]

List of Muslim reformers (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)

What is a "Muslim reformer"? Is it any Muslim who advocates reform? Is it someone who advocates Muslims reform, that Islam reform, or that the world reform in an Islamic fashion? Who calls these people reformers, and what did they reform? With no context, references, explanations, or clear scope, let's WP:TNT it. --BDD (talk) 21:00, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 21:01, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically, he may belong on a list of people who happen to be both Muslim and reformers, which isn't a valid Wikipedia category, but he's not a reformer of Islam. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:55, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. At least some definition of scope would be required for this list to be viable. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:23, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete random list with no definition of what's a "reformer" Secret account 06:28, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NLIST, plus it frankly doesn't maker much sense. —Theopolisme 21:10, 19 December 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 under WP:CSD#G11 by Orangemike (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure of deleted article. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 19:25, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Michael gualtieri[edit]

Michael gualtieri (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)

Seemingly non-notable BLP. The article asserts that he is a producer and filmmaker, but many of the IMDB credits are for production assistant and the like. More importantly, I could find no reliable, independent sources with which to establish notability. - MrX 20:01, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Can't seem to find anything on this person, and the claims in the bio don't seem to match the two or three given references (not to mention IMDb isn't WP:RS anyway). Also InvinciblePictures (talk · contribs) seems obviously promotional and WP:COI. I'd go for a plow here. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 01:15, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A search brings up nothing to show that this guy is particularly notable. From what I can gather, this is a case of someone over-inflating the importance of a person's accomplishments. This doesn't mean that what he has done isn't worth anything, just that by the notability guidelines of Wikipedia he doesn't pass notability guidelines. Original editor has been reported to the appropriate board for usernames.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 13:38, 13 December 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. MBisanz talk 23:32, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Autumn Dial[edit]

Autumn Dial (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 WP:NACTORS. Dial has a history of totally non-notable roles like "student" and "popular girl". She had a minor 2 appearence in a TV series and a supporting role in a minor made-for-MTV movie. GNews returns less than 10 results, all of which are little more than mentions that she was in an episode. Ghits aren't producing significant coverage that I noticed either. She may be notable someday, but isn't there yet. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:12, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Not notable. Nymf hideliho! 19:22, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Agreed, Google News found three links for her guest starring role as Tina Fell in The Vampire Diaries here and Google Books found one here. Aside from that, everything else has been minor. I'm voting delete with no prejudice towards a new article when she becomes notable, SwisterTwister talk 20:07, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - barely notable...borderline WP:TOOSOON...but I think it's there. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:42, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
She's below the bar regarding notability, the article claims she was best known for My Super Psycho Sweet 16: Part 3 and yet it was a one-time project. Aside from this, she is also best known for her The Vampire Diaries work which was also minimal. SwisterTwister talk 23:08, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:32, 18 December 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, with no prejudice against a further merge discussion happening on the article talk page. - filelakeshoe 09:47, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mall walking[edit]

Mall walking (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)

Difficult to really define why this is non-notable. This is little more than a needless WP:CONTENTFORK of walking. Nothing really distinguishes this activity from simply walking except for the location. There are Ghits for the term, much of that being promotional material from malls that allow pre-opening walking. This may actually border on WP:NEO except that the term isn't that new. Really not seeing anything that differentiates this activity enough to make it notable on it's own. There are articles telling us why it's convenient and safe, but nothing really making it different than walking. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:46, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. One way notability might be established if more in-depth sourcing can be found discussing how this emerged as a fad, especially for seniors. GNews has oodles of brief mentions, e.g. [4][5][6][7] but I agree that these don't really do much to differentiate mall-walking from walking. If something more substantial turns up, I'd be inclined to support a keep here; otherwise probably not. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:03, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That was my dilemna. I can find talking about it, but it's really just walking. Plenty of people walk in the park, but we don't see articles on "park walking" or "sidewalk walking". I wouldn't necessarily oppose a redirect, but prefer that to be the outcome of a AfD, not just something I do on my own. I tagged it for notability a year ago and I haven't seen any improvement or coverage that makes me feel like it's more notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:49, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, here are some examples of articles that explcitly focus on mall walking as a phenomenon, and maybe could show the way to a worthwhile article:
No one knows when the first person cruised a mall for exercise as opposed to merchandise. But there is some evidence for when folks started to formalize the pastime. "It truly started as a way to get out of the weather," said Seth Bauer, editor of The Walking Magazine, a national publication based in Boston. "Now they've become very social and it's become perfectly natural for walkers to go to the mall because they know they'll see their friends." The first organized mall walking program traces its roots to 1985 in Colorado, according to the Walking Magazine; by 1986, King of Prussia Plaza and Cherry Hill had their own, the first in the area. Since then, the activity has grown to the point where roughly 1 million of the nation's frequent fitness walkers do it in the mall, according to statistics provided by The Walking Magazine. "It definitely grew fast in the late '80s, and it's still growing to some extent," Bauer said. There is even a National Organization of Mall Walkers, based in the small town of Hermann, Mo., which does not have a mall, by the way.
Comments/other examples invited. --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:29, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, I know the term is used. Never implied that we couldn't find the term in use. The question is, what makes this a stand alone article. Heck, I'd be ok with a section in the walking article on it. But as a stand alone article, it looks like a needless content fork. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:38, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Legitimate cultural phenomenon in the USA for at least 15 years, probably more. Hush Puppies has had a men's shoe in the line for a decade called the "Mall Walker" anyway. Absolutely the object of coverage in multiple independently-published sources. The article sucks a bit, but that's not a mortal offense. Carrite (talk) 21:43, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Legitimate activity discussed in reliable sources, just like hillwalking or the various other types of walking that have WP articles (hiking, canyoning, etc). --Colapeninsula (talk) 22:15, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - both Carrite and Colapeninsula make valid points but I can't help but think this could be merged somewhere else as Niteshift36 has suggested. I suppose my thinking is that this could probably be covered at walking, but I also wouldn't be strongly opposed to keeping a standalone article if there's enough content to justify one. Adding some content based on the sources provided above would probably be justification enough to keep it separate. I know that's not a particularly helpful contribution to WP:CONSENSUS, but anyway. Stalwart111 23:47, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've proposed here to have the current Walking page split so that the current page focuses on bio-mechanical ambulation and a new page focuses on walking as an exercise and activity. Not really relevant if the consensus is "keep" but some people (myself included) might feel better about merging if the target article was specifically about walking for health reasons, as opposed to a general overview of bipedal locomotion. Angrysockhop (talk to me) 06:12, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:GNG it's just "walking". Redirect if you must, but I don't even see the point in doing that much. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:44, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sources provided in the article, here and additional sources available at "OUT OF ORDER; At the Mall, Walking and Wondering Why" and "Weekend Walker's Cry: To the Mall!" from The New York Times go back decades and establish the notability of the concept as an independent concept. Alansohn (talk) 03:21, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no dispute it gets talked about, the question is whether or not it is really independent. I can find articles that talk about someone driving a Mustang....so do we really need a "mustang driving" article? Niteshift36 (talk) 12:57, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We're not talking about driving a Mustang. We are talking about walking in a mall. Please stay on topic. I vote keep, due to the various sources provided above. Tinton5 (talk) 20:40, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overly literal much? Instead of being really anal about wording, try looking at the concept. Yeah, we are talking about walking in a mall, just walking. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:43, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The sources cover this as an independent concept, and the phenomenon has been discussed in the urban planning literature not just as something some people do, but its implications for how people relate to suburban architecture, suburban planning, and sense of security. The concept has implications beyond just being one of many places in which people walk. Circumspect (talk) 08:21, 20 December 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. (non-admin closure) Go Phightins! 02:39, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Patricia T. Holland[edit]

Patricia T. Holland (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)

NN. Doesn't appear to be anything non-LDS about her; and her only claim to notability is that she was married to the head honcho at BYU. PROD declined by creator, claiming that "Being a member of the Young Women General Presidency makes her notable". Sorry, it doesn't, there is no notability guideline that says that; there isn't even an article on the Young Women General Presidency. Having references that aren't LDS-related make something notable pbp 18:38, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, the Deseret News doesn't count as a verifiable source, as it's LDS-related pbp 18:40, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Her notability is from her having been a member of the Young Women General Presidency. That has been accepted as a notable level of office. Her notability is not connected to her husbnad, it is connected with her own office holding.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:42, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per WP:BURDEN, please provide evidence that that office is notable. There is no specific notability guideline saying so. There are no references in the article to indicate notability. Therefore, she isn't notable pbp 18:44, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • There are references in the article. The sources are not in anyway controlled by Holland. She did not create them. She had no direct control over their creation. Your disallowing of a respected newspaper being used as a source, or a magazine being used as a source because of their ownership is not really logical. These sources were not created by Holland.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:58, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please read Wikipedia:Third-party sources. According to the page, "A third-party source is one that is entirely independent of the subject being covered" An LDS official is not independent of the LDS church, therefore said official isn't independent of the LDS church's websites or publications, either pbp 20:04, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Deseret News is not an LDS Church publication. The corporation is owned by a company that's owned by the church, but the church doesn't control what they write. ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:45, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The subject is definitely notable, although the article is poorly sourced. Still, the article should be improved rather than deleted. I don't see any problems with using the Deseret News as a source. It's an established newspaper, and there are no controversial claims being made where there may be a conflict of interest. ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:41, 13 December 2012 (UTC) Also, the nominator's statement that "her only claim to notability is that she was married to the head honcho at BYU", that is not quite accurate. Yes, her husband is a former BYU president, but he is also an LDS Apostle, basically the top position in the LDS Church (there are only 15). The young women general presidency is also notable (also one of the highest positions in the church). ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:02, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Wikipedia:Third-party sources supports the sourcing, and she seems notable on her own in any event. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:48, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the person is clearly notable and the nom's insistence on non-LDS sources is bizarre. Oculi (talk) 16:14, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What's so "bizarre" about it? Please read WP:V and WP:RELIABLESOURCE. Just as you don't source an article about an executive from his company's website, you don't source an article on a church official from the church's website pbp 16:38, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have made the same argument in this AfD and it didn't work very well there either. As has been pointed out many times, Deseret News is not a church publication. Also, if a company's website had uncontroversial biographical information on their executives (education, past work experience, tenure, etc.) I would be perfectly happy using that as a supplementary source. Not that that has anything to do with this AfD. Holland is not and never was an executive of the Deseret Newspaper. ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:14, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Um, the reason that those were kept is that non-LDS church sources were found for them. And it appears that there is somewhat of a double standard here...if this was an artist or game designer who was only sourced by his game's website, regardless of how notable his game was, the article would still be deleted. I stand by my assertion that these need non-LDS sources to pass WP:V and WP:RELIABLESOURCE pbp 17:40, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough on the older AfDs. The problem with your game designer example is that this article is not sourced to a self-published website, and the subject of this article had little or no input on what was published. Deseret News is a major newspaper. Show me the sentence in WP:V or WP:RS that says major newspapers should be ignored if they are somehow affiliated with the subject. ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:55, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:29, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:29, 18 December 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. (non-admin closure) -- Cheers, Riley 00:00, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Mendenhall[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Walter Mendenhall (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)

From PROD removed per WP:PROD: This player never even made a regular season NFL roster and has not been in training camp since 2010. There is no other evidence of professional experience on the page, and his college career is unimpressive. He's just a Jo-schmo He only has a page since his brother, who is now being phased out of the NFL, is famous. Illia Connell (talk) 18:05, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Personally, I am simpathetic to those who make inseason practice squads, but I find no evidence that he even achieved that level of notability. He was not a star and there is nothing but incidental mentions of some college play. Maybe there might be some sibling rivalry stories surrounding his more famous younger brother from the Illinois campus newspapers that would give us a biographical sketch, but until such sources are revealed, I would have to agree that notability is not established.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:36, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WEAK Keep Upon review of AFD1, I see some sources such as this that qualify this article for WP:GNG.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:43, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:24, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:24, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I see no reason to change my position from the last AFD. The sources provided in the last AFD by User:Cbl62 are good arguments for keeping this article. It looks like additional information has come online in the last three and a half years to provide even more arguments in favor of notability.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:45, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The nominator is under the misapprehension that a football player is a "Joe-schmo" and not notable unless he plays in the NFL. College players qualify under WP:GNG if they have received significant, non-trivial coverage in the mainstream media. Mendenhall has received such coverage, some of which was mentioned in the last AfD. I have now expanded the article a bit and added some of that coverage, which includes non-trivial stories about this person in ESPN.com, The Sporting News, Sports Illustrated, Chicago Tribune, and Chicago Sun-Times. IMO there's plenty to satisfy general notability standards, and I see no reason to change my position from the last AFD. Cbl62 (talk) 16:09, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Enough sources provided to indicate notability. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 19:28, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Plenty of coverage from reliable third-party sources to establish notability. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:31, 18 December 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 for copying non-free content, as below, by RHaworth. Uncle G (talk) 20:20, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

21st December, 2012[edit]

21st December, 2012 (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 WP:CFORK

Pretty much everything in this article is already covered in the page 2012 phenomenon. Mikeo34 (talk) 16:40, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not only is it largely a duplicate of 2012 phenomenon, but it's all uncited and I have serious doubts about the truths of some statements. It reads like someone's copied it from a sensationalistic website. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:23, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. It's sort of copyvio from the guy's own blog. Parts of it, anyway. It's his own stuff, but I'll tag it just so it can die a quick death.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 19:06, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've left him a message about some of the issues in here. I think he meant well, but is just new. I proposed that if he's interested in contributing to the 2012 Phenomenon article, that he start on the talk page until he gets a little more familiar with the tone/style for Wikipedia. It can be a big writing style change for newer users, or at least it was for me when I first started editing.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 19:15, 12 December 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. MBisanz talk 18:51, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pēteris Jurčenko[edit]

Pēteris Jurčenko (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 WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL (talk). Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 16:27, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 16:30, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 16:30, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 16:30, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - this was nominated for deletion in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leonards Andžāns, where the nominator was asked to renominate individually and give a better rationale for why the article should be deleted. The nominator has failed to do the latter, and the discussion at WT:FOOTY which is linked above, shows no consensus to go and mass-delete Latvian footballers that has played in the Soviet top league. Mentoz86 (talk) 14:42, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Michael (talk) 04:45, 14 December 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. MBisanz talk 18:51, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nikolajs Jermakovs[edit]

Nikolajs Jermakovs (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 WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL (talk). Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 16:27, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 16:30, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 16:30, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 16:30, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - this was nominated for deletion in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leonards Andžāns, where the nominator was asked to renominate individually and give a better rationale for why the article should be deleted. The nominator has failed to do the latter, and the discussion at WT:FOOTY which is linked above, shows no consensus to go and mass-delete Latvian footballers that has played in the Soviet top league. Mentoz86 (talk) 14:41, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Michael (talk) 04:46, 14 December 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. MBisanz talk 18:51, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Valdis Jansons[edit]

Valdis Jansons (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 WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 16:26, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 16:30, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 16:30, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 16:30, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Michael (talk) 04:46, 14 December 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. MBisanz talk 18:51, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vitālijs Jagodinskis[edit]

Vitālijs Jagodinskis (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 WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 16:23, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 16:30, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 16:30, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 16:30, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Because he spent matches in the Latvian League. But I see, that you want to remove many articles. With good lack... I am little tired to protect my or other articles from persons with this style of minding--Noel baran (talk) 17:05, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Noel, it's not our concern whether or not your tired of trying to protect any article that's being nominated for deletion. The bottomline is the player hasn't played in a fully pro league, so he fails WP:NFOOTBALL and more importantly, he has no significant coverage so he also fails WP:GNG. – Michael (talk) 23:00, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Michael (talk) 04:46, 14 December 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. MBisanz talk 18:51, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Roberts Heiblihs[edit]

Roberts Heiblihs (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 WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL (talk). Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 16:23, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 16:30, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 16:30, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 16:30, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - this was nominated for deletion in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leonards Andžāns, where the nominator was asked to renominate individually and give a better rationale for why the article should be deleted. The nominator has failed to do the latter, and the discussion at WT:FOOTY which is linked above, shows no consensus to go and mass-delete Latvian footballers that has played in the Soviet top league. Mentoz86 (talk) 14:39, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Michael (talk) 04:47, 14 December 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. MBisanz talk 18:51, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jānis Intenbergs[edit]

Jānis Intenbergs (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 WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL (talk). Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 16:23, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 16:30, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 16:30, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 16:30, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - this was nominated for deletion in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leonards Andžāns, where the nominator was asked to renominate individually and give a better rationale for why the article should be deleted. The nominator has failed to do the latter, and the discussion at WT:FOOTY which is linked above, shows no consensus to go and mass-delete Latvian footballers that has played in the Soviet top league. Mentoz86 (talk) 14:39, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Michael (talk) 04:47, 14 December 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. MBisanz talk 18:51, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Harijs Balcers[edit]

Harijs Balcers (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 WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL (talk). Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 16:22, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 16:30, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 16:30, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 16:30, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - this was nominated for deletion in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leonards Andžāns, where the nominator was asked to renominate individually and give a better rationale for why the article should be deleted. The nominator has failed to do the latter, and the discussion at WT:FOOTY which is linked above, shows no consensus to go and mass-delete Latvian footballers that has played in the Soviet top league. Mentoz86 (talk) 14:38, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Michael (talk) 04:48, 14 December 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. MBisanz talk 18:50, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dainis Andersons[edit]

Dainis Andersons (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 WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL (talk). Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 16:22, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 16:30, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 16:30, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 16:30, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - this was nominated for deletion in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leonards Andžāns, where the nominator was asked to renominate individually and give a better rationale for why the article should be deleted. The nominator has failed to do the latter, and the discussion at WT:FOOTY which is linked above, shows no consensus to go and mass-delete Latvian footballers that has played in the Soviet top league. Mentoz86 (talk) 14:37, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Michael (talk) 04:47, 14 December 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. MBisanz talk 18:50, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Leonards Andžāns[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Leonards Andžāns (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 WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL (talk). Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 16:22, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 16:30, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 16:30, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 16:30, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - this was nominated for deletion in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leonards Andžāns, where the nominator was asked to renominate individually and give a better rationale for why the article should be deleted. The nominator has failed to do the latter, and the discussion at WT:FOOTY which is linked above, shows no consensus to go and mass-delete Latvian footballers that has played in the Soviet top league. Mentoz86 (talk) 14:36, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Michael (talk) 04:49, 14 December 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 speedied. Bearcat (talk) 16:20, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seniority in the 113th United States Senate[edit]

Seniority in the 113th United States Senate (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)

Unused. There is no 113th U.S. Senate, just one senate. —GoldRingChip 16:13, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No actual discussion needed; this is just a redirect leftover from a minor bout of confusion about the appropriate name for a temporary sandbox page, and can be speedied as unnecessary. Bearcat (talk) 16:20, 12 December 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. MBisanz talk 18:50, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ezatullah Zaki[edit]

Ezatullah Zaki (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 autobiography, persistently unredirected by its creator. Claims to be editor-in-chief of a Pashto weekly but it's hard to judge whether the publication itself is even notable. Entry is also unsourced, although I have not gone through every single external link to see if one can stand up as a reference; most of them appear to be articles written by this person. Prod declined. Hairhorn (talk) 15:46, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Article is just a sentence saying he is a young Afghan journalist. Notability not established. External links are all in Afghani script. No source discloses anything about him. Donner60 (talk) 07:31, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:20, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:20, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:GNG, google search provides no editorial coverage.--Nixie9 (talk) 02:18, 19 December 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. MBisanz talk 18:50, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vougar Garadaghly[edit]

Vougar Garadaghly (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 appears to have been created by the person who is the subject of the article. Furthermore, a search for reliable, secondary sources reveals an insufficient amount of significant coverage. This article fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines for academics. Neelix (talk) 15:20, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:18, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:18, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:18, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:18, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Being a great-grandson of somebody is not quite enough. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:31, 18 December 2012 (UTC).[reply]
  • I don't think that's what the notability of the article is being based on. It appears there's something real there (just starting with the az: version of the article showing him giving a large press conference), but the article is so poorly written right now, that it's hard to tell if there's enough. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 05:22, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:PROF, WP:ANYBIO, WP:AUTHOR, WP:GNG--Nixie9 (talk)
  • Weak Delete Subject may be notable in his native language, but that is not demonstrated by anything so far in the discussion, and is not verifiable by any means we who do not speak Azeri or Russian possess. We may need to stick in some sort of codicil to our notability criteria that reminds people that this is an English language site, so subjects so far outside the cognizance of the English-speaking world as to not have good sourcing on them in English might not be good subjects for English Wikipedia articles. So this might be closer to a fail of WP:V than WP:PROF. RayTalk 15:56, 19 December 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. MBisanz talk 18:50, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

HiFyve[edit]

HiFyve (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 music artist. Fails WP:GNG with no Google News search hits and no Google News Archive search hits. None of the few references in the article constitute significant coverage from independent and reliable sources. Fails WP:MUSIC by not satisfying any of its points. Most likely a self promotion article as it was made by the user MediaOutreach. Also, claim of 20k digital sales is dubious as its associated reference is just a link to buy the song and its Youtube video only has 300 views. At least the article is well written. OlYeller21Talktome 15:08, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]


We're trying to improve this page and prevent this from happening to other articles.How can we do so? MediaOutreach 8:25, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:13, 18 December 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. MBisanz talk 18:50, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Burdick[edit]

Kevin Burdick (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 WP:GNG. This is a vanity piece, probably written by Kevin himself. Jrcla2 (talk) 14:30, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, no credible claim to notability, google hits all local press.TheLongTone (talk) 16:20, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The 75 Kevin Burdicks in the US together still fail WP:GNG, sorry. Need sustained editorial discussion. --Nixie9 (talk) 04:43, 19 December 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. (non-admin closure) -- Cheers, Riley 00:03, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thorsø, Norway[edit]

Thorsø, Norway (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)

Just a farm, nothing notable as far as I can see. Deprodded with the rationale "The apparant former use as a place of worship may make the place notable", but in the article there are no references and a citation needed tag for this claim. Geschichte (talk) 14:02, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:30, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per WP:GEOLAND and WP:NPLACE, "Villages are generally kept, regardless of size, as long as their existence is verified through a reliable source". I have sourced the article so this criteria is satisfied. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:47, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I was able to source the derivation from Þórshof and its use as a data point about the worship of Thor, found that it is extensively covered in books as one of the great farms of Østfold, and that it was Kai Møller's personal estate (our article does not cover his work in agronomy and land reform) as well as the disguised setting for historical novels by Ingeborg Møller and that Hans Angell Gude (who lacks an article on no.wikipedia too, but merits one) is believed to have been murdered there. I've added several references and under Further reading, 3 books I can't access. Things are complicated by the fact it is sometimes listed under Borge, from which Torsnes was later split off, but even though it is one of the less certain examples of a "temple of Thor" place-name, I believe I've established that it has enough of a paper trail in reliable sources that are not pure gazeteers to establish notability. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:42, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I chose to split this article off because of its apparant use and a place of worship. Subsequent addition to the article shows that the place is more interesting (and notable) than just a farm. Op47 (talk) 18:46, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - more than enough information verifies its existence and notability, already in the article. See also WP:BEFORE, WP:OUTCOMES. Bearian (talk) 18:42, 18 December 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. (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 06:27, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft Lync Server[edit]

Microsoft Lync Server (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)

Product does not appear independently notable, unable to find significant, in depth coverage in reliable sources to support GNG. Nouniquenames 11:19, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Codename Lisa (talk) 18:31, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Codename Lisa (talk) 18:31, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Codename Lisa (talk) 18:31, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. There are lots of how-to books and manuals. I don't personally think that makes it notable. --Nouniquenames 01:43, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, significant coverage in secondary sources. — Cirt (talk) 16:02, 15 December 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 National Assembly for Wales election, 2007. MBisanz talk 18:50, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Shaw[edit]

Barry Shaw (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 came across this article somewhat by accident while researching another, unrelated Barry Shaw for another article. A quick look at the article showed that the only source was a primary link to the Plaid Cymru website. His main claim to fame is that he ran as a candidate for the National Assembly for Wales election, 2007 for the Vale of Glamorgan constituency. He didn't win and the only sources I can find are a handful of articles where he's briefly mentioned, with the most in-depth article about him seeming to talk about how he abandoned a dog. I'm bringing this here rather than redirect it to Plaid Cymru or (probably more appropriate) to the specific election because I know that there is the chance of there being sources that might be in Welsh or in other sources that wouldn't show up automatically on a Google search. There is just enough doubt for me to bring it here instead. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:55, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note that there are some false positives about a Michael Jackson body double that are assuredly not for the same person!Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:57, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 18 December 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. MBisanz talk 18:49, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy Hayden (fighter)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Tommy Hayden (fighter) (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 has yet to be established. If he gets a fight against a bigger name opponent, then recreate the page. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 10:26, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 08:03, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The first AfD was flawed - at the time he had only one top tier fight which he lost. Since then he has had one more 6 months ago which was also lost. The probability that he will be given a third chance in the near future is nil.Peter Rehse (talk) 08:19, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't pass GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PortlandOregon97217 (talk • contribs) 10:36, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: He is a former UFC fighter, with multiple fights for the promotion. Definitely a notable figure. Willdawg111 (talk) 15:38, 19 December 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. MBisanz talk 18:49, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bernardo Magalhaes[edit]

Bernardo Magalhaes (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 has yet to be established. If he gets a fight against a bigger name opponent, then recreate the page. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 10:11, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 07:59, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 23:52, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - has two fights in the UFC and has multiple fights in Australia's number one promotion, so he passes WP:MMANOT and should be kept. Paralympiakos (talk) 16:00, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Give him some time he will have another big fight. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 10:39, 18 December 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. (non-admin closure) —Theopolisme 21:10, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Lohan[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Michael Lohan (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 appears to me to be in violation of WP:N. The majority of sources are of doubtful reliability and are concerned chiefly with the subject's eldest daughter. There appears to be no notability aside from his marriage and children (see WP:NOTINHERITED, plus a criminal record. Vox Humana 8' 10:04, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I do agree with you on several points (although I'll still do the research), but be careful about how you phrase the AfD justification. It kind of comes across as a little angry, which could seem like you're doing it because you dislike the Lohans. Silly, I know, but you want to avoid people having a knee-jerk reaction to the AfD because you're being a little snarky. I've seen AfDs closed for less, so just be a little careful how you phrase things. I do agree that the Lohans seem to have most of their notability come out of articles talking about Lindsay's antics, but there is some slight argument for some notability for Ali and Dina Lohan because of their reality show. I wish there was an easy way to combine all of the non-Lindsay Lohan family members into one article about the family as a whole, but I'm not sure of exactly how to do that. I do want to caution that finding sources that never mention Linday will probably be incredibly hard, if not impossible to find. This doesn't mean that they can't have notability outside of Lindsay or that a source that mentions Lindsay in part or passing but puts a predominant focus on the other Lohan(s) couldn't show notability for them.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 11:11, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies - post edited in less intemperate manner =) --Vox Humana 8' 11:20, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eh, no biggie. I got the general gist of it, but I don't want this to be closed early. There's definitely a good argument against notability for the family. For example, most of Ali Lohan's notability seems to stem from Lindsay or from the reality show she starred in, so she might be good as a redirect to the reality show if nothing else can be found.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 11:40, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge The spirit of WP:N say that being related to a notable person doesn't make you notable. This particular Lohan is notable for being the father of a fameous person, and also all the other tabloid drama he brought on himself. It's sort of like Billy Carter. Being the sibiling of a President doesn't make you notable, until your own actions make you part of populat culture. Although, it may be better to 'merge this article. Roodog2k (talk) 20:39, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - quite famous and notable, even notorious. COI alert: we may be distant cousins by marriage. Bearian (talk) 18:24, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Simply and clearly passes WP:GNG. He has been often discussed editorially, over sustained period. I don't care who he is, fathered, does or says.--Nixie9 (talk) 04:57, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As right now. Meets notability requirements. ApprenticeFan work 08:00, 19 December 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. MBisanz talk 18:49, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yoislandy Izquierdo[edit]

Yoislandy Izquierdo (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 has yet to be established. If he gets a fight against a bigger name opponent, then recreate the page. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 10:01, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 07:56, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 18 December 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. (non-admin closure) -- Cheers, Riley 00:05, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Lohan[edit]

Ali Lohan (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 basic notability test: one minor film appearance and an unreleased album, plus being the sister of a celebrity nobody best known for her run-ins with the law? Come on, time we tightened up on such flagrant violations of WP:N... Vox Humana 8' 10:00, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - seems to easily pass the general notability guideline, a search turns up enough reliable sources to vote to keep this, some mistake here? JoshuSasori (talk) 11:38, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • If no response to the above comment, then Keep. JoshuSasori (talk) 00:56, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:NACTOR #1 with lead roles in Mostly Ghostly: Who Let the Ghosts Out? and Living Lohan, plus no shortage of press coverage. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:42, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - not hugely notable, but sufficiently so to pass our inclusion guidelines. Even if she hasn't done much so far, there's enough coverage in reliable sources to justify an article. Robofish (talk) 14:59, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Ali Lohan will only turn 19 years old this December. Her career as a fashion model has not received much attention but, she is still signed onto one of the worlds biggest fashion agencies. I believe she is still young and her career could significantly rise at any moment not to mention that she comes from a well known family. Her career in singing may also not received much attention, but she still has a charted song in America(bubbling under hot 100). This article should be kept.StangerManor (talk) 18:43, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 17 December 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. (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 10:34, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dina Lohan[edit]

Dina Lohan (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)

How the hell does this qualify for basic WP:N? People made famous by reality TV shows about themselves are not notable! She is only notable as wife of another nobody with whom she has four nobody children, the eldest of whom might be BORDERLINE notable, mostly for being another famous-for-being-famous drunkard/druggie/casual criminal, but the rest of the family? Yes, the page is sourced, but what are the sources? Mostly a load of gutter press celeb gossip that's less reliable than 1970s Italian cars! Vox Humana 8' 09:52, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to Lindsay Lohan, this person probably scrapes through the notability guidelines but even so the only reason she is notable is because of her relationship with Lindsay Lohan. JoshuSasori (talk) 11:41, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm confused by the tone of the nom, is that implying that Lindsay Lohan is barely notable? If it is, well, that's just stupid. If not, what does it mean? I'm neutral on the presence of this article, to be honest. Lukeno94 (talk) 14:17, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If she's only famous for Living Lohan then a merge there would be sensible. If she formally acted as Lohan's manager for a substantial period of time, as well as evidently managing other Lohan siblings, she may be notable as a prominent showbiz manager. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:46, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails notability by herself, famous relatives do not create independent notability either WP:NOTINHERITED. --Phazakerley (talk) 04:39, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Her relationship to someone else is not the governing criteria, nor the reason for inclusion, though it is exected that such relationship would at least be mentioned in a comprehensive article herein. What governs is WP:PEOPLE and WP:GNG. See news coverage. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:03, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - She has appeared in enough media sources. Quite deserving of a Wikipedia page. However if deletion of the page is going to go through, it should be merged with Lindsay Lohan's page and put under "family" in her "Personal Life" section.StangerManor (talk) 18:57, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per meeting WP:GNG. Does not matter to me whether or not she is related to someone notable (or infamous), just so long as she herself meets our notability criteria... which she does. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:59, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - quite famous and notable, even notorious. COI alert: we may be distant cousins by marriage. Bearian (talk) 18:23, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - She simply meets WP:GNG with substantial repeated editorial discussion. Don't care who she is or what she does.--Nixie9 (talk) 02:13, 19 December 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. MBisanz talk 18:48, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of James Bond title references[edit]

List of James Bond title references (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 is nothing cited/notable in this article that isn't already covered in the relevant film articles. A redirect isn't really appropriate since the content is spread out over different film articles; not many articles link here so I'm proposing deletion as the most appropriate course of action. SchroCat (talk) 09:24, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 December 12. Snotbot  t • c »  09:43, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete It's an interesting article, but it doesn't seem to accord with how Wikipedia does things: articles which are lists of trivia are discouraged, and this information should be in the individual articles on the Bond books/films/stories. Has someone checked that all the content is in the relevant film/book articles? --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:48, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: fascinating information which belongs in the relevant book and film articles. Before deleting I ask that editors ensure all information in this article does appear in the relevant book and film articles. For example, this article has further rejected titles for Fleming's novel Moonraker which do not appear in Moonraker (novel), e.g. "Bond & The Moonraker". - Fanthrillers (talk) 21:41, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure about the titles in a number of instances. When I re-worked the book articles i ensured that all the titles that were in the sources went into the articles, and so Moonraker, for example, shows "The Moonraker, The Moonraker Secret, The Moonraker Plot, The Inhuman Element, Wide of the Mark, The Infernal Machine,[16] Hell Is Here and Out of the Clear Sky,[19]". The others that are listed are not sourced and I'm not sure where they have come from. I'll ensure I do a full search for the other titles to make sure nothing is lost that shouldn't be. - SchroCat (talk) 22:11, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Griswold's book lists further alternate titles (q.v. google books). Don't have a page number handy unfortunately. This website shows Fleming's handwritten suggestions on a letter to Wren Howard. Thanks for offering to doublecheck. - Fanthrillers (talk) 22:30, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Within each article on the novel and/or film, this is encyclopedic information about those works. Lumped all together, it's trivia and not meaningful as a single topic. postdlf (talk) 19:36, 17 December 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. Copyright infringment WilyD 09:18, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Cooper (author)[edit]

Tom Cooper (author) (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 contested by article creator (see talk page); there is no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 09:28, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete as per nom. no notability at all.--Wakowako (talk) 11:45, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Here's the big issue: while the guy could potentially be considered enough of an authority to where his books could potentially serve as a source for articles based on the planes he's written about, he isn't such a notable authority that he'd pass parts 1 or 2 of WP:AUTHOR. There just doesn't seem to be any sources that are in-depth, reliable, and independent of the source. I see his name getting dropped in a few blogs, but by large most of the stuff I'm finding is about other Tom Coopers, is unusable, or are otherwise junk/merchant hits. If there are any sources out there, they're incredibly well hidden. The PROD rationale was that he is an author, but as stated on the talk page, simply publishing a book doesn't guarantee notability. You can publish a book through one of the Big Four, yet that doesn't guarantee notability.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 12:03, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Lacks notability. Also, this article is a copy and paste from the publishers website link. --Phazakerley (talk) 04:46, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then speedy delete as copy-vio. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 06:12, 13 December 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. MBisanz talk 18:47, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Scanlon (fighter)[edit]

Mark Scanlon (fighter) (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 has yet to be established. If he gets a fight against a bigger name opponent, then recreate the page. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 09:13, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 07:53, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - You're supposed to notify the creator of the page about a deletion nomination......thanks for not doing that!!! He's had a fight in the UFC and has had many fights in notable domestic promotions, so notability is justified, especially within the country. Paralympiakos (talk) 15:56, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - the nominator is a frequently blocked user and is currently undergoing yet another block. Paralympiakos (talk) 16:06, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm not blocked anymore, and that has nothing to do with the nomination, which happened before my block. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 08:09, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 17 December 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. MBisanz talk 18:47, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vector Sigma[edit]

Vector Sigma (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 fictional computer. No significant coverage in reliable secondary sources as mandated by the general notability guideline. Claritas § 21:00, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:29, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:29, 8 December 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, Mediran talk to me! 08:54, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, long and almost entirely unreferenced article loaded with POV analysis about a fictional universe with no assertion of WP:Notability. In short, it's a perfect article for the Transformers Wiki, but not an appropriate article for Wikipedia. Altered Walter (talk) 23:24, 14 December 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 List of projects, centers, and institutes at Metropolitan State University of Denver. Courcelles 08:16, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of projects, centers, and institutes at Metropolitan State College of Denver[edit]

List of projects, centers, and institutes at Metropolitan State College of Denver (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 obsolete; also it is covered by the article List of projects, centers, and institutes at Metropolitan State University of Denver Jeffrey Beall (talk) 18:45, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 10 December 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, Mediran talk to me! 08:53, 12 December 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. (non-admin closure) -- Cheers, Riley 00:06, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

James Avery Craftsman[edit]

James Avery Craftsman (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)

Page is a business listing and website link, with no claims or references supporting notability Modern.Jewelry.Historian (talk) 19:08, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I've added various links to newspaper and magazine articles pertaining to the company. See in particular the long 1991 Texas Monthly article about the company's history. AllyD (talk) 23:26, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a significant and solidly notable retail chain. In addition to AllyD's sources, GNews and HighBeam turn up more, such as [9][10] [11][12]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 02:57, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A range of press coverage for several years meets WP:N. The only concern is that most of the press coverage is from one state, Texas, but Arxiloxos provides a link from South Carolina, the firm operates in several states, and Texas is bigger than many countries anyway. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:06, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 11 December 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, Mediran talk to me! 08:53, 12 December 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 From Genesis to Revelation. Courcelles 08:18, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Conqueror (song)[edit]

AfDs related/similar to this article:
The Conqueror (song) (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 topic (i.e. The Conqueror song) fails to meet notability guidelines. Hence, I propose the article be deleted and redirected to From Genesis to Revelation and whatever retrievable content one may think there is, be merged into suitable page (probably into the album itself). Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 17:28, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — sparklism hey! 09:28, 6 December 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, Mediran talk to me! 08:51, 12 December 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 National University of Singapore. The consensus is delete, but that is really cnsensus that this not be a seperate article. With a easy merge/redirect target, straight deletion is not the best call; no valid reasons have been given to make this a redlink, rather than directing readers back to the article on the NUS Courcelles 08:22, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Faculty of Science, National University of Singapore[edit]

Faculty of Science, National University of Singapore (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 WP:ORG. All the information like departments, history and past deans can be found on the faculty's own website. Notable alumni are on the university's broader list. LibStar (talk) 13:57, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 9 December 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, Mediran talk to me! 08:50, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Individual faculties and departments are not generally notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:32, 12 December 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. MBisanz talk 23:32, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

James A. Graham (psychologist)[edit]

James A. Graham (psychologist) (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 each of nine criteria of WP:Notability (academics) Mayumashu (talk) 03:15, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Recuse myself - I'm an involved party, or close enough, with possible conflicts of interests.--Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 02:53, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This is an unsourced BLP as currently written. No opinion as to notability. This is an academic, so those with expertise on the notability of such folks are called to opine. Carrite (talk) 15:40, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • uncertain He might qualify under WP:AUTHOR. His co-authored book The African American child : development and challenges is very widely held and had a positive review in CHOICE, an authoritative source for academic reviews WorldCat listing including the review; Children of incarcerated parents is also widely held, but he is only a co-editor. Developmental Science: An Introductory Approach is a very short introductory textbook. as for WP:PROF, tho a full professor, it's at a (very good) undergraduate college, not a research university. DGG ( talk ) 06:55, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
the h index is higher if one counts the books, but I agree about WP:PROF. The question is WP:AUTHOR, on the basis of the Choice review. DGG ( talk ) 10:27, 10 December 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, Mediran talk to me! 08:49, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The name does get a reasonable amount of references in literature in psychology. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 11:27, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: per ACEOREVIVED - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:03, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The number of references in the psychology literature, as mentioned above by Xxanthippe, are woefully below anything sufficient to meet WP:PROF. As for WP:AUTHOR, I don't think that 1 review establishes notability under that guideline either. Finally, there's no indication at all that this meets WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. --Randykitty (talk) 13:04, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Gscholar is being problematic (name collisions, etc) on citations. Can the people discussing relative number of references in the literature give some more explanation as to how they arrived at their information? RayTalk 20:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My practice is to sort through GS citations counting only those that appear to be in the topic area of the subject. To be specific I found here 107, 58, 50, 15, 5. They start off well but don't go far. As I said - too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:48, 17 December 2012 (UTC).[reply]

I would agree that Google Scholar is problematic - in fact, I once knew a librarian at the University of Northampton who once said in my hearing that she would give her reasons for not using it. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 09:31, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per WP:BARE - author of an important book, and a full professor. Bearian (talk) 18:28, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Keep This seems to be a borderline case. Citations, as Xxanthippe have noted, start off very well, but are not sustained. He has coauthored a book which is held in multiple libraries, but we've only found one independent review of it (after a bit of Googling around, Choice seems to be it), so we have an otherwise (borderline) NN academic who is the author of a book that just fails WP:BK. and the book is the subject of instruction at places other than his own school [13], and has received multiple reviews (Choice, and here in an APA journal). RayTalk 19:19, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:GNG, I cannot find any editorial coverage, only links to his own publications and university bios.--Nixie9 (talk) 03:56, 19 December 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. Courcelles 08:27, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Grzegorz Jakubowski[edit]

Grzegorz Jakubowski (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 - never fought in top tier - claims to fame are loosing fights to a few top tier (former?) fighters. The one reference is about someone else. Peter Rehse (talk) 07:58, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 08:01, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Using what criteria? Certainly not the requirements for MMA fighters. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 14:51, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This guy is on my radar now. He subbed Carmont who is on a roll now. Plus he's fought quit a cast of UFC fighters. He just needs to get those notable fights. Delete. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 10:45, 18 December 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. MBisanz talk 18:47, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Elixir (band)[edit]

Elixir (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)

This band fails WP:N and possibly WP:BAND. Several searches, including ones in GNews archives and Books have not provided any coverage in reliable sources. While they released a 12" record on 3D Vision Records in 1999, this does not seem to be enough to confer to overall topic notability. Northamerica1000(talk) 07:22, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom Mediran talk to me! 08:40, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I think this one really depends on the notability of the two individual musicians. Both have articles under their pseudonyms, but both articles are unconvincing regarding notability. I didn't find anything on this group/project but I'll see what I can dig up on the two individuals involved - if both turn out to be notable, then perhaps this should be kept per WP:BAND criterion 6, if only one is notable then we have an easy merge/redirect decision. If none, then delete. --Michig (talk) 18:27, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Having searched for sources on the two musicians, and finding little more than this and this, I think this is a clear delete. The articles on Talamasca (group) and Absolum also need to go, I think. --Michig (talk) 18:41, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 17 December 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. Courcelles 08:29, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Codigo Cube Trivia[edit]

Codigo Cube Trivia (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 do not meet WP:GNG. A relatively new game which do not have significant coverage in RS. Amartyabag TALK2ME 06:35, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 17 December 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. MBisanz talk 18:47, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Sandoval[edit]

Joseph Sandoval (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 has yet to be established. If he gets a fight against a bigger name opponent, then recreate the page. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 06:17, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 07:46, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - has two bouts in the UFC and multiple in Shark Fights, so he easily passes WP:MMANOT. People seem to misunderstand MMANOT. You don't have to ONLY have tier 1 promotional fights, otherwise there'd be no point in having tier 2 in there! Paralympiakos (talk) 15:59, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 17 December 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. MBisanz talk 18:46, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pat Schilling[edit]

Pat Schilling (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 has yet to be established. If he gets a fight against a bigger name opponent, then recreate the page. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 06:14, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete the subject has only 7 fights with 5 wins. The subject don't have significance to have an article. Mediran talk to me! 08:33, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete for not passing gngPortlandOregon97217 (talk) 10:29, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Subject fails WP:NMMA. Has fought twice for UFC (both fights were losses) and was released from the promotion recently. --LlamaAl (talk) 04:58, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: notable name. Let's stop trying to delete the entire data base of fighters. Where will it end?Willdawg111 (talk) 05:41, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: You should explain want makes him notable if he is, and use policy based reasons if you want to keep this article. Wikipedia doesnt need to have a bunch of pages of unnotable fighters. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 08:10, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Ok, Had multiple fights in the UFC. No doubt a notable figure. Willdawg111 (talk) 15:42, 19 December 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 Userfy back to its author at User:BlakeAproducer/White T per his request as a userspace draft. WP:TOOSOON for mainspace. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:04, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

White T[edit]

White T (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)

Completely unsourced article about a non-notable film. Appears to be a recreation (judging by the template included in the original edit). User:BlakeAproducer apears to be connected to the film and is very very likely to be the same user as User:BlakePhillips and User:WHITE T MOVIE. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 05:54, 12 December 2012 (UTC) Delicious carbuncle (talk) 05:54, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to delete profiles that have been made by other people (old interns) that I do not have passwords to. I am trying to create the actual page about myself and maybe I am doing it in the wrong fashion. If so please explain where I am to do this. It looks as though it needs to be in Articles which is where I am building now. White T is a notable film with many notable actors in it. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1833835/

How can something such as Laugh at my Pain have an article but something such as White T could not? Am I too understand someone else needs to write an article about it? This film is going theatrical by AMC in February. Again if it is in the wrong area please inform. I am not trying to create multiple user accounts I think interns have created and forget and recreated please let me know how I can delete accounts if passwords are not known and there is no known associated Email. Thank you, Blake Phillips — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlakeAproducer (talk • contribs)

  • Kevin Hart: Laugh at My Pain was released in over 200 theaters and grossed over $7 million at the box office, which helps explain why it has an article. The prospective theatrical release of White T is not yet mentioned on its own web site, much less on its Wikipedia page. If reliable sources are added to the article confirming its theatrical release, that will help establish its notability. See WP:MOVIE for the notability criteria for films, and especially WP:NFF for the notability criteria for as-yet-unreleased films. What any of your past interns may have done is a separate matter; this particular article was created just today by User:BlakeAproducer. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:18, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the response I will be adding citations from AMC Theaters and Phase 4 Films to insure notability of theatrical release. Please allow the page to stay as I can add these tomorrow morning. Or is there a way to make it an editing page that is not established yet and once I have all criteria met I can then make it 'official'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlakeAproducer (talk • contribs) 07:31, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you can have the page "userfied", i.e. moved to your own user space so you can work on it at your leisure. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:38, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have added reference from Project 8 Films who is managing the theatrical release with AMC theaters. Is this sufficient? I will be adding more as they come in the next week from our American distribution company Phase 4 Films and our foreign distribution company Mance Media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlakeAproducer (talk • contribs) 07:45, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's unlikely. This looks much WP:TOOSOON to be notable - best wait until the film has come out and there are independent reviews to establish notability, which is based on "reliable, independent sources", i.e. not you. Best to userfy and wait. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:33, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How do I "userfy?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlakeAproducer (talk • contribs) 17:31, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy - We can't move it while this discussion is open, but since you want to userfy the article, could someone please close this AfD at article creator's request, and move the article to BlakeAproducer's user space. Thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:40, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 17 December 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. Participants appeared to consider this a non-notable list intersection. j⚛e deckertalk 19:30, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of 2012 Tamil soundtracks[edit]

List of 2012 Tamil soundtracks (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 is no reason to create a list article for the triple intersection of a year, an album type, and ethnicity. Anything meaningful about this can be covered in List of albums released in 2012 and 2012 in Tamil film or somesuch. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:19, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:40, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:40, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 17 December 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. (non-admin closure) -- Cheers, Riley 00:07, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Parfrey[edit]

Adam Parfrey (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 does not appear to meet WP:BIO, WP:BLP article is full of uncited material. Just does not appear to be enough in the way of reliable sources for a proper biography. Yworo (talk) 02:44, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the refs above support notability - surely needs work though.--Nixie9 (talk) 19:01, 18 December 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. MBisanz talk 18:45, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ayesh Ali Hussein al-Harbi[edit]

Ayesh Ali Hussein al-Harbi (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 per WP:BLP1E , also unless his name is spelt wrong there is no real coverage of this individual [14]. LibStar (talk) 02:27, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - given the assertion of notability in the article, even if we could find sources to establish there had been "significant coverage" of the subject, I would continue to have WP:BLP1E concerns. Stalwart111 03:06, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Stalwart Mediran talk to me! 08:57, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 17 December 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. Courcelles 08:30, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Pinkerton[edit]

Jay Pinkerton (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 does not appear to meet the WP:BIO and general WP:NOTABILITY requirements. Vaypertrail (talk) 01:51, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Could not find any reliable, independent sources. Fails notability. - MrX 02:24, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Apparently well-known to a degree, but does not appear notable based on widespread coverage in reliable sources. dci | TALK 02:53, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP:CREATIVE states, "The person's work [...] has won significant critical attention". I think Portal 2 can be said to have won significant critical attention. CREATIVE also says, "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject [...] of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." I believe Portal 2 has been the subject of multiple independent periodical articles and reviews. Interview for RPS, nominated for Telegraph's 2011 VGA for Best Script, Kotaku made Portal 2 their 2011 Game of the Year and wrote, "We voted for Erik Wolpaw, Jay Pinkerton and Chet Faliszek, the writers that kept us in stiches at every turn." --Odie5533 (talk) 13:58, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In addition to the National Post interview, which is quite extensive, I found this interview at Gothamist, which is also quite detailed. On GameSpot, there is a podcast interview with him and a few other game designers. I think those three interviews should be enough to pass WP:GNG. —Torchiest talkedits 14:15, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    All these sources are passing in mentions with the other co-writers of Portal 2. (WP:1E) Gothamist is a blog. Is there anything else more solid? This article seems to be stuck as a Wikipedia:Permastub.--Vaypertrail (talk) 16:15, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not certain that a blog is automatically unreliable. I'll have to check the audio interview later. However, I also found this article from Philadelphia Weekly that is specifically about Pinkerton. —Torchiest talkedits 21:10, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:53, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Torchiest's sources and Odie5533's comments re: WP:CREATIVE. The article clearly needs to be improved and it seems there are multiple RSes to do so. -Thibbs (talk) 05:38, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 8 December 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, Go Phightins! 01:24, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - agree that the sources found confer some notability and I agree with Odie5533's analysis of WP:CREATIVE with regard to the subject at hand. That's enough for me. Stalwart111 01:55, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As defined in WP:CREATIVE, this person's achievements are largely in part only due to the successes of Cracked.com, a much more notable entity. Mkdwtalk 03:49, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    What about his work on Portal 2, named Game of the Year by many publications and nominated for a BAFTA for best story, a story which was co-written by Pinkerton? --Odie5533 (talk) 04:46, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep IF the article is re-written in the context that this person is notable and their entry is largely centred around their work on Portal, and not as a contributor to Cracked and other websites. If we were to examine this person in the context of their work to websites they would certainly not meet the criteria for inclusion. Mkdwtalk 22:18, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The editorial articles and interviews fulfill WP:GNG and citations re Portal fulfill WP:CREATIVE. Gothamist and Kotaru are a large step above mere blogs. Substantial editorial staffs. Article can be improved a lot.--Nixie9 (talk) 04:10, 19 December 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. MBisanz talk 18:45, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

N Programming Language[edit]

N Programming Language (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)

crytalballing on a programming language no one has written about, and is still in development. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:16, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This article was just created, so I have no recommendation yet. Note that there already exists an N programming language as described in: Vaubois, Gael de La Croix, Catherine Moulinoux, and Benolt Derot. "The N Programming Language." Neurocomputing, NATO ASI series 68: 89-92. This article is not about that language. I could find no references to the language described in the About section of the article. Without any references to the language description, implementation, or any indication of its use, nothing is verifiable in the article, much less notable. If no reliable references are forthcoming, deletion is the best option. Mark viking (talk) 01:45, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete until it becomes more significant per WP:CRYSTALBALL AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 04:54, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Mediran talk to me! 08:58, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this article very clearly fails the general notability guideline. It has no 3rd party coverage in reliable sources. It seems to be a clear-cut misuse of wikipedia for promoting a new (as yet uncreated!) product. The contents of the article are so poor that it seems likely to have been created under a misaprehension. Note that anyone with the requisite skills can create a programming language. JoshuSasori (talk) 12:01, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 17 December 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. Courcelles 08:32, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald B. Scott[edit]

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

Same contributor, same fluffy padding of sources. Likely COI. Sources talk around him. Not notable. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:52, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 17 December 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. (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 06:13, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Garry South[edit]

Garry South (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)

Tons of puffery and little substance, trying to inherit notability by his employers. I smell a professional COI. Independent notability not established, no matter how slick and padded the sources are. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:50, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

James Carville, David Plouffe, Bob Shrum; all Democratic strategist who gained notability via their employers. That's the nature of the political consulting business but, like it or not, these political consultants are 'notable' and increasingly important figures in American Democracy. If anything, there should be more of a spotlight on them since they affect campaigns so much. Alex Thompson 00:55 12 December 2012 —Preceding undated comment added 01:02, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • James Carville is notable due to writing and hundreds of appearances. There are plenty of sources that are only about Carville. This is not that same situation, by a country mile. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:09, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • So Carville is only notable for the writing and appearances after he helped elect Bill Clinton president? That's silly, he was notable because he managed the Clinton campaign. South is notable for managing two campaigns for the head of state in America's most populous state (and the world's 8th largest economy). South is not Carville, obviously, but they both gained notability through managing successful high-level campaigns. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexscottthompson (talk • contribs) 01:15, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious keep and a WP:TROUT for the nominator for wasting our time. Just perusing the existing references, he's the subject of lengthy articles by The New York Times and Los Angeles Times. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:24, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Although it might be a puff piece, this is no reason to delete the article. Perhaps someone should go through and remove the fluff instead. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 05:01, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If the article has WP:NPOV issues, those should be fixed, but the subject of the article is very much a notable figure. Circumspect (talk) 06:30, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 17 December 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:08, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Frank van den Driest[edit]

Frank van den Driest (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)

Little evidence displayed (or described) of enduring notability. As a 'global marketing consultant' he obviously hasn't worked hard enough at marketing himself! A couple of the sources are raw press releases. I can't see any independent reliable coverage online to improve the situation. Sionk (talk) 00:34, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - no reliable sources that establish notability. Some are press releases from the company (obviously not independent) and others are coverage by the company, not of the subject (in fact, they constitute coverage by the subject's business partner, not even by the subject). @Sionk - I would suggest you could expand this AFD to include the business partner ("covered" by mostly the same "sources"), but it's up to you. Neither of them is notable in my opinion. Stalwart111 01:14, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As you may have noticed, I looked at Marc de Swaan Arons and, because Arons is a book author and magazine contributor, thought it could do with a second opinion. I left a 'notability' tag. IMO Frank van den Driest is by far the weaker candidate and, probably, if I were to nominate Arons I'd do so separately. Thanks for the suggestion. Sionk (talk) 12:02, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had noticed - a good way forward. Stalwart111 12:17, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above Mediran talk to me! 09:00, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Sionk and Stalwart111. The article references are weak and I can locate nothing better. AllyD (talk) 22:03, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 17 December 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. Courcelles 08:33, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Innovation saturation[edit]

Innovation saturation (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)

Theory is completely ignored by economic (or other) research (see Google Scholar). Article was written mostly by the book author Tom Osenton (User:Tosenton) himself. Qualifies as WP:SOAP. bender235 (talk) 08:54, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 29 November 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, (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:58, 5 December 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, Go Phightins! 00:31, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - a single non-notable idea from a non-notable book full of ideas. The article is almost pure WP:OR and having done a basic search I can't find anything that would suggest this is a notable concept or term. Stalwart111 01:09, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - if this entire article is based on those three sources and the subject has received virtually zero coverage from secondary sources, then this is a perfect candidate for deletion. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 05:04, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - just marked up 2 dead links in article. That does leave one ref which is stated to cite Osenton. Even assuming that's true it wouldn't be enough to save this soapbox. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:44, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above Mediran talk to me! 09:00, 12 December 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. MBisanz talk 18:45, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tracy Harris[edit]

Tracy Harris (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)

Can not find secondary sources to support notability. Ariconte (talk) 07:11, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:52, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Would getting a National Endowment for the Arts fellowship count towards notability? I know it wouldn't be something that would be the type of notability that would keep an article on that alone, but I wonder if it would help count towards notability as a whole.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:35, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found this link that talks about various awards she's won and various exhibitions. Of course this is a merchant-type link so I'd have to back it up with something that isn't that website, but if there's anything in here that would stand out as passing WP:ARTIST, I thought this could be something good to start out with.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:36, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I dunno if this is helpful or not, but she is in the archives of the Houston Museum of Fine Arts and she was featured in a book about the museum. ([15])Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:44, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to meet WP:GNG, see her biography page, which has a Bibliography section that lists about 40 independent sources that have been written about her. The titles indicate many of these are in-depth sources. I searched for and found 5 exhibition reviews in reliable sources (added to the article), they are sort of like book reviews for artists. Due to age need access to commercial databases to read. Also per WP:ARTIST #5 "represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums," her works are in Museum of Fine Arts, Houston, Amarillo Museum of Art and Museum of South Texas History. I don't believe a grant is notable as they are common and could be as small as $1000, depends on which grant and how much and if there is coverage in the press for it. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 04:36, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 29 November 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) 14:16, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, other than 5 full length features articles under the exhibition reviews.. (see my comments below). -- Green Cardamom (talk) 03:38, 12 December 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, -- Cheers, Riley 00:08, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - there might not be secondary sourcing attached to the article but Green Cardamom's analysis suggests off-line secondary sources do exist. Some of those (even most of those) might be from the 1990s but notability is not temporary. I can't see any reason why someone would create a "fake" bibliography of 1990s sources to justify a WP article so I think we should operate on the basis that those sources are legitimate and do exist. We would need to cite them ourselves (rather than to cite the citation by the subject) but a potential for some hard work ahead is not a reason for deletion. That's the very definition of a WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM sort of problem. Stalwart111 01:21, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why people are saying "there are no secondary sources". I added FIVE full length feature articles about the subject to the article under the "exhibition reviews" section. They may not be online to read but they are available behind paywall databases, I even went so far as to add summary abstract quotes - these articles are real, I searched for them, found them, read them. It is excellent coverage for WP:GNG purposes, far exceeding typical GNG coverage. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 03:38, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, my commentary was more in the hypothetical and was actually an attempt to address Sue's concerns above (split by the relist) and then comment on the sources you provided. I wasn't actually suggesting there were none, more - "even if there were none, we would still have...". I knew what I meant, but really didn't make it clear. Apologies. I agree with you entirely - I think there's more than enough. Stalwart111 04:46, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - I imagine this AfD is moving towards 'no consensus' but, for what it's worth, I would like to see some effort had been made to verify the information on Harris's website. The list of exhibition reviews and the list of 'Collections' seem to be pasted off her website and we are none the wiser what they (the alleged colections and the news sources) contain. For example I've searched the Museum of Fine Arts, Houston website and can't find a reference to Harris's work. At the time of her marriage (which coincides with all the cited news reviews) the New York Times would only say she was a 'promising' artist. Seems flimsy evidence at the moment. Sionk (talk) 01:35, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They were not "pasted off her website", I found them in commercial databases as I said above. I read them in full, I even added abstract summaries for your convenience! These are real articles that have been verified but have no freebie links online. If you don't believe me, post a Resource Request, these are not difficult to retrieve and verify yourself, these are in commonly available commercial databases than many people on Wikipedia have access to. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 03:38, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
At least one of the articles is available online. I'll add the URL. The article reviews three artists, so the abstract seems to be inaccurate. Sionk (talk) 13:12, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That abstract was not "inaccurate", it indeed is a review of Harris at the Graham gallery. That source I was able to verify its existence in the database, and that it was about a review Harris' work at the Graham gallery, but I couldn't bring up the full text so I wrote an abstract based on what I was able to verify - if I knew the full text was online free I would have linked to it as you have; but the others I did read the full text and the abstracts reflect the contents. I hope you dis-believe me and make a Resource Request to verify yourself because I don't like being put into the position of "trust me" on Wikipedia. These sources exist and you can access them to verify. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:31, 12 December 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. MBisanz talk 23:25, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Online Digital Musical Document Libraries[edit]

List of Online Digital Musical Document Libraries (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)

Linkfarm. The so called references are just the same links again. No independent sourcing. No sign of any notability for Online Digital Musical Document Libraries let alone for this list. duffbeerforme (talk) 02:44, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - per Wikipedia:Viability_of_lists "...If the topic is notable then a list dealing with the topic is notable and vice versa. the opposite is also true; if a topic does not meet the notability guideline, then a list on the topic is also not notable." Blue Riband► 03:30, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It needs cleanup to look more like List of online music databases probably--not deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ngreen2001 (talk • contribs) 14:37, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This smacks of a link-farm --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 02:47, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep so far from being a link farm, I think there would be little difficulty in establishing the topic as notable and all of these are appropriate major resources, for many of which individual notability could probably be shown also. We have lately been very inclusive about bibliographies and similar lists, and this is one of them. I suppose if necessary it can be moved into WP space as a resource for writing articles, though not all of these have free access. DGG ( talk ) 07:11, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - there is no "one comprehensive archive" for digitized music resources. In line with WP's reflection on what attitudes drive people away, perhaps rather than nomination for deletion, suggestions should be made to improve the list. I can see a few more columns providing status of free or paywall, as well as scope and number of scores. -- kosboot (talk) 16:25, 9 December 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, -- Cheers, Riley 00:04, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with the merge. I believe this should be kept (and cleaned up) as a separate article. Archives of music scores (which seems to be the implied definition of "document" in this case) and music audio archives/databases are very different. Some of the sources may fall into both categories (like IMSLP) but only a few of them. Ngreen2001 (talk) 02:00, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, what makes music scores different from any other music? - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 11:46, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One is music audio and one is graphical or data representation. (It's like the difference between an MP3 and a PDF.) It's that simple. Ngreen2001 (talk) 16:29, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's still music, just in a different format. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:49, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It's important to recognize that an encyclopaedia before anything is an academic resource. Having such a list could be a valuable addition if cleaned up and de-farmed. Mkdwtalk 04:25, 12 December 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 Red Hat. Courcelles 00:44, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Red Hat MRG[edit]

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

Delete appears not notable and promotional in nature. when googling finding sources from that developer [16] Hell In A Bucket (talk) 10:29, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It does look like it's allready covered under the Red Hat page so maybe a redirect. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 10:31, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect Google Scholar shows a couple of mentions in the context of AMQP (1) "Advanced message queuing protocol (AMQP)", Linux Journal, Volume 2009 Issue 187 and (2) "Developing Secure Agent Infrastructures with Open Standards and Open-Source Technologies", Highlights in Practical Applications of Agents and Multiagent Systems Advances in Intelligent and Soft Computing Volume 89, 2011, pp 37-44. The MRG news stories I have found read like lightly edited press releases. These are probably not enough to establish notability for an independent article, but certainly warrant a merge/redirect to the Red Hat page, as suggested by the nominator. Mark viking (talk) 01:34, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • My motivation for creating this Red Hat MRG article was not promotional at all. I was looking for a comprehensive description of MRG (just what it is? what is its scope? what does the acronym stand for?) and it turned out to be difficult to find in a single place. That's why i created the short article. If you think that its language is biased, and not objective enough, let's improve on that. But don't you think that having a text saying at least "MRG stands for ..." is worthwhile? --AlexandriNo (talk) 11:18, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that a possible non-neutral point of view is not a basis for deleting an article. The issue is mainly with lack of references. For an MRG article to survive standalone, as opposed to a topic within the Red Hat article, the article needs to be verifiable through reliable sources (references). The Wikipedia standards also want reliable secondary sources, i.e., sources independent of MRG creators or sellers, to establish notability and a verifiable basis for a neutral point of view. These secondary sources could be for example reviews, books, or news articles on MRG from reputable news sources. If you know of reliable sources, secondary as well, please point them out. Thanks. Mark viking (talk) 20:28, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 9 December 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, -- Cheers, Riley 00:04, 12 December 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 Ruhollah Khomeini. If editoral decision is made to merge it to the article on the revolution, that's fine. We have a consensus for merging to either Ruhollah Khomeini or the Irinian Revolution, a little stronger for Ruhollah Khomeini, so that's the one I'll use to do the paperwork of the merge templates. Courcelles 00:43, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Air France Khomeini return flight[edit]

Air France Khomeini return flight (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 WP:GNG. Khomeni's rise to power is notable but not every step in that process is.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William 13:49, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. ...William 13:49, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ...William 13:49, 5 December 2012 (UTC) ...William 13:49, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Khomeini's article or other (or delete). This does not seem significant enough event for a stand alone article. That seems correct as the article is a stub. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:16, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Fnlayson. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:13, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable event, and it would be interesting to know more about the 120 journalists on board. I'd be interested in other details as well, for example who paid the bill for the charter? --Soman (talk) 08:16, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. What is notable about the event? It's not necessary to mention the airline at all, and the type of aircraft is also irrelevant IMO. We are then basically left with " Khomeini flew from Paris in a chartered airliner with some associates and 120 media personnel". That's not an article. YSSYguy (talk) 10:46, 10 December 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, -- Cheers, Riley 00:03, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Interesting but still only one minor incident in much larger events. Borock (talk) 01:17, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - to either Ruhollah_Khomeini#Return_to_Iran or to Iranian_Revolution#Khomeini's_return_and_fall_of_the_monarchy. I think coverage of the event is justified, but I can't see why we need an article on a single flight. The second of those two suggested merge targets doesn't even link to the article in question. The first does but the {{main| tag directs to Iranian Revolution, not the flight. There's no need for three articles ostensibly covering the same thing. Stalwart111 01:28, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Ruhollah Khomeini#Return to Iran. There's not enough here to justify a separate article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:44, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge We don't have an article on Lenin's 1917 train journey from Switzerland to Petrograd, which is the closest comparison I can think of. I don't see why this needs a separate article, as it has no significance outside the wider context: "Khomeini goes on plane" wouldn't normally be significant even if it was widely reported. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:13, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would make a great childrens' book though! Stalwart111 12:27, 12 December 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 From Genesis to Revelation#Track listing. Google Books found one minor mention here and Google News found this, non-notable song. (non-admin closure) SwisterTwister talk 20:01, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In Limbo (song)[edit]

AfDs related/similar to this article:
In Limbo (song) (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 topic (i.e. the song) fails to meet notability guidelines. Hence, I propose the article be deleted and redirected to From Genesis to Revelation and whatever retrievable content one may think there is, be merged into suitable page (probably into the album itself). Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 18:05, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — sparklism hey! 09:28, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge / Redirect to From Genesis to Revelation per nom. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:00, 6 December 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, -- Cheers, Riley 00:03, 12 December 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 From Genesis to Revelation. Courcelles 00:40, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Window (song)[edit]

AfDs related/similar to this article:
Window (song) (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 topic (i.e. the song) fails to meet notability guidelines. Hence, I propose the article be deleted and redirected to From Genesis to Revelation and whatever retrievable content one may think there is, be merged into suitable page (probably into the album itself). Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 18:08, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — sparklism hey! 09:28, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge / Redirect to From Genesis to Revelation per nom. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:59, 6 December 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, -- Cheers, Riley 00:03, 12 December 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 From_Genesis_to_Revelation#Track_listing. Google Books found one minor result here and Google News also found minor mentions here (review) and here. Nominator: For future debates, please bundle multiple nominations to one, see Wikipedia:AFD#How_to_nominate_multiple_related_pages_for_deletion. SwisterTwister talk 19:54, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In Hiding (Genesis' song)[edit]

AfDs related/similar to this article:
In Hiding (Genesis' song) (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 topic (i.e. the song) fails to meet notability guidelines. Hence, I propose the article be deleted and redirected to From Genesis to Revelation and whatever retrievable content one may think there is, be merged into suitable page (probably into the album itself). Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 18:08, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — sparklism hey! 09:28, 6 December 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, -- Cheers, Riley 00:01, 12 December 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. There is no way to read a clear consensus from this discussion, because the article is now in a radically different state from when a number of people originally commented. Given the significant changes, I think we need to start this anew, if that's what anyone still desires. So, those who are still interested, please review the new version of the article, see if the same concerns are still there, and, if so, you're welcome to speedily renominate (or consider another process, like a merge suggestion if you think that would be more appropriate). Qwyrxian (talk) 07:41, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Sea Products[edit]

Dead Sea Products (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)

Spam magnet, contains spam links, bad article name, what little useful stuff in the article can be added to the Dead Sea article. Need I go on.... More shit created by newbies and IP editors. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:53, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Dubious, self-serving claims by biased peddlers of cosmetics and "cures" made from "Dead Sea Products" that should be taken with more than a pinch of Dead Sea salt (which covers some of the same material better). Zero reliable sources. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:45, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge what Tokyogirl has found to Dead Sea#Health effects and therapies. There are Dead Sea products, but "Dead Sea Products" (and its dubious, unsourced definition) is just a label some companies are trying to promote as a type of collective branding. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:59, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Dead Sea salt, this is a promotional fork. --Soman (talk) 08:12, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a promotional fork. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:57, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Rename - based on TokyoGirl's tireless efforts. I hope the author gives her a barnstar. She certainly deserves one. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 06:35, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 11 December 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, -- Cheers, Riley 00:00, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note re: Soman & Sue Rangell: Promotional? For whom? The article does not seem to be to be promoting any specific company, product or tourism agency. I think a rewrite is in order, but not a merge with Dead Sea salt - Dead Sea mud, for instance, is not quite Dead Sea salt. (I am not, however, voting for either keeping or deletion, as I have nothing to say about the subject's notability.) הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 04:16, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that they were saying promotional because most of the sources for the article seem to go to various sites that also sell the products, such as Dead Sea Guide, an amazon list of "Top Brand Deal Dead Sea Products", and even more sites that sell Dead Sea Stuff. A look at the sources shows that even the few sources that don't link to merchant sites of various sorts are unusable as reliable sources as they tend to be the sites where the articles are either uploaded by random people or they're the type that are "paid articles". This means that someone (usually a manufacturer) pays someone to write an article that says glowing things about a product or a type of product with the intention of them (the manufacturer) linking to that article in an attempt to pass it off as a legit thing. I know someone who writes these for a living and this is pretty much what she does.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:31, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I am seeing some valid stuff to back up the claims of Dead Sea products as a whole rather than just specifically Dead Sea Salt. I ended up kind of nuking the previous version because it was fairly promotional. It might not look as such at first until you look at the sources, which all went to merchant sites and other unusable links. The essays that were written are the type that people tend to write for profit at the bequest of a merchant who tells them what to write. The article was also fairly slanted towards Dead Sea products being the cure all of everything out there and I'm finding some criticisms of the products out there. So the result is that I'm going to start it from scratch. I'll re-add things as I find more sources, but right now the previous version was doing more harm than good.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:25, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sort of adding things piecemeal as I find sources that look sort of legitimate. So far the stuff in the article is sourced, but I'm kind of unsure as to whether or not these things could potentially be summed up in another article (main article, DS salt article) or not. I'm hitting up Google scholar, but I've noticed that some of the sources that initially look good (such as this journal entry) seem to have been written by someone involved with a specific producer. This of course means that their research would be considered primary at best, as the above journal entry looks to have been written by a scientist employed by Dead Sea Works. Slow going so far. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:56, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. Since there is a good rationale for having an article that is about DS products in general, what about merging the article for Dead Sea salt into this one and have it redirect here? The article for DSs does mention other products, so it might be better to have a section on the sale in a larger article about the products in general. Just wondering.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 18:57, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • On second thought, that's a silly idea. The mineral's article should be separate and would make little sense even if we look at the title as product in the way that the salt is a product (non-cosmetic type product, I mean) of the sea.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 19:00, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect per Clarityfiend. I did find some sources, but most of this is either already covered in the main article for the Dead Sea or could be fairly easily merged. The main article is big and the concept of the health properties of the DS could probably be spun off, but I'm not entirely certain that this specific title is the proper way to go about it. The term is, as Clarityfiend stated, a branding term for the most part and most of the time the people using this term are merchants. I did find sources, but they're fairly general in nature. It's close and I'd support a different article for the health properties of the DS, but the problem is trying to find a title that wouldn't automatically sound like it's a merchandise page. (Dead Sea health effects and therapies?) This particular term (Dead Sea products) is too limiting and it doesn't help that it would also be a spam magnet. I know that in itself isn't a reason to delete, but it doesn't exactly help either. The only concession I can give for any potential creation of a health effect/therapy page is that the history of this might remain so we can have something to work off of, but then again if we merge the usable sources then that wouldn't really be necessary either.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:21, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hey. I didn't say anything about redirecting. I've restored my delete vote, since that's independent of my merge suggestion. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:46, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Due to TokyoGirl's efforts the promotional aspects of this article are not nearly as unencyclopedic as they were before. I have no real problem with an article that mentions the (purported) beneficial aspects of a substance or group of substances, as long as it isn't schlepping the store websites of individual sellers. Even if those qualities are dubious. There are countless articles on Wikipedia which have sections that tout the supposed health benefits of various things ranging from magnets to crystals, so "dead sea mud" is no different as far as I can tell. One might want to remove the word "products" from the title tho, and exchange it with a less spammy word such as "material" or "substances". --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:45, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While the article has been improved, Clarityfiend's objections still apply to the article as it stands now. Circumspect (talk) 08:36, 20 December 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 MP & Silva. MBisanz talk 23:24, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Riccardo Silva[edit]

Riccardo Silva (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 man's companies may be of note, but he seems to have slipped beneath the radar. The online coverage seems to amount to brief mentions only. The only possibility is there may be coverage in Italian? Doesn't meet basic notability criteria. Sionk (talk) 18:23, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Most of the content for this page was added by someone at the Milan Channel [17]. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 19:13, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, and meatpuppetry --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:31, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think the article is notable based on reliable sources that have now been found in italian and english Dishv80 (talk) 18:00, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

— Dishv80 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Keep He's notable in the media industry, and enough referenced. No need for deletion. lallaci88 (talk) 19:04, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

— lallaci88 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete He might be notable to Italy and the Italian TV community but not to the Wiki-world. — WylieCoyote 15:08, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I found very notable Riccardo Silva since everybody knows him in tv industry worldwide as the rightholders of several top events of universal interest broadcasted by him all over the world such Europe's top leagues in football, FIFA World Cup qualifiers, Grand Slam tennis, Copa Claro Buenos Aires, Tour of Britain, Badminton Singapore, Emirates Cup and many others including the Asian Games. littlemoon80 (talk) 16:00, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

— littlemoon80 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Merge to MP & Silva. All of the references cited so far are about his company; only two of them mention him, and in both cases it's a brief quote in news articles about the company. No significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Altered Walter (talk) 15:09, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:06, 12 December 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, NativeForeigner Talk 09:17, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per Altered Walter - couldn't find any further sources on this guy. Lukeno94 (talk) 14:01, 12 December 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_December_12&oldid=1142635764"