Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 December 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 27 December 29 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 keep. (non-admin closure) JayJayWhat did I do? 00:53, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lizzie Phelan[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Lizzie Phelan (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 sourcing I can find that indicates any sort of notability. Mentions noted in previous AfD were nearly all trivial. Being a journalist who writes articles is not sufficient for notability. Article is very poorly sourced and has been hit with recent egregious BLP violations. The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 23:56, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Are you seriously calling the New York Times, The Guardian or Syrian Arab News Agency trivial? Crtew (talk) 05:08, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Her claim to notability seems to come from the fact that she witnessed rebel atrocities during the anti-Gadaffi war, and that her reporting was criticized (by mainstream media) for being too favorable to his regime. There could be a higher number of sources, but those that do mention her don't do it trivially, and dedicate quite some space to the journalist. The potential for BLP violations is not a valid reason to delete an article, since it can happen to any article. This argument must be clarified to state why the article cannot remain, with vigorous policing, free of BLP violations. Shrigley (talk) 08:59, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no indication of any meaningful criticism from mainstream media. All we have is a single journalist who runs a blog on the New York Times site criticizing her. I can tell you right now, after looking through every page of the Google News results and every page of the regular web results that what we have in the article presently is the best we've got. Nearly all the other sources that could even remotely be construed as reliable are opinionated rags making brief mentions of her reports as part of a broader criticism of the Libyan war, and those are not in large supply either.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 18:06, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. In preface, I'm skeptical of any second nominations to delete but I looked at this one seriously. As evidence, I made efforts to edit the page, and in the process I have added facts, organization, links and filled in her infobox (see history) with this purpose. In conclusion, I have three to four reasons for my vote for keeping this, strongly. First, I cite WP:SIGCOV for both her New York Times and SANA interviews. She is the subject of the interviews, and they become as much about her as why she holds her opinions. Second, she has been a contributor to several newspapers and television stations, including Iranian Press TV and Russia Today, which are major media outlets. I've seen other journalists who have not won awards yet who remain in Wikipedia because they are contributors to major media outlets. The categories for TV and radio personalities would carry some of these. Third, just for the "controversy" she has created in her strong opinions (The Guardian called her controversial) and the response of British regulators to her work, IMHO, is enough for a keep. In addition to the British Office of Communications' need to label her work with the Russian media as biased, the same office dealt strongly by censoring Press TV, to which Phelan has contributed. Finally, I see a bias in the first nomination process and one that I hope will not creep up in this one. It is a bias against the alternative media. If the alternative media and blogs that covered Phelan were taken seriously, it would be unquestionable that this article is a keeper and that two nominations are excessive because they show extensive SIGCOV. The bias (WP:NPOV) that I see is that those who propose deletion want coverage or appearances to be in the mainstream media. That imposes a POV. A non-biased approach to this would admit that Phelan doesn't seek the acceptance of mainstream media, has a clear audience, and is widely known within that sphere. Yet she still gets attention from The Guardian and the New York Times. This makes her different. Although she is young and not a TV presenter, she strikes me as similar to an Amy Goodman in her alternative approach. I may not agree with Phelan or think she advocates the truth, but that should be beside the point in such a nomination, and I'm able to see that she has another side of the story to offer and is known for it. That's why I would vote strong keep and why I see this second nomination as a waste of effort. Crtew (talk) 05:03, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep! I don't know how accurate Phelan's reporting is, but I know from having lived in the Middle East that the mainstream media, including the New York Times, are shockingly biased and ignorant. Their reporters don't know the languages and so depend upon a tiny cadre of English speakers to provide their info. We desperately need alternative views such as those provided by Phelan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roger McKinney (talk • contribs) 19:49, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is an instance of an article I stumbled across... I had seen mention of this woman elsewhere, and wanted to find further information about her. As so often, her Wikipedia article (though not the best such) turned out the be the place to look. So this article did me a service, and I expect it does the same for others. Though her notability quotient is pretty low, it's sufficient I think for Wikipedia purposes. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:13, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aside from the New York Times source, any coverage of her as far as I can tell has been in the context of noting her reporting for x news source on y event. This is trivial and routine coverage for a journalist and does not translate to notability.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 00:13, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Multiple New York Times interviews. You almost have to look at her as an academic/expert on a subject than a journalist if you want to exclude publications where she had authorship. Mkdwtalk 20:34, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The WP:GNG argument is convincing, and not seriously addressed by most of the minority of "keep" opinions. On that basis, no need to examine the sockery issue more closely.  Sandstein  00:50, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Amirite[edit]

Amirite (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)

Unremarkable website. Fails WP:GNG. Sources appear to be mainly press releases or paid insertions. Contested speedy deletion. The appearance of a new account (User:James9210) and an IP (User:86.149.216.3) removing the speedy deletion template suggests that a closer look at the article creator might be advisable. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:51, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment "Unremarkable Website" is an opinion, and Wikipedia is not built on opinions. Also as I recall one is supposed to assume good faith. Meanie (talk) 03:47, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment It also appears the user Delicious Carbuncle has a personal grudge against the article / site and has very limited activity on Wikipedia - only making a few contributions per year Craddock1 00:24, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
  • CommentFOR ADMIN'S EYES: As I have now seen you are not fit to be commenting on people's article's, let alone marking them for deletion http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=125

    Delicious Carbuncle has been blocked on Wikipedia before and this sort of behvaiour should not be tolerated.

    Furthermore your behaviour has been reported through the internet. A quick google search brought up many results: e.g here: http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=28826&st=40

    That MfD, of evidence/background content and diffs to be used on the RFCU regarding Delicious carbuncle and their interactions with several users was disturbingly derailed by Wikipedia Review editors who attempted to OUT the main author. This is a part of the behaviour that has been cited as problematic of Delicious carbuncle; that they use Wikipedia Review to essentially canvass offsite - especially when they don't get their way; and that they attempt to subdue and WP:Grief their perceived targets by publicly shaming and outing them. There was disagreement how intertwined the Wikipedia Review angle should be on the RFCU but this latest incident has helped clear up that Wikipedia Review is yet again being used to WP:Game Wikipedia, cause disruption and create WP:Drama on Wikipedia. It's sad but at least more and more editors are seeing how Wikipedia Review is used to erode collegial efforts and civility. IMHO, an RFCU must and will go forward but should not be compromised by rushing into it or being bullied by a website that seems to thrive on disrupting Wikipedia and enabling banned editors. -- Banjeboi 10:21, 28 March 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craddock1 (talk • contribs)

  • Strong Keep - As an avid Amirite user myself I completely disagree. I want to also apologise for asking my brother James to create an account - I agree that was immature and it won't happen again. I am new to Wikipedia but would love to be more involved in the community. I have met Jimmy Wales and was greatly inspired too!

    I would also like to point out I have spent a considerable amount of time making the article up to Wikipedia Standards (around 12 hours), find references, resources, talking to users, editors and admins. I hope this is taken into account.

    Regarding the case:

    Amirite has received notable coverage as a fast growing startup similarly to other sites such as Formspring and Amen -

    please look them up on Wikipedia: Amen (website)  · Formspring

    The Amirite article was also approved by the Wikimedia Foundation Community Fellow User:SarahStierch

    Nearly a billion votes have been processed on Amirite which shows it is remarkable so I completely disagree with that statement. Press coverage reflects the site is notable and furthermore won the UK's largest investment competition.

    :Also featured in Urban dictionary: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=amirite

    Site has also been compared to twitter: http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/share-opinions-online-amiritenet-amirite/ - again showing it is notable

    http://www.killerstartups.com/startup-spotlight/amirite-post-your-opinion/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craddock1 (talk • contribs) 03:01, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Amirite.com (+ Amirite.net) also has 30 million backlinks indexed in google

    Site has over 100,000 twitter and facebook followers combined and was only released from Beta recently and 3 million pageviews per month, 700,000 posts, and 2 million comments. :Again this shows it is not 'unremarkable'.

    Please close the deletion case. Multiple unsigned comments by user:Craddock1 Craddock1 (talk) 01:02, 29 December 2012 (UTC)grouped and signed by User:Excirial[reply]

  • Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:WEB. -bonadea contributions talk 01:01, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, (changed from k) clearly meets WP:GNG and it went through WP:AFC, where it was vetted by an experienced editor prior to being moved to mainspace. AfC editors are experienced, and do not approve articles that do not meet the minimum GNG standards. There should be a presumption of notability for articles that have been through the AfC process. GregJackP Boomer! 02:15, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. GregJackP Boomer! 02:32, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - I have also heard of Amirite before and have seen it featured on various tech sites and saw a feature on CBS a while back. I believe Amirite has a high enough standing and reputation to be accepted. The article has also already been accepted by an AFC editor which shows it should be approved and the deletion case closed. Hdsmith7674 (talk) 03:06, 29 December 2012 (UTC)— Hdsmith7674 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • You have no edits at all outside this AFD, and your user and talk page. Special:Contributions/Hdsmith7674 I Googled about, and I don't see any mention on the CBS site about them. If you know of anyplace that would be considered a reliable source mentioning them, please post a link to it. Dream Focus 23:32, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment, the only thing I can find with CBS is a press release posted at CBS Atlanta. GregJackP Boomer! 12:37, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Yes I am new to wikipedia and I came to it by typing Amirite into google since I wanted to read more about the site - I saw the article was marked for deletion so I wanted to have an input! Hdsmith7674 (talk) 14:31, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - Website meets WP:GNG after a look at sources, its clear it has been the subject of discussion in third party industry publications. The article needs some help stylistically, and it needs to come out of the orphanage, but it is generally well written and NPOV. Meanie (talk) 03:47, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • CommentOut of orphanage now and I've changed some more things in the article. Hopefully looks much better now! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craddock1 (talk • contribs) 06:36, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - I agree with the above and believe this entry also complies with WP:GNG and WP:WEB. Also agree that this has been vetted by an experienced editor. --NickAang 06:50, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep(edited to fix link) At the time of this article's nomination for deletion, there were references in the article. The Boston Globe is certainly a reliable site, and has a press release they wouldn't publish unless they considered them important. [1]. Others have mentioned CBS and whatnot. (update) MakeUseOf has 20 million hits a day, and is clearly a reliable source. I agree that the significant coverage they gave to this website [2] counts. I believe other sources exist, just hard to find a proper link to them all. Dream Focus 23:22, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps you should read the Boston Globe article. It isn't about the website. In fact, it doesn't even mention the website. I know you usually just vote keep for anything that on the ARS list, but if you are going to offer evidence, the least you could do is read it first. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:12, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • There are two links to the Boston website, I copied the wrong link, having multiple tabs open. The other one is a press release, which they wouldn't put up there unless they felt it was a significant website. Dream Focus 23:29, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • "The other one is a press release, which they wouldn't put up there unless they felt it was a significant website." You really are a great Wikipedian. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:30, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Do you believe a major newspaper would publish every press release they came across? Dream Focus 08:15, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • My mistake, some apparently do. All of the links in the article are press releases, or paid advertisements. Dream Focus 15:18, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*******One of the Globe Articles is an Article. Boatingfaster (talk) 18:53, 31 December 2012 (UTC) ********http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2011/05/15/amirite/ - specifically this one Boatingfaster (talk) 18:56, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Collapse duplicate comment posted below
  • Keep, has received a good deal of coverage from multiple different sorts of references and secondary sources. — Cirt (talk) 21:01, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Craddock1. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:42, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Again Delicious Carbuncle demonstrating the grudge he has. The sockpuppet investigation has been closed since I admitted I was at fault as previously mentioned. It is as if Carbuncle has nothing better to do than creating this hostile environment which is not what Wikipedia is about. For your reference the only other account I am aware of is James. I have logged into my account from other IPs though due to traveling. I don't see how this is relevant though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craddock1 (talk • contribs) 01:37, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • The sockpuppetry case has not been closed. This is the second time you have claimed that I have a "grudge" with this website. Can you elaborate? What is the supposed grudge? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:26, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Ill not take a vote in this matter. I just did some tidying work. So all of the references are now dated, etc. #greatnews. Bed time for me!!! BTW Im a Canadian so I cant not be friendly... Its against my makeup.Boatingfaster (talk) 03:51, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Collapse duplicate comment posted above
  • Comment As I have now seen Delicious Carbuncle is not fit to be commenting on people's article's, let alone marking them for deletion http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=125

    Delicious Carbuncle has been blocked on Wikipedia before and this sort of behvaiour should not be tolerated.

    Furthermore your behaviour has been reported through the internet. A quick google search brought up many results: e.g here: http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=28826&st=40

    That MfD, of evidence/background content and diffs to be used on the RFCU regarding Delicious carbuncle and their interactions with several users was disturbingly derailed by Wikipedia Review editors who attempted to OUT the main author. This is a part of the behaviour that has been cited as problematic of Delicious carbuncle; that they use Wikipedia Review to essentially canvass offsite - especially when they don't get their way; and that they attempt to subdue and WP:Grief their perceived targets by publicly shaming and outing them. There was disagreement how intertwined the Wikipedia Review angle should be on the RFCU but this latest incident has helped clear up that Wikipedia Review is yet again being used to WP:Game Wikipedia, cause disruption and create WP:Drama on Wikipedia. It's sad but at least more and more editors are seeing how Wikipedia Review is used to erode collegial efforts and civility. IMHO, an RFCU must and will go forward but should not be compromised by rushing into it or being bullied by a website that seems to thrive on disrupting Wikipedia and enabling banned editors. -- Banjeboi 10:21, 28 March 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craddock1 (talk • contribs)

  • Whatever the outcome, this should be moved to Amirite (website) and an article should be written on the Amirite people of Trans-Jordan, which would be the primary topic for this term. bd2412 T 04:13, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Comment I dont think anyone will disagree with the move and a disambiguation link going both ways between the two. Boatingfaster (talk) 04:18, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I don't think it matters either way since Amirite is not a noun. I've just done about 3 hours of research on and off line and found no reference to people termed Amirite - are you sure you have spelt Amirite correctly?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Craddock1 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment - I have done some reading want to invoke WP:SNOW - Good references in many places are present, the website is a high traffic area. The interest in this discussion by the number of people on here, in favor of keeping. If there are 32,000 articles on the internet talking about Amirite/Wikipedia then people are talking. If people are talking it further justifies WP:GNG. The WP:SNOW also fits with an article I read about WP not being a Bureaucracy, and it meets WP:SK rules, being that the nominator has failed to advance their argument. Boatingfaster (talk) 04:16, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • ATTENTION AfD CLOSING ADMIN - There are 2 SockPuppet investigations going on with many of the editors in this AfD discussion. Please do not close this AfD until all are identified/cleared of sock/meat puppetry. PeterWesco (talk) 07:23, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, the number of hits on Google is not an indication of notability - it would help to have some actual articles from verifiable and reliable sources. GregJackP Boomer! 12:41, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Looking through the article, I can only find one source that has a byline that is independent of the subject – [3]. Everything else is PR Buzz, PR Newswire etc., or a sponsored post by Amirite, i.e. press releases. In other words, the article lacks multiple independent third-party sources. It's also concerning for an article to be almost entirely based on PR material. Andreas JN466 13:36, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Does killerstartups count as a reliable source? I see over a hundred Wikipedia articles reference it, but it doesn't have its own article here. Apparently anyone can submit things to it. [4] Dream Focus 15:22, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, after considering the evidence, I have struck my earlier !vote, and now believe the article should be deleted. As Jayen has noted, almost all of the references are PR sources, which are not considered reliable sources for notability. @DreamFocus, ifkillerstartups allows user content, then it would not normally be considered reliable, any more than IMDb. I am somewhat disappointed that this made it through AfC, although with the reference issues, I can see how it did. I still believe that an AfC-created article is due a presumption towards retention, although that presumption can be overcome, as in this case. GregJackP Boomer! 16:00, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Only some of the articles I have quoted are Press releases. This one for example is certainly not a paid release: http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/share-opinions-online-amiritenet-amirite/ Makeuseof is a very well known site with over 7 million monthly pageviews: MakeUseOf I don't think the killerstartups article is a paid release since it doesn't mention adversarial on it. Furthermore Amirite's twitter has over 62,000 followers which is significant: https://twitter.com/amiritecom And if you type Amirite.com and Amirite.net into google this brings more than 5 million results. This is significant — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craddock1 (talk • contribs) 16:39, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Killerstartups does not have to be a "paid release" to be unreliable as a source - it just has to be edited by users, which it is. The number of twitter followers or the number of google hits, in and of themselves does not make a site notable. Significant it may be, but until it meets WP notability standards, it doesn't matter. GregJackP Boomer! 17:02, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No significant coverage in reliable sources, just a bunch of "profiles" and press releases; more advertising created by a COI sockpuppet master. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:28, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Lifestyle section puff pieces, regardless of source, do not create notability. PeterWesco (talk) 02:01, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually any coverage in reliable sources does indicate notability. That's how it works. See WP:NOTABILITY and WP:GNG. Dream Focus 19:18, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for the clarity. I was looking for the exact time to unleash a 1000 articles a week based on PR churn in lifestyle sections from around the USA. PeterWesco (talk) 20:01, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is no need to be rude. However miserable you feel you should not take this out on other people. Take a deep breath and you will feel better Craddock1
        • MakeUseOf is a reliable source, and it does not just quote the PR release. The techentrepreneursweek seems to be a reliable source also. Dream Focus 20:12, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sorry, but I see no reason whatsoever yet to believe that MakeUseOf is a reliable source. Their article contains a ton of the typical fluff, but barely any reputable secondary sources testifying to their reputability. Drmies (talk) 03:34, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Two notable print magazines give them praise and they have over 20 million views a month. They have a staff of paid editors who generate their content. A lot of articles currently use them as a reference. You can ask on the reliable sources noticeboard if you sincerely doubt they are a reliable source. I think it should be pretty obvious. Dream Focus 07:19, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • Being in a top 100 isn't that great, really (PC Magazine) and the other (Washington Post), gives them half a sentence, "...Makeuseof.com, which offers how-to's and cool Web sites and apps in everything from maps to productivity." That's not praise, BTW, it's a statement that the site exists. Their 20 million page views, that's what they claim themselves and besides, having lots of page views doesn't make something a reliable source. If it did, Wikipedia would be accepted as a source for Wikipedia. Drmies (talk) 21:01, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • My apologies if I offended anyone. Review the references and ignore anything that uses "EXCITING" and is WP:SELF (www.amirite.com). Lets go through them: KillerStartups.com is a blog that you submit your site to (http://www.killerstartups.com/submit-startup/), Yahoo Finance is a PRESS RELEASE, http://www.crunchbase.com/company/amirite is WP:SPIP added by Amirite, etc. Thus eliminating all of the sources as WP:BLOG, WP:PROMO, WP:SELF except for a Boston Globe piece in the lifestyle section. Should this article remain on a lifestyle blurb? My belief, as stated above, is: NO. We can continue to dispute value of crap references all day, but it should be clear that if there were any references we would not be at AfD and we would not be having a back and fourth over the one possible reference that might add a micron of notability. PeterWesco (talk) 20:27, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment ok I have thoroughly read this now. Wikipedia's rules on notability are:

    Keeping in mind that all articles must conform with the policy on verifiability to reliable sources, and that primary sources alone are not sufficient to establish notability; web-specific content[3] may be notable based on meeting ONE of the following criteria:M

    The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations[4] except for media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site.[5] or trivial coverage, such as: a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site, newspaper articles that simply report the times at which such content is updated or made available, and content descriptions in directories or online stores.

    The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization

    The website has won a significant award as I have mentioned above (judged by Jimmy Wales Jimmy Wales and Martin Warner Martin Warner and also has been the subject of MULTIPLE non-trivial published works. While I understand your concerns that it has not been published in millions of published works it has indeed attracted significant attention. I do not have time to go through the whole of the Internet but that fact that there are 5 million backlinks going to the Amirite.net and .com combined suggests there are other mentions too.

    If common sense prevails this article should definitely be kept Craddock1 23:43, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Furthermore the website satisfies at least one of the above as stated in the rules. If one is to look at things from an objective standpoint at the end of the day the question that must be asked is whether an article will benefit people, and whether the site is notable. Both of these are fulfilled. Craddock1 23:44, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
  • In addition: 'When evaluating the notability of web content, please consider whether they have had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education'. Amirite.com clearly has had effects on society and all the other sub-topics since it provides a platform for a significant amount of people to express their opinions on anything. In a way it is similar to wikipedia but for opinions only. If you go to the stats page at the very bottom of Amirite's homepage you can see this 752,771 posts, 778,479,487 votes, 1,886,998 comments, 34,786 users. This demonstrates it effects people and allows them to express themselves. Craddock1 00:24, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
      1. . The site only has 80K backlinks (Not the 5M you state), from 585 domains, and all of those ramped up on Dec 1st. With 64000 of those backlinks coming from this site: top-site-list.com. I suspect this Wikipedia Article was part of the SEO plan as all of the banners on that site are now linking to the WikiPedia article. Trying to get the article to #1? Shall we look at the data together? 80000 backlinks with 64000 from one site all starting on Dec 1st, 2012 PeterWesco (talk) 00:26, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      2. . I have re-read it also, thanks for pasting it. Although, I must say, it is usually pasted in most every WP:PROMO/WP:SPIP AfD where the article lacks sources/notability. Your insistence on backlinks meaning anything is making believe you are "SEO God" as only SEO people (WP:PROMO WP:SPIP) would even bother using backlinks as a justification for notability. Shall we discuss "Page Rank" next? How about "likes" on Facebook? Twitter followers? As I said above, if the site actually had valid refs from WP:RS we would not be here. WP:SPIP sources, WP:BLOGS, etc. would be the complete opposite of what you pasted: The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations except for media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site. PeterWesco (talk) 00:26, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Thank you for that message. I just checked that site and cannot see one reference to the wikipedia article? I think you need to adjust your lenses. I just checked the resource you used 'ahrefs'. Those types of sites are known for their considerable inaccuracy and a 'quick fix'. The fact that you know of these sites and page rank and backlinks suggests you are familiar with S E O which I had never even heard of until know. I only knew what backlinks were because someone else mentioned these earlier and I looked them up. There is nothing wrong with advertising on other sites on top site list. All good sites do this. I am also not affiliated with Amirite which I'm sure you don't believe. I can send you my user account there though if you really want.

        As I said earlier we are only here because there are people like you out there in the world. If I didn't know any better I would think you tried to submit one of your sites on wikipedia which got rejected because it lacked notability. Its also funny how you ignore all the positive points I make but jump on any old rubbish you can find.Craddock1 00:38, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

        • Nice save by taking the banner down... Sadly you replaced it with an Amazon banner that links to: (spaced because Wikipedia does not like amazon links) http://www. amazon.com/ ?& tag=amiritecom-20&camp=216797&creative=394537&linkCode=ur1&adid=0T49QBXX12SQMC5K75Q3&&ref-refURL=http%3A%2F%2Fconspiracy.top-site-list.com%2F Shall we end this charade now or would you like to proceed down this road of you not being a backlink SEO "god"? PeterWesco (talk) 00:45, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fortunately, Google Cache has the banner: check it out
          • Comment Again this user has ignored my previous comment. I think he needs to get new glasses. For Admin's reference I am actually a student and can send you proof if you want. I and have no experience in backlinks - yet again PeterWesco talking rubbish and trying to discredit the article. I have checked the site and there is a banner to Amirite.com on the site which I don't see anything wrong with this. It even says Sign Up Now to Amirite.com on the banner!! You can't sign up to Amirite via Wikipedia!Craddock1 01:07, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
          • I also have a deep suspicion PeterWesco was an Amirite.com user that got banned and hence his deep hatred towards Amirite. I am an avid user and vaguely remember that name. I will do some further research into this.Craddock1 00:58, 2 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craddock1 (talk • contribs)
            • Comical I will consider this discussion ended. Good luck on your WP:SPIP WP:PAID PeterWesco (talk) 01:07, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment GUYS MY SUSPICION IS CONFIRMED!!!!!!!! I just sent a message to an Admin on Amirite and this is what they said: Yes I remember that Peter fellow. He got banned a while back for breaching Amirite's rules and posting offensive material: http://amirite.com/user/PeterWesco/suspended — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craddock1 (talk • contribs) 01:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yes, because when I am trolling un-notable sites run by WP:PAID crews looking for WP:SPIP I often use the same username as I use on Wikipedia. It makes complete sense. Comical though, it shows you are admitting defeat. PeterWesco (talk) 01:19, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Comment @Craddock1. First, no one, especially not the admins, care about the users that are weighing in on this AfD, other than if they are socks. This is about the article, not personalities, so please assume good faith and lay off the negative comments about other editors' motivations or background. I would especially be careful about the latter, as WP has a strict policy about outing. What happens off-wiki is not relevant to this discussion. The notability (or lack thereof) of the article is what is at issue.

              What you need to concentrate on is reliable and verifiable sources. Backlinks don't count, nor do self-published accounts, such as press releases.

              If the article has won a significant award, then a reliable source, and likely multiple reliable sources should cover it. The fact that Jimbo was a judge is not significant as far as notability. If you doubt that, ask him on his talkpage - Jimbo actually reads it and responds. Focus on the article, not editors. GregJackP Boomer! 02:43, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

              • Comment I read that it won this award a while back but I can't find yet since it was printer in a newspaper - I think the Evening Standard (London Paper). I will do further research and also see if I can find any more articles of which I am sure there are but I believe I have supplied enough. Regarding what you say about good faith: This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious evidence to the contrary. Craddock1 02:53, 2 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craddock1 (talk • contribs)
                • Comment - what evidence to the contrary? The only thing I have seen from any of the editors that are arguing for deletion is that they disagree with your position, which is not evidence of bad faith. Again, please lay off of the negative comments. GregJackP Boomer! 04:02, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails to meet WP:GNG. Press releases, user-submitted content, and multiple citations of the same hyped-up material reproduced on different sources don't establish notability. If the website/social network becomes genuinely notable, independent reliable sources meeting the necessary requirements will appear - but for now, they aren't in evidence. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:01, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable, and note that it is not the only business using that name, so if it were kept it should be renamed. As far as I can tell from searches Amirite.com is not notable. As far as I can see, the purpose of the Wikipedia article is to bring the website to people's attention in the hopes of making the website notable. It is worth noting that "Amirite" is also used as a brand-name by a number of companies - one company sells Amirite rucksacks, another sells Amirite furniture; there is also an Amirite.net with joke pictures. If this article were to be retained, the article should be renamed Amirite.com, to distinguish from other businesses using Amirite as a brand-name.--Toddy1 (talk) 07:43, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
User:Pashute has pointed out that Amirite.com and Amirite.net are the same website. This does not invalidate the point that more than one business uses "Amirite" as a brand-name. I stand by the argument that were this article to be retained, it should be renamed. I would not be in the least surprised if part of the purpose of having a Wikipedia article on Amirite was to try to claim the brand-name for the website. By its nature, a website gets more hits than a real-world product - but that does not make it more notable in the real world. Remember, no good evidence of notability has been presented for any of them.--Toddy1 (talk) 14:45, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Doesn't pass GNG.—Ryulong (琉竜) 09:02, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 09:57, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Alexa mark it as one of the 100,000 top traffic sites (rated about 57000'th5000 place) That's definitely not bad. Although it gives info for Amirite.net, and not .com, by looking at it, I see it is the same website. Amirite?
    • When users mention the website in fora requests AGAINST the website like this on Yahoo Answers,
    • or just look for alternatives while mentioning this website among others sites like here in chacha forums
    • or give it a low rating in a list of similar sites like this you can infer two things: that the site is well known, and that the listing has been made independently of the website owner, so IMHO it can and should be considered as evidence although it has been mentioned by users in a forum. -- פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 09:57, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per reasons given above and by OP. Fails GNG. – Richard BB 10:04, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:GNG. The Alexa argument is pretty weak as "top 57k" is very little anyway and we usually consider such arguments as "this topic has N Google hits" irrelevant. Max Semenik (talk) 10:17, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I meant Alexa 5000 sorry. That is very good. And it IS relevant. See for example the table in twitter. Its not n google hits, the number indicates entries!! פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 11:27, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per reasons stated above. Also, Alexa argument is somewhat flawed - other than it being in the 'top 5k' (nothing special) - there's an assumption that being on Alexa, means there is notability. -- MST☆R (Happy New Year!) 11:32, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with MelbourneStar that the Alexa argument is flawed. WP:WEB says "High-traffic websites are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability." It does not say that having "high-traffic" makes a website notable.--Toddy1 (talk) 13:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, I agree about the Alexa argument, but what do you say about my latest edits.
        • after removing all the seemingly PR sources).
        • what do you say about UrbanLegends.com,
        • what about the parody website
        • what about the requests by web developers for creating a clone of amirite.net.
      • Also, User:toddy1 wrote that amirite.net is a different site altogether dealing with jokes. It seems he got it all wrong. Take a look at the two websites. They are the same. The jokes are the style of users on the website.
      • Last but not least, (ok, I hope the readers are able to take a joke, without throwing away my former issues) the Amirite website has actually saved peoples lives!! See here פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 13:40, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:WEB. Also yet another thinly veiled advertisment/promo piece masquerading as an article with manufactured "coverage". As others have said press releases, user-submitted content, and multiple citations of the same promotional nonsense on other sites do not establilsh notabilty. ukexpat (talk) 14:58, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
ukexpat - obviously you have not looked at the article recently.
All the "multiple citations of same promotional nonsense" have been removed.
So its actually a question of being truthful. Is this a notable website? IMHO, at least in its old form as Amirite.net, it is. And for the reasons I showed in the now edited article. פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 19:31, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • CHECK USER RESULTS Closing admin please note the results of this SPI: here PeterWesco (talk) 15:16, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So who's left on the Keep list? or was the creation itself done by a sock puppet? (and if so this is a lost case)
If still applicable, and there's anyone left who still wants to discuss this at all, could someone please answer my two cents about the notability through mention on urbanlegends.com and through other indirect indicators of usage totally independent of the site owners, authors and paid puppets? פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 19:52, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The other 'indirect indicators' of notability are not useful. We need 3rd party reliable sources that have significant coverage of the subject. Without that, it is not notable. Jujutacular (talk) 21:34, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok summary till now, as far as I understand:
a. About Craddock1:
  • user:Craddock1 (talk) created the page.
  • Investigation by user:PeterWesco found a double with James, but Craddock1 explained it as his brother.
    • The investigation concludes that there may be some ties between Craddock1 and the other group of sock-puppets but has not come up with evidence, so it is left as two separate and unrelated groups. From the talk page it seems that Craddock1 is NOT behaving like a troll.
  • Craddock has been banned from further activity because of various bad behavior here and elsewhere.
    • In particular craddock1 had claimed that the pro-deletion users had an ax to grind against the Amirite website.
    • He furthermore had done some serious accusations, while disclosing personal facts about some of the wikipedia users, irrelevant to the discussion, and acting aggressively in other ways.
  • Craddoc1 has appologized and promised to stop activity on this page and this entry. but,
  • Craddoc1 has asked to delete the content of the page, and all other copies of it, since it's been "hijacked" in his eyes.
    • Since I have done most of the editing lately, I'm probably to blame as the "hijacker".
b. Delete requests:
  • Users calling for deletion (at least 5) found the original references in the article to have been either a strong dependency on their citing - being of promotional type, or being non-editorial user entered material, and so losing the power of proving notability.
  • Most of the users claim that the article was created and edited as part of a coordinated and paid for promotion job by the website owners or promoters. These include at least one user who formerly voted KEEP.
c. Keep requests:
  • The prize of 3rd place in the http://www.techentrepreneursweek.com/ according to Craddoc1 has not been discussed here further afaik.
  • The mention of web terms in UrbanLegends.com that have originated from usage in Amirite.net has also been set down as of not enough importance.
  • Their are only two genuine wp users left who wish to KEEP. Myself and the the colorful dreamer, and following all this, especially the last clause of the Delete Requests, I'm out of here. But leaving my KEEP, if its worth anything. I still think the site is noteworthy. I must say I enjoy their hangman game when waiting for things to compile, and as I pointed out before, the site saved some people's lives. Anyway: let it go...
So: As I know how it feels when someone changes my work extensively, I am now revoking anything I did. I'm also removing the copied article from my personal space. I invite anyone who wishes to have it as it is now in my user space, to write so on my talk page, or email me at my wp username on gmail. I'm saving a copy at home. פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 00:56, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Another attempt at desperately trying to manufacture notability for an unknown company, and the socks are not helping. In fact, the coverage that's there at the moment is, at best, routine for the tech rags that cover startups. Fails WP:GNG and WP:WEB. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 01:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CommentAll the valid resources have been removed from the article by someone. For Admin's eyes - please see article history. I have also proof they won that competition. I have also found multiple articles online from notable sources. Furthermore this competition was judgeed by leading Venture Capital firms such as such as Accel, Doughty Hanson, Index Ventures and Fidelity Growth Partners. If the following pages are permitted to have wikipedia pages I see no reason as to not allow Amirite to have a page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amen_(website), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herotopia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formspring Many of the points above are invalid since they do not realize Amirite.com and Amirite.net are the same site. Furthermore my recent research invalidates all of the deletes request stating no notable and third party sourcesCraddock1 (talk) 04:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]

comment - Thanks for the heads up. I just PROD'd: Herotopia PeterWesco (talk) 08:21, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The point that Amirite.com and Amirite.net are said to be the same website was noted. Though it is strange that the article did not mention it clearly. However this does not invalidate the point that other companies use the "word" as a brand name (e.g. a company selling rucksacks and a company selling furniture). If Craddock has really found evidence of notability, please could he/she add it to the article, complete with citations to reliable sources. By the way I just deleted the citation to Boston Globe article from 15 May 2011 because it does not mention the company, and so is not relevant to the article.--Toddy1 (talk) 18:45, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- Please see WP:OTHERSTUFF. Just because other articles exist that doesn't mean this one is justified. – Richard BB 09:34, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was WP:WITHDRAWN. (non-admin closure) Mkdwtalk 21:48, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A Guide to Human Conduct[edit]

A Guide to Human Conduct (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 withdraw my nomination as it seems the book is notable Shrikanthv (talk) 11:51, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

does not meet wiki notability Shrikanthv (talk) 23:29, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • article creator's comment: This book of Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar aka Shrii Shrii Anandamurti, written on 1957 and translated in various languages, is considered to be the ethical point of reference for many tantra and yoga praticioners. It has a particular relevance for the rational explanation given by the author on Yama and Niyama and other principles as foundations of the intuitional practices (Sadhana).--Cornelius383 (talk) 14:51, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This book meets the WP notability criteria on three grounds: (3) The book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a notable motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement. (4) The book is the subject of instruction at multiple elementary schools, secondary schools, colleges/universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country. (5) The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable. --Abhidevananda (talk) 16:43, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 29 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. Withdrawn by nominator, no delete !votes. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Life And Philosophy Of Swami Vivekananda[edit]

Life And Philosophy Of Swami Vivekananda (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 Nominator i Withdraw my AFD Shrikanthv (talk) 13:02, 4 January 2013 (UTC) Does not meet wiki notablity criteria Shrikanthv (talk) 23:24, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • article creator's comment: this book of Banhatti is most probably the best (or one of the best) research works on Swami Vivekananda. Google Scholar, Google Books etc show this book has been cited in other research works! --Tito Dutta (talk) 23:43, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - I have heard of "Life And Philosophy Of Swami Vivekananda" before. I didn't read but I have seen it on various sites. The book covers the life, personality, ideas of Swami Vivekananda. Contains his own speeches and writings as well as accounts left by his disciples. It seems to add new informations on the life and thinkings of this giant of modern India and I really don't see any reason to delete this article.--Cornelius383 (talk) 15:06, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Certainly, Swami Vivekananda is notable. As such, it is my opinion that any reliable third-party book that examines his life and philosophy should be deemed to meet the broad notability criteria of Wikipedia. Perhaps this won't be the most frequented article on Wikipedia, but it still enhances Wikipedia to have a short article describing a significant book about a personality of Vivekananda's stature. --Abhidevananda (talk) 17:02, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • For Wikipedia, notability is NOT INHERITED. This book needs to have independent reviews to be considered notable. LK (talk) 03:58, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
comment : please note that the main idea of moving this to AFD was to find if it is really notable according to wikipedia, is saying "probably the best" and supposedly seen in many sites would amount to be notablity ? , if any body come up with any other source of notablity interms of citation in newspaper or other authors, I will with draw AFD. Shrikanthv (talk) 22:37, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • article creator's comment (continued) These books might had been reviewed in newspapers. But, note these books were published in 1995. So, it is useless to search those reviews in world wide web because Indian news archives don't go back to that time. It is unfortunate that in few/many AFD discussion this point is not noted. Lack of online/digital format news, magazine reviews does not necessarily mean they did not get any coverages/reviews. This can be searched manually which is of course a damn difficult job. Google Scholars and Google Books will give some hints that this book is regularly cited in/by other scholarly books, research papers. --Tito Dutta (talk) 12:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 23:03, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Areopagus Lodge[edit]

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

No apparent notability, most local masonic lodges are not notable
kcylsnavS{screechharrass} 22:49, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Week Delete: It is true that most local level Masonic lodges are not considered notable (per WP:ORG). However, there are exceptions. Areopagus was apparently the first Masonic lodge created in Brazil, so there is definitely a potential for considering it notable. The question is whether there are sources that can be used to substantiate that potential... sources that discuss this particular chapter of the Freemasons in some depth. Google Books hits on two sources... but both only mention it in passing (while talking about something else). That is not really enough to satisfy WP:ORG. That said, since this is a Brazilian lodge, there might be sources in Portuguese that are not coming up on Google books (we need someone to check on that). Without such sources, the article is (unfortunately) a valid deletion candidate. Blueboar (talk) 13:14, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. "No apparent notability" is contradicted by its claim that it's the oldest lodge in Brazil. Mind boggling that this can be considered. JASpencer (talk) 17:51, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, let's start with the basics... are there any sources to support the claim that Areopagus Lodge actually was the first Masonic lodge in Brazil? Blueboar (talk) 22:04, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They are in Portuguese, but there are sources that support the claim. More importantly (and more clear cut) there are also sources to support the fact that it was involved in an attempted coup to secede from the Portuguese empire and despite being disbanded that its members would continue to be a thorn in the Imperial side. JASpencer (talk) 16:52, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please add these sources to the article. (I do assume good faith... but I would like to find a neutral party who reads Portuguese to verify what you say about the sources). Blueboar (talk) 02:32, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominator's Rationale: An organization is not notabale just because it lays claim to some fact, true or not, that would support notability. Notability must be (1) supported by unrelated third party sources independent of the organization that are (2) cited in the article. RiverStyx23{talkemail} 17:29, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are you trying to vote twice? You nominated the article under one name and put in a "Delete" vote under another. JASpencer (talk) 18:52, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still me. The account was renamed. RiverStyx23{talkemail} 19:10, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but you're not supposed to vote once you've nominated. That's seen as double voting. although in this case almost certainly innocent, it looks particularly dodgy if you've changed your name. Besides there are actually sources in both Portuguese and English that are independent of the body cited in the article after you put in that comment. JASpencer (talk) 19:19, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you; I didn't know that. But just so everyone's clear, "double voting" is a misnomer, as is the implication of an infraction or violation of some kind that is implied by assuming my innocense (which I nevertheless appreciate). The policy, of which I am now more fully aware, says, "Nominations already imply a recommendation to delete the article, unless the nominator specifically says otherwise, and to avoid confusion nominators should refrain from explicitly indicating this recommendation again in the bulleted list of recommendations."
Do you want me to cross out that vote for you?
They are not "votes," they are indications of consensus. RiverStyx23{talkemail} 22:42, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Further Comment: Agree with Blueboar, below. Having been seriously and rather nastily (IMO) slapped around by the presumed owner of an article - to which I was adding widely- and well-known, easily verifiable true information - for not supporting my additions with notable, verifiable third party sources, I see the usefulness of requiring these up front. It avoids a lot of wasted time discussing basic en.Wiki policies (noting however that the policy is verifiability of a source not notability). RiverStyx23{submarinetarget} 01:44, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, appears notable, and I'm sure more Portuguese-language sources will be found to substantiate this.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:54, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT - could we not assume the existence of sources, please (this is a pet peeve of mine). If sources actually do exist, that is one thing (we can then examine the sources and see if they actually support the claims made in the article)... but we should not keep articles based on an assumption that they do (or should) exist. Blueboar (talk) 00:48, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
While it's perfectly OK to say "If this is so notable it should have sources by now" it is also perfectly fine to say that "this article doesn't seem to have sources because of x" and Sarek quite reasonably put forward the idea that the sources were in Portuguese. There is already a presumption against poorly sourced articles and this works quite well. Taking it from a presumption to an inflexible law would mean that we would be deleting a lot of useful or interesting topics simply out of cultural bias. JASpencer (talk) 08:56, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sources not in English must nevertheless be verifiable. See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English_sources. RiverStyx23{submarinetarget} 13:27, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is easy enough to settle... I have asked for a Portuguese reader to examine the source (see: WP:RSN#Determination on reliability of Portuguese source needed) Blueboar (talk) 22:03, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have evaluated the Portuguese source, and although published by Masons it seems reliable. There doesn't appear to be any reason to doubt its veracity or neutrality. μηδείς (talk) 19:28, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing my opinion to week Keep, based on examination of the source at RSN. As noted there, not all the sources are reliable, but the one making the claim that the lodge is the oldest in Brazil is. The article needs work, and could definitely use better sourcing... but there is now (barely) enough for me to flip over to the Keep side of the fence. Blueboar (talk) 13:01, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome, to the Dark Side.  :) μηδείς (talk) 20:03, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is a good article with a lot of great sources (these seem very reliable). The argument of the article is interesting and useful for wikipedia. Samuel petan (talk) 19:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 29 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. WP:CSD#G4 JohnCD (talk) 16:18, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nosratollah khakian[edit]

Nosratollah khakian (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 per WP:BIO. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:23, 28 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Dankof[edit]

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

Subject of article fails to meet the criteria set forth for journalists in Wikipedia:Notability (people)/WP:CREATIVE. Unable to find significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Location (talk) 22:19, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable, just another minor WP:FRINGE of the sort PressTV can never get enough of. Frizzmaz (talk) 16:45, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unable to find sufficient coverage in reliable secondary sources. There is some note of him on the ADL [5] [6] and SPLC websites [7] [8], but these are not the best RS and there is still minimal coverage. Plot Spoiler (talk) 21:30, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ivaylo Chochev[edit]

Ivaylo Chochev (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)

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that the Bulgarian Second Division is fully pro, a supposition not supported by reliable sources. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:56, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]


This prove that Bulgarian 2nd dev and bulgarian cup are Fully proffesional,so the player is profesional player. K.belev (talk) 00:19, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia by it's own standards is not a reliable source. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:00, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.pfl.bg/b-pfg - Then read the official BFL site ;) B group is profesional league K.belev (talk) 17:41, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The link does not explicitly say that the league is fully pro, and the name by itself is insufficient. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:41, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Can be restored if he makes a league debut for CSKA Sofia. Govvy (talk) 23:37, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 13:41, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the article is about a footballer who hasn't played in a fully pro league or represented his country at senior level, which means that the article fails WP:NFOOTY. Also fails WP:GNG due to lack of coverage in reliable sources. No prejudice against recreation when one of the criteria is met. Mentoz86 (talk) 21:57, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Faroese constitutional referendum[edit]

Faroese constitutional referendum (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 was proposed for deletion for the second time, so I bring this here. I agree with the nominator, however, there no evidence that this is scheduled for a vote, being debated, or even a possibility. The 2010 referendum was an idea in 2008 but went nowhere. Hekerui (talk) 21:08, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Seemingly never going to happen. If the idea is ever resurrected, it can easily be restored. Number 57 21:21, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A High Beam search for Faroe Islands constitution (not exact phrase) yielded 24 results, some not on point. The only hit during the past two years is not on point. This appears to be a dead issue, speculative at best. Donner60 (talk) 07:32, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Probably right, yes. —Nightstallion 09:59, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable. It may have been notable if it happened, but it didn't. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 22:43, 30 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. postdlf (talk) 23:03, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decade of Darkness[edit]

Decade of Darkness (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 relies on one reference that mentions the titular quote upon which the whole article text hangs, the remainder is a clear WP:COATRACK to put forward a large number of unsourced and highly selectively biased complaints as a criticism of one particular past national government. This article is essentially a Blog entry. The one ref cited is actually a very balanced treatment of the topic, but with the coatrack text removed the article would be just two sentences and is thus not suitable as a Wikipedia article. - Ahunt (talk) 20:53, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Per Ahunt; also fails WP:NAD and WP:NOTADVOCATE. Rostz (talk) 21:14, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article is clearly bias and poorly sourced. When I first saw the page, I initially tagged it for speedy deletion, but then I decided to give the author a chance to improve it, which he did not. JDDJS (talk) 21:20, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Military History, under whose scope this article falls, has been informed of the existence of this deletion discussion. - Ahunt (talk) 00:35, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Rick Hillier if there is a section there that qualifies as wp material and is well sourced. The term may be sought by some readers and that is where it started.--Canoe1967 (talk) 05:45, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse ferret. There is also a book, song, etc with the same name. We may need a dab page in the future. A dab page would work now with 3 redlinks and definitions in case they make it to article status. Dab rules seem to allow that.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:33, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. This is clear-cut POV pushing. Nick-D (talk) 07:54, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Nick-D (talk) 10:24, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV-based neologism. Resolute 15:33, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NEO and WP:COAT. I believe there is an important article to be written on the historic and sweeping austerity measures taken by Chretien-Martin in the mid-1990s, including their impact on military spending, as well as all other areas of federal spending. But this article is not it, as outlined above. And I don't see much in the way of NPOV content to merge into the articles on Chretien, Martin or the Canadian military. I for one don't favour a redirect to the Hillier article (which makes no mention of this specific term, at present). Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:33, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - for the multiple above reasons. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 01:32, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT Delete This is ridiculous harassment in a blatant attempt to cover up the previous Liberal government's disastrous decade in office. The Decade of Darkness happened; whether that term and time period gets an article with that name, or something else which more completely describes the Liberals' decade in office, this Decade of Darkness happened, and it is historical and relevant and necessary to acknowledge. ARMY101 (talk) 21:37, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • — Note to closing admin: ARMY101 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:08, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I made it more neutral and removed the POV tag. It is far easier to source now as well.--Canoe1967 (talk) 05:47, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - still a neologism without widespread usage. Parsecboy (talk) 13:54, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can't find any evidence that the term "decade of darkness" is widely used in this way. Chrétien's term as Prime Minister is notable, but if it is to have its own Wikipedia entry, it should have a neutral title, like the current PM: see Premiership of Stephen Harper. This isn't about harassment or a cover-up or even about bias - to me this one hinges on notability; the expression "decade of darkness" doesn't meet notability standards. Dawn Bard (talk) 16:15, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Jean Chretien; the subject does not appear to be notable in and of itself, and thus fails WP:GNG. That being said, as its primary subject is actually about the Canadian Government under Prime Minister Chretien. If it is an alternate name, the article should be replaced by a redirect, as I understand is the standard procedure.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:01, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. History of the Liberal Party of Canada has a section that it could be mentioned in from a re-direct.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:44, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are lots of references out there for those interested in building wikipedia rather than deleting it. With one simple google these additional refs turned up:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/cdnmilitary/chat-hillier.html
http://www.thestar.com/news/article/182858--general-draws-liberal-fire
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2011/08/19/dnd-budget-cuts_n_931664.html
Keep in mind that every time an artcle is deleted from wikipedia scores of wannabe editors also disappear. Ottawahitech (talk) 14:45, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Not wanting editors to leave is not a reason to keep an article. Refs might appear but it does not change the bias nature of the article. JDDJS (talk) 22:56, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - clearly doesn't comply with WP:NPOV. Shritwod (talk) 23:17, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I just added a section to History of the Liberal Party of Canada including an anchor in case a re-direct is made to that article.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:23, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • And I've removed it per WP:COAT. I'm sorry, I had meant to reply to you here more promptly, Canoe1967. I object to adding Mr. Hillier's WP:NEO term for that decade to the main article on the history of the Liberal Party of Canada, as you have done. just as much as I object to the article under discussion here. Please try to get consensus for this addition at Talk:History of the Liberal Party of Canada before adding it again. (If a redirect is merited, the target should be the Hillier bio article imo). And again, my apologies for not registering my objection more promptly. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No problem at all. I was just being bold and that gets slapped down sometimes. I wonder if it woke up some polarized watchers of that article. Should we bold Mr. Hillier's article the same way to rattle some more chains?--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:43, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I do agree that it should be added to Hillier bio article. And again, I wouldn't object to a redirect there. So if you wish to go ahead, I'd have no objections at all. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:24, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Does anyone else want to go that route so we can close this AfD? I haven't got time to add it but anyone can just paste my text from the deleted LPC section I made.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:40, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Since this AFD should be closed today I would rather see it run its course and if the article is deleted then you can later create a redirect if you see fit, to remove the POV text from the system, rather than leave it for later revert. I would caution that the term "Decade of Darkness" has many multiple meanings, though and it will probably end up as a disambiguation page in the long run. - Ahunt (talk) 11:17, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disciplined Agile Delivery[edit]

Disciplined Agile Delivery (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)

Proposed deletion removed by creator. Referenced to the system's official website and its creator; the only independent reference is completely irrelevant. Fails to establish notability. According to User:FreeRangeFrog, the "term [was] coined by a company/person/author that is not widely used in the industry; article is essentially a promotional piece for a book." [9] - Mike Rosoft (talk) 20:30, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete My PROD was actually in error since it was the second one, however my rationale holds: Term coined by a company/person/author that is not widely used in the industry; article is essentially a promotional piece for a book. It's also an ad for a website. WP:COI issues aside (the author of the article is the same that runs the blog/website linked to from the article), the term itself fails WP:GNG. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 20:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 29 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) — Yash [talk] 03:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Friction[edit]

Bobby Friction (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)

Relentlessly promotional and when I try to strip out the promotion, I just can't convinced myself that we need an article on this person. He's mentioned in the media by virtue of being a DJ for the BBC, but do we truly need articles on all BBC disc jockeys? —Kww(talk) 20:22, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Generally speaking, I would say yes, we need articles on all disc jockeys on national BBC stations. There's plenty of coverage of him from a GNews search, and he won a gold Sony Award for his show with Nihal, so he's definitely notable. --Michig (talk) 06:30, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In December 2012 he appeared on an edition of Celebrity Mastermind, so it would appear that he has some claim to being regarded as a celeb and hence is of sufficient importance to merit the article staying put. I would agree that the article is too promotional in its current form, but that does not mean that a properly rewritten article about the man shouldn't be on Wikipedia. I vote to keep it Martyn Smith (talk) 19:14, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Plenty of GNews coverage, plus a major award for his show. I'd say he is notable. — sparklism hey! 09:01, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with Michig. Furthermore, per WP:ANYBIO he has been the recipient of multiple awards. Mkdwtalk 07:52, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksandar Kolev[edit]

Aleksandar Kolev (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)

Footballer who fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Oleola (talk) 19:40, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:42, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league, and has not received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:42, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 29 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. The Bushranger One ping only 03:22, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wey Valley Radio[edit]

Wey Valley Radio (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)

Internal school radio station. No indication of notability, and IMHO notability is extremely unlikely. TexasAndroid (talk) 19:37, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no notability at all. noq (talk) 19:50, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Delta FM (and nuke all content for this article) - there was a more significant radio station with this name in Hampshire, England, which is mentioned there (and which I confused with this one) --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:18, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 29 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. (non-admin closure) Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 03:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cristian Guerrero[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Cristian Guerrero (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 career minor league baseball player. He is the cousin of Vladimir Guerrero and did achieve the feat of 5 home runs in consecutive plate appearances, but none of that seems to have manifested itself in significant coverage independent of the subject. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:28, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:28, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable minor league baseball player. Never played a MLB game, therefore not entitled to a preromsumption of notability per WP:NBASEBALL. Insufficient depth of coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources to satisfy the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:44, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Aside from coverage in baseball publications such as Baseball America, Ballpark Digest, and Seamheads, I also found feature stories in the Connecticut Post, Fredericksburg Lance-Star (May 29, 2005) and San Bernardino Sun (July 11, 2003). The nominator supported keeping Zech Zinicola, whose page was kept just yesterday, so this seems like an odd AfD. Guerrero has more news coverage and a fairly notable pro baseball record to his name, plus the MLB family ties. It's also likely that Guerrero has been covered in Spanish-language outlets in his native Dominican Republic. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 00:16, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found the coverage of Zinicola, but I didn't find significant coverage on Guerrero. Can you please provide some links? If they're the same that HBWS provided in the first AfD, I don't think those are sufficient. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:56, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, same feature stories as the first AfD (I didn't notice until now), plus a bunch of additional stories in Baseball America (top prospects, indy coverage, etc.), Seamheads, this article at Ballpark Digest, etc. I don't understand how you deemed Zech Zinicola to be notable based on a story in the L.A. Times and a story in the Fredericksburg Lance-Star but you don't consider Guerrero to be notable despite stories in Baseball America, Ballpark Digest, and the very same Fredericksburg Lance-Star. Personally, I'm in favor of a tighter interpretation of WP:GNG, but there's no way--none at all--that Guerrero is less notable than Zinicola. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 19:09, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Baseball America, Seamheads and Ballpark Digest are trade papers, which do not receive quite the same stature as a publication like the LA Times or Fredericksburg Lance-Star, which does indeed contribute towards Guerrero's notability since that article does describe Guerrero in some depth. Simply put I accept that this is a borderline case and my viewing of it is that while Zinicola passed by a little, Guerrero fails by a little. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:16, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the above are discounted as "trade papers," then it seems the same should be true for MiLB.com, which is basically an in-house p.r. operation for Minor League Baseball (and which you used as two of the main sources in support of keeping Zinicola's page). You're also totally ignoring the fact that Guerrero has likely received extensive coverage in Spanish-language publications in his native Dominican Republic. I'm not trying to give you a hard time here; it just seems like you have inconsistent standards in these AfDs. Take away Zinicola's PED suspension and several articles about routine procedural moves (promotions, Rule 5), and he's about as non-notable as a MiLB player can get. Just about every minor leaguer in America has been featured in his hometown paper a time or two. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 20:12, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think MLB.com and MiLB.com are a level above Baseball America etc. in level of coverage, but you makea good point about the Spanish language publications. I'm not taking this personally, I respect the arguments you are making, especially since our criteria should be as uniform as possible, even though we arbiters of notability are only human :) – Muboshgu (talk) 00:12, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:28, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a close call but this guy seems to edge over the line for me based on the coverage and his unusual feet of hitting all those homers in a row.Spanneraol (talk) 14:55, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. My opinion has not changed since the article's last AFD. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 09:08, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:GNG. The refs are stats only, no editorial coverage.--Nixie9 (talk) 01:58, 19 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, j⚛e deckertalk 19:07, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The sources posted above as well as in the first AFD exist to establish the notability of the subject. It seems that he meets criterion 6 of WP:NBASEBALL based on the above sources. I would like to see a couple of examples of the spanish language sources that were mentioned above. The article needs to be sourced, but the sources do exist. The article is of very borderline notability, but I believe it is notable nonetheless. Tazerdadog (talk) 20:53, 19 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, The Bushranger One ping only 19:14, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: While sources are mentioned in the above discussion, they have yet to be added to the article - which, essentially, remains a UBLP. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:16, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would - if I had the sources or if they were online. See the comment above by Bbny - they are print sources. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:37, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the assumption that (1) the library would have it, or (2) the library could get it. My experience with our library here is that interlibrary loan requests are likely to be lolno'd. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:02, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not just for profit[edit]

Not just for profit (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)

WP:NEO. There is some third-party usage of the term, but those few sources actually identifying it as a term appear to be Wikimirrors [10] and/or possible copyvios [11], although I suspect the latter is a violation of WIkipedia's license, not the other way around. j⚛e deckertalk 18:47, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 29 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. Not sure why this was relisted, really. Courcelles 01:16, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Barry McNamee[edit]

Barry McNamee (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)

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:45, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:47, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:26, 22 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, ⋘HueSatLumAlt ? ❢⋙ 17:43, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the article is about a footballer who hasn't played in a fully pro league or represented his country at senior level, which means that the article fails WP:NFOOTY. Also fails WP:GNG due to lack of coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 21:22, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per the four other votes, it's all been said. C679 21:54, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles 01:17, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Matty Regan[edit]

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

PROD removed by Afghani nani (talk · contribs), the article creator, with no explanation given. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL as the subject has not "appeared... in a fully professional league" and WP:GNG as the article shows no evidence of the subject receiving "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Mattythewhite (talk) 13:20, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Mattythewhite (talk) 13:23, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:47, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:24, 22 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, ⋘HueSatLumAlt ? ❢⋙ 17:42, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the article is about a footballer who hasn't played in a fully pro league or represented his country at senior level, which means that the article fails WP:NFOOTY. Also fails WP:GNG due to lack of coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 21:21, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is to delete because the content consists only of unsourced plot summary and no sources are cited to establish the topic's notability.  Sandstein  00:59, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mobile Suit Gundam mobile weapons[edit]

List of Mobile Suit Gundam mobile weapons (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)

List of non-notable fictional weapons, does not pass notability criteria for lists. Claritas § 12:29, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 21 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, ⋘HueSatLumAlt ? ❢⋙ 17:38, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per WP:LISTN, one way to judge the acceptability of lists is whether the subject as a whole has been covered in sources. I find it very unlikely that the subject of mobile weapons in Mobile Suit Gundam has not been covered in reliable sources, as the series is highly popular and successful, and the mobile weapons are of central importance to both the plot of the series and its popularity among fans. I understand that sources need to be found, but I would expect they are available and doubt that the nominator has actually looked for them (due to his nominating several related subjects, without seeming to really consider each one). I would think that checking the sources listed in other articles on the series, such as in the articles Mobile Suit Gundam, Gundam (mobile suit), and White Base, would be a good place to start (but I probably don't have time to check them myself, or even access to any that are non-online sources). In addition, several of the items in this list have their own articles, and it seems backwards to delete the list while leaving the articles on individual entries in place. Also, about the policies stated by other people above, I don't believe WP:NOTDIR has any relation to this list (it isn't a directory or any of the other things listed there). I also don't think WP:NLIST is relevant, since it seems to primarily be about people and doesn't agree with WP:LISTN, presumably because people are a special exception where due to WP:BLP concerns a standalone list of people should generally only contain entries that are each notable individually. For a subject other than people, each individual entry in the list need not be notable per WP:LISTN. WP:NOTPLOT is a more valid concern, but I think this list would be acceptable since it is a subtopic of the larger topic of Mobile Suit Gundam, and the larger topic is not covered in an only in-universe fashion. The mobile weapons are of central importance to the larger topic, so it seems reasonable to list them in a list (similar to how lists of characters in fictional works are regularly kept at AFD, even when they generally cover the subjects in an in-universe fashion). Calathan (talk) 22:54, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting this article will not effect the individual entries as there is a template for the series that covers them. I repeat wikipedia is not a fansite (per WP:NOTPLOT, and WP:FANCRUFT) the fact is that the sources are not present and have not been included for years in this article. Notability is also not Inherited here, yes Gundam is notable but there is no evidence that the mobile weapons in the show are for this series other than being plot info. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:33, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So, have you checked for sources? I feel like this is being deleted because everyone is just too lasy to actually look at any of the potential sources. I know I probably can't complain because I myself am too lasy to look for sources, but this just seems like something that certainly should have sources out there, and it just surprises me that no one here is willing to find them. Calathan (talk) 02:29, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This article has been around since 2009, that would give 3 years for editors to look for sources here. Now that does not mean they are not out there, but if there were plenty of sources like you say there are dont you think they would have been found by now? I will do my part and look for sources but please dont call people lazy including yourself, im sure you have done alot of great things for wikipedia just as alot of editors here have. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:46, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The record shows otherwise.  At an AfD for Base 30, about ten editors commented without anyone showing that they had searched for the word "trigesimal" on Google books.  Afd nominators have the primary responsibility to study a topic and prepare the community before investing the time of other people.  AfD nominations among other things must analyze the alternatives to deletion, review the "What links here", and check for articles on other Wikipedias.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:57, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'd like to see some proof that the nominator performed WP:BEFORE before nominating this for deletion. My understanding is that Claritas has been banned from making AfDs and they have apparently broken this ban. If this is the case, rather than discussing this AfD, we should be discussing blocking Claritas. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:05, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree on both points.  I discovered this thread because of a Claritas AfD nomination that is now at DRV.  Claritas' sockpuppets frequently made 2nd, 3rd, and 4th AfD nominations, which are near guarantees of community contention.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:44, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've found 29 recent AfD nominations, 8 of which were 2nd nominations.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:40, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • USer:Claritas is not under any current editing restrictions. Reyk YO! 22:58, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • In requesting the unban, Claritas offered, "...I promise I can produce quality content in the future..." and "I have no interest in intentionally disrupting the project." [12].  In response to a concern about AfD participation, Claritas offered, "I'm here to write." [13]  Unscintillating (talk) 00:14, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • All of Claritas's recent AfDs found merit among a variety of users, unless there's proof he's been using sockpuppetry to vote in his own AfDs, I see no reason to label the actual nominations as disruptive. I also don't see how nominating potentially non-notable articles for deletion would be incompatible with the production of "quality content". On the contrary, I consider cleaning up the huge mess in articles about fiction as paving the way to quality content. Note that I'm not familiar with Claritas's case and am only responding to Unscintillating's words above.Folken de Fanel (talk) 01:30, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per the total absence of secondary sources. A search in GBooks yielded only wikipedia mirrors and a few mere mentions; not enough for a SAL. Fails WP:NLISTWP:LISTN, WP:NOTDIRWP:IINFO, WP:NOTPLOT etc.Folken de Fanel (talk) 01:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll give you WP:NOTPLOT, but I thought I made it clear above that WP:NLIST and WP:NOTDIR don't apply to this article. WP:NLIST is about people, and seems specifically intended with BLP concerns in mind. That obviously doesn't apply to a list of fictional machines. WP:NOTDIR is about lists that read like phone books, catalogues, TV listings, or the like, or where there isn't much of an association between the entries. It is specifically about directories, i.e. pages serving to help someone look up a person/ business/show time/product/etc. in order to contact/be a customer of/watch/purchase/etc. something. Sorry to complain about that, but it just bugs me whenever I see someone referring to that policy when what they really mean is that they think the subject of the list isn't notable (if you think it fails WP:N then just say so, rather than referring to a policy that is about something else). Calathan (talk) 04:34, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Amended.Folken de Fanel (talk) 09:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:57, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indian cricket after 2011 ODI world cup[edit]

Indian cricket after 2011 ODI world cup (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 an existing article for this: India national cricket team. Why this duplicate article? Most likely a POV fork. Forgot to put name 17:18, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete agreed, unnecessary fluff. Harrias talk 18:00, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've created 'Indian cricket after ODI world cup' article to just explain the performance and statastics of India after 2011 ODI world cup. In the article 'Indian national cricket team', it is not mentioned. If I merge this article in to that one, total article looks like focusing on Indian cricket after 2011 ODI world cup

Phani M (talk) 04:42, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. Also, what makes Indian cricket after the World Cup so significant that it requires its own stand alone article? Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 18:07, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. A snow job for a very devious hoax. Kudos to ShelfSkewed for doing the digging that disproved this dissertation. The Bushranger One ping only 17:21, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bicholim conflict[edit]

Bicholim conflict (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)

After careful consideration and some research, I have come to the conclusion that this article is a hoax—a clever and elaborate hoax, but a hoax nonetheless. An online search for "Bicholim conflict" or for many of the article's purported sources produces only results that can be traced back to the article itself. Take, for example, one of the article's major sources: Thompson, Mark, Mistrust between states, Oxford University Press, London 1996. No record at WorldCat. No mention at the OUP site. No used listings at Alibris or ABE. I can find no evidence anywhere that this book exists. Not being able to find any trace of an OUP book published within, say, the past 40 years? Ridiculous. If this book exists, then the original author of this WP article owns the only copy. I was similarly unsuccessful in tracking down Srinivasan Vasantakulan's Bharatiya Struggles (1000 AD – 1700 AD) (shown with an ISBN for a Swedish children's book) or David D'Souza's Roots of conflict in Portuguese Goa (also with an erroneous and unlikely ISBN). In addition, consider the comment by another editor on the article's talk page concerning the problems with the dates in the article. If I'm wrong about this, I'll look like a right idiot, but there are too many troubling things about this article to ignore. ShelfSkewed Talk 16:45, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. ShelfSkewed Talk 17:30, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ShelfSkewed Talk 17:30, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. ShelfSkewed Talk 17:30, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Congratulations must go to ShelfSkewed for his research here. In addition to the sources consulted by him I have cross-checked with Copac which is the primary UK academic index, and the only cited books which appear to exist are the two 19th century publications, that by Rule on the Inquisition and the 1886 Imperial Gazetteer, neither of which is claimed in the article to contain reference to the supposed conflict itself. One incorrect citation is par for published academic work, but for none of the supporting material to be traceable is fatal in the absense of any other evidence for the events described. --AJHingston (talk) 18:18, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --- I would have beleived it, but the alleged sources are clearly a WP:HOAX, which makes me think the article is too. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:21, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per the brilliant research above, and purge the creator's edits on other pages, if any. Well-presented hoaxes are the most malicious. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 18:44, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 22:05, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Following on from the excellent nomination statement, I searched for "Bharatiya Struggles" in the online catalogs of the National Library of India, British Libary and Library of Congress and none of these institutions had a record for such a book. As such, this appears to be a hoax. Nick-D (talk) 23:39, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. What a brilliant nomination. I have also not traced the relevant references and the historical chronology is wrong. If either Shivaji or the Maratha Empire were involved then 1640-41 is too early and too many dates are quoted in the article for a typo. I see the article creator linked to the article from History of Goa, here. This edit has not been questioned or reverted but the article has few watchers. However, there is no mention at Shivaji (and probably never has been) though a lot of edit warring was going on in that article over a relevant period in the later part of 2007.[14] Presuming it is a hoax, what an elaborate one. Thincat (talk) 23:45, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. It certainly does look suspicious. The editor who created the article has not done a lot of editing outside of that article and has not edited since 2007. Was it one of those journalistic tests? It is also galling that it is ranked as GA. I will see if we can get it speedily deleted but unfortunately the damage is done. It is mirrored and cached all over the internet. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:34, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I've declined the speedy delete- since it hasn't been detected for so long, it's obviously not a blatant or an obvious hoax, so it isn't eligible for G3. I'm sure it'll be deleted after this AfD though.--Slon02 (talk) 01:49, 29 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.

Later comments[edit]

Later comment moved down from Archived discussion. Moonraker12 (talk) 13:05, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
NoteDaily Mail Reporter (4 January 2013). "The war that never was: Most elaborate Wikipedia hoax ever as 4,500 word article on 'Bicholim Conflict' - a fictitious fight for Goan independence - fooled site for FIVE YEARS". Daily Mail. Retrieved 7 January 2013. A lesson well learned. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:19, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, though, it seems the Daily Mail ( which is itself no stranger to publishing stories of dubious provenance (here, para 5) wasn't the first to break the story. The Daily Dot, PC World, and Yahoo News all had the story before the Mail did. Moonraker12 (talk) 14:09, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was WP:WITHDRAWN. (non-admin closure) Mkdwtalk 00:13, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ottamthullal[edit]

Ottamthullal (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)

Majority of content appears to have been copied and pasted from an external source. Freebirdthemonk 16:45, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Withdrawn. FreebirdthemonkHowdy! 12:19, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, as a matter of procedure. I think this discussion can be closed immediately. (You can just withdraw the nomination, and an administrator will close it.) The article history shows that it has grown from a much shorter version over the course of several years (since 2004, in fact). If some copyright violating material has been introduced along the way, only those revisions affected by this need to be deleted. Go to Wikipedia:Copyright problems instead to report this issue. And you need to show where this material came from. --Hegvald (talk) 17:42, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, agree with analysis by Hegvald (talk · contribs), above. — Cirt (talk) 21:02, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as I withdraw this NfD on the grounds that I cannot find copyrighted material within the work. I tried looking for copyrighted information (as a majority of the text appears to be from a story book or informational text), but have not been able to find anything similar. Since it is possible that I was wrong and the text is just written in a storybook style, I would like to withdraw this NfD and close discussion. FreebirdthemonkHowdy! 12:16, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Aashiq Ottapalam (talk) 12:46, 23 May 2016 (UTC) I think This Should Be Kept in Wikipedia.Ottam Thullal is Famous and One Of The Oldest Arts and Cultural Form In Kerala,State Of India. But The content Of The Page Is Seemed To Be Copied From Somewhere Else. So If Anybody Is Able To Edit The Page Correctly It Would Be Better[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:57, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Libertad Green[edit]

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

No assertion of notability per WP:ENTERTAINER or WP:CREATIVE; no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. As can be seen from the edit history, there was a good deal of unsourced claims and promo, much of which appeared to be deliberate jokes or hoax. This article was already prodded and deleted once a few years ago, so thought it best to take this to AFD. Altered Walter (talk) 15:56, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Altered Walter (talk) 15:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Altered Walter (talk) 15:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As an Entertainer, libertad Green has
1.Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions - starring, featured, principle - see tables
2.Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following - over 1.6 million views on her Hawaiian Hula dance video; a thumbnail of her appears whenever you "Google" "Hawaiian hula".
3.Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. Is one of few women to have portrayed the Biblical Queen Jezebel in a starring role in a film, recognized by the Dove Foundation.
William Mortensen Vaughan, U.S. Army Staff Sergeant (Retired) (talk) 18:04, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Purely promotional article full of spam "refs" written by the subject's husband. Harry the Dog WOOF 20:38, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Most of those refs don't actually mention the topic at all. InShaneee (talk) 04:01, 31 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 : Redirected to Lists of universities and colleges by country#The Arab World. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 20:49, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Arab universities[edit]

List of Arab universities (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)

Redundant article. See Lists of universities and colleges by country#By region#The Arab World. Professorjohnas (talk) 14:16, 28 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:57, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orlando Brooke[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Orlando Brooke (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)

Not a notable person

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT YET (actors). This fellow's quite short career of un-named, charecter-descriptive-only roles (IE: Ticket Seller, Noisy Boy , Boy being bullied, Nutter, Jewish Prisoner) [15] fails WP:ENT, and his lack of any sort of coverage fails WP:GNG. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:25, 31 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 01:38, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ulrich Ellison[edit]

Ulrich Ellison (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 per WP:MUSICBIO. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:38, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I couldn't find any real indication that an encyclopedia article is appropriate. --Michig (talk) 09:57, 23 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 (t • c) 09:37, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I found mentions on social networking sites and and concert listings, but no significant coverage in independent reliable sources; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO at this time.  Gong show 22:09, 28 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. The Bushranger One ping only 03:23, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Magic rocks[edit]

Magic rocks (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)

Not notable. Unreferenced. Just one example of many manufactures who sold crystal gardens which were in wide use before their alleged invention in 1940. This is simply an an advertisement with no notability. The process is much better described at Chemical garden which is just partially duplicated here.  Velella  Velella Talk   09:58, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, merely a commercial landgrab but as nom says already far better handled at Chemical garden. This could actually have been speedied A10 (duplicates existing article) but I guess we are where we are now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:49, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean, it's a product with significant real world distribution and a long history. Surely sources could be found. -- Zanimum (talk) 19:39, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, maybe, but that would apply far more to the generic Crystal Garden/Chemical Garden toys of which this is just one poorly-referenced brand: the long history is not this brand's at all. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:05, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:04, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:08, 15 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, MBisanz talk 23:11, 21 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 (t • c) 09:35, 28 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 Chelmsford#Business and commerce. Deleted before redirecting. The Bushranger One ping only 21:39, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Meadows Shopping Centre[edit]

Meadows Shopping Centre (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 what I can tell, a non-notable shopping centre. We usually delete those as a speedy, but this one was declined. I searched on gnews and gbooks and ghits, and while it certainly does exist I could not find coverage or size sufficient to suggest this deserves an article. Epeefleche (talk) 06:59, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not notable. Chelmsford already mentions the shopping centre, so a merger isn't necessary. DoctorKubla (talk) 09:58, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No indication of wp:notability. Already mentioned in Chelmsford article. North8000 (talk) 13:04, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:12, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:12, 14 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 00:07, 21 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 (t • c) 09:32, 28 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 the main iPod Touch Article. YuMaNuMa Contrib 01:59, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

iPod Touch (original)[edit]

IPod Touch (original) (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)

Article currently only contains duplicated information from the iPod Touch article and at the moment it's nothing more than a specification list from the back of a manual. Separate articles should be created if the main iPod Touch article becomes overloaded with specific but relevant information pertaining to each generation, however it not even approaching that - at the moment and I doubt it ever will due to the declining popularity of the device. YuMaNuMa Contrib 08:59, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot that redirecting the article was an option. Well since I already opened up a nomination, I'll let it run its course for another 24 hours, if no one opposes, I'll redirect it back to the main iPod Touch article. Initially provided 24hours as I thought the editor who created the article would object with a reason but it seems that his account has been locked and is inaccessible throughout entire wikimedia network. YuMaNuMa Contrib 12:59, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You can now close this AfD, as you've redirected the article. I'm not surprised he's been locked out, to be honest. Lukeno94 (talk) 21:16, 28 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:57, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Todd Murphey[edit]

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

On notability grounds - has not fought in any noteworthy MMA fights. Peter Rehse (talk) 09:08, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 09:08, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 29 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:57, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chenry Lewis[edit]

Chenry Lewis (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)

Article appears to be promotional in nature. Subject does not meet any of the notability requirements of WP:ATHLETE; is currently playing in a non-notable semi-pro league. Article has been tagged as an orphan for 3+ years. caknuck ° needs to be running more often 07:54, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable enough for an article. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 16:31, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a free web hosting service.--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:43, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable college football player. Subject does not merit a presumption of notability per WP:NCOLLATH because he never received a major college award. Does not receive a presumption of notability per WP:NGRIDIRON because he never played in a regular season NFL or other major professional football game. Coverage is insufficient in to satisfy the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG; existing sources included in article are non-independent (team or league sites), non-reliable (fan blogs), or trivial (sports stats sites). Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:55, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete backup former college football player, some of the claims of notability doesn't involve him at all. Secret account 01:26, 30 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. Will userfy upon request. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:58, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Geria[edit]

Jason Geria (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)

He has not played a professional senior game at club or international level. Article fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 07:45, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 07:45, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy - then move back into mainspace if he becomes notable. Lukeno94 (talk) 12:56, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 16:02, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the article is about a footballer who hasn't played in a fully pro league or represented his country at senior level, which means that the article fails WP:NFOOTY. Also fails WP:GNG due to lack of coverage in reliable sources. No prejudice against recreation once one of the criteria is met. Mentoz86 (talk) 21:56, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 09:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redecard[edit]

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

Deleted PROD per WP:PROD (previous AFD) PROD rationale by User talk:I am One of Many is This article appears to by promotional (advertising) with no third party independent references. Also, appears to be independent research. Illia Connell (talk) 06:50, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep User:Whpq cited various WP:RS articles about the firm in the previous AfD. Incorporating these would improve the article past the concerns expressed, but whether in or outside the article, the evidence of WP:CORPDEPTH notability exists. AllyD (talk) 09:39, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 29 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 Step Up (soundtrack). (non-admin closure) — Yash [talk] 03:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Step Up (Samantha Jade song)[edit]

Step Up (Samantha Jade 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)

Fails WP:NSONG. Not enough independent coverage for a stand alone article. Additionally, can content can easily be folded into the (currently short) article about the album Samantha Jade (album) LK (talk) 06:37, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Step Up (soundtrack). Unlike the last Samantha Jade Afd I just !voted on, this topic is not notable (not enough for a standalone article anyway). A minor chart appearance fails to address the issue of significant coverage in reliable sources. Till 01:12, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Step Up (soundtrack). — ΛΧΣ21 03:33, 31 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 Step Up (soundtrack). The Bushranger One ping only 03:24, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Turn Around (Samantha Jade song)[edit]

Turn Around (Samantha Jade 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)

Fails WP:NSONG. Not enough independent coverage for a stand alone article. Additionally, can content can easily be folded into the (currently short) article about the album Samantha Jade (album) LK (talk) 06:37, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect. This one doesn't stand up to the GNG and a lack of coverage in reliable sources means it should not have a standalone article. Till 01:16, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the parent album. — ΛΧΣ21 03:32, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Step Up (soundtrack) - not enough to have a standalone article thus fails WP:NSONG. I don't see any trouble for a merge. — Yash [talk] 03:35, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Courcelles 01:40, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What You've Done to Me[edit]

What You've Done to Me (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:NSONG. Not enough independent coverage for a stand alone article. Additionally, can content can easily be folded into the (currently short) article about the album Samantha Jade (album) LK (talk) 06:37, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep - it's tight, but it may have enough coverage to pass NSONGS. Lukeno94 (talk) 12:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Duh! song has charted. It's notable. — Oz 22:59, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Charting in and of itself does not make a song notable, but this one went to number one and there's enough here for a start. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 01:15, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, obviously. The song was #1 in Australia and has enough coverage to warrant a standalone article. This was a poorly thought-out nomination, given the substantial amounts of views the article receives daily. If the nominator felt so strongly about the notability of the article, a merge would have been the best option. Readers would be directed to nowhere if this article was deleted. (I'M A ROCKET TO THE SUN, I'M A HEARTBEAT ON THE RUN / THAT'S WHAT YOU'VE DONE TO ME!!) Till 01:05, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Considering the debate about chart position has been going on at WP:NSONG, it seems consensus is set that top charting is notable as long as its supported by other material and sources. This article appears to meet both. Mkdwtalk 07:59, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles 01:41, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Ellis[edit]

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

This article is essentially a CV, and the only sources are a book he wrote and a telephone interview with him. I'm not finding much about him on Google, though that may partly be due to his somewhat common name. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:26, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There are plenty of sources on the scholar link where he gets an h-index of 13. I don't know how this rates for Folklore. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:31, 22 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, Courcelles 06:17, 28 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. The Bushranger One ping only 02:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Incredible Crew episodes[edit]

List of Incredible Crew episodes (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)

Episode list only covers 2 episodes, which haven't aired yet. No need for a separate article from the main one this soon into the series' run. Paper Luigi T • C 05:26, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Show has yet to start, and 2 unaired episodes aren't enough to merit a list. Maybe after a full season or two, then we could recreate the page. ZappaOMati 06:02, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the above. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:36, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 29 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. The Bushranger One ping only 02:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Dunn[edit]

Harry Dunn (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)

Never played or managed at a professional level, nor been the subject of significant coverage in reliable third-party sources ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:26, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:26, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:10, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:10, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Does winning the FA Trophy twice, playing against top level teams in the FA cup help his notability? It seems he could of been an important player during the 1970s for Scarborough F.C. even know they were non-league till 87. Also the fact the article has survived without question since 2007? Govvy (talk) 00:18, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As you yourself point out, Scarborough were a non-League team throughout his time there, so that doesn't help his notability. and the fact that his article happens to have gone unnoticed since 2007 has no bearing on notability whatsoever........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:20, 28 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, MBisanz talk 05:10, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:GNG. LK (talk) 06:47, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral - With such a long career, it may be possible for him to meet WP:GNG if someone looks hard enough (ie, through newspapers and books and such sources), and he sort-of passes WP:NFOOTBALL as he has managed a team against three professional/notable clubs. Lukeno94 (talk) 13:04, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL as he hasn't played or managed a team in a fully pro league (playing on a semi-pro team against a fully-pro team confers no notability). Also fails WP:GNG as he hasn't received significant coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 15:48, 29 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 major artifacts in Dungeons & Dragons. Courcelles 01:44, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Axe of the Dwarvish Lords[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Axe of the Dwarvish Lords (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 weapon. No significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Claritas § 15:15, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge and redirect to List of major artifacts in Dungeons & Dragons. It's possible the game module has independent coverage in the form of critical reviews, but this can be recreated as an article for that with a note about the magic item later on if sources are found. —Torchiest talkedits 15:50, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect as per Torchiest. As an artifact this has no notability; as a module it might (although I would have expected there to be a module article already if there was).Vulcan's Forge (talk) 02:38, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep pending a search for sources, but merge to list article otherwise. BOZ (talk) 15:55, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nominator has "retired" after past socking in fictional elements-related discussions had been brought up. Existing sources in the article are varied and show broad coverage of this fictional element. Jclemens (talk) 20:50, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually #8 is RPGNet and it has been established and accepted as an independent source for game articles throughout many AFDs and when promoting articles to GA or FA status. If it is a good enough source to help an article to FA or GA then it is certainly good enough for an AFD discussion. Web Warlock (talk) 14:37, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's good - the problem is that it's the only independent source. I'd be more comfortable with this article merged into a notable article, knowing that it will be kept, than if it can be re-nominated for AfD and deleted the next time. Diego (talk) 16:52, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Source #8 is not about the article's topic. The article is about the artifact, and source #8 is about the RPG module. 0 relevant independent source there.Folken de Fanel (talk) 01:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 05:10, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect No significant independent sources. LK (talk) 06:48, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the Publication history section to Eldritch Wizardry (which could use the expanded text) and mark this as a redirect-with-possibilities. There is evidence that the artifact was well received and known, and it's likely that some offline source had noted it at the time; so it's not unlikely that an article could be written in the future. Meanwhile, while there are not enough independent online sources to prove notability, the primary sources are enough to preserve the not-in-universe parts in a related article. Diego (talk) 14:10, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. If the article is blanked and redirected without merging any content, please add a notice of this at the target talk page, so that readers can find out this article's history. Diego (talk) 14:16, 28 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 01:44, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lyle Center for Regenerative Studies[edit]

Lyle Center for Regenerative Studies (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)

Individual research & teaching center inside a single ordinary level academic department in an ordinary level university. No indication of particular importance, no external sources for notability, or any reason to think there might be: it does not even offer a doctorate, just a masters and an undergraduate major. The section of wildlife shows how little can be said about the actual center & its activities. DGG ( talk ) 18:22, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 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, —Theopolisme 22:14, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:ORG notability. - MrX 22:45, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep There is a compendium of third-party, reliable, and scholarly sources on the subject. Here's just a few:
U.S. Department of Energy
Amonix Solar Energy Systems Inc.
Engineers without Borders USA
Power From the Sun - W.B.Stine and R.W.Harrigan (John Wiley and Sons, Inc. 1986)
Mention on the International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education
Research paper from "The 23rd Conference on Passive and Low Energy Architecture (2006)," Geneva, Switzerland
and several others on Google Scholar. -- Marco Guzman, Jr  Talk  15:44, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, the Lyle Center became carbon-neutral in 2010, spearheading an effort to make the entire Cal Poly Pomona campus carbon-neutral by 2030, and received praised by then-governor Arnold Schwarzenegger who said: "...I applaud Cal Poly Pomona and Amonix for their commitment to renewable solar energy generation. It is great partnerships like this one between a California-based company and a world-renowned university that will keep California a leader in this booming industry." (Reuters). -- Marco Guzman, Jr  Talk  15:55, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
...we probably need to add WP:ITSGREEN to WP:ATA. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:47, 29 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, Courcelles 08:06, 19 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, MBisanz talk 05:04, 28 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. The Bushranger One ping only 03:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dustin Jacoby[edit]

Dustin Jacoby (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) 09:01, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. One of his 3 big fights was on NBC(NBC right?). PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 10:26, 18 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, LlamaAl (talk) 04:07, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Was released after 2 losses in the UFC. He doesn't yet pass WP:NMMA. Jakejr (talk) 23:50, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NMMA. --TreyGeek (talk) 02:48, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He passes with 3 notable opponents and on 3 notable events. Although he has been in UFC and got released with a 0-2 record. Loss/win streak should never be in consideration, however, the case for a "keep" is pretty weak. Mazter00 (talk) 09:30, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about notable opponents or events, it's about competing at the highest level (top tier). In this case he has only 2 of the 3 required fights. Jakejr (talk) 15:24, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Where does World Series of Fighting come in the MMA Tier? I don't find it. Tier three? Tier one? Top? If the event mr. Jacoby was in isn't notable, why does it have it's own article? But WP:NMMA says "for a top-tier MMA organization" at that's where my reading comprehension failed. Mazter00 (talk) 17:15, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since the World Series has held only 1 event, it hasn't been around long enough to be assigned a tier. Right now the closest thing to that organization may be the now defunct Elite XC (second tier) which produced 22 shows and had fights aired on CBS. Jakejr (talk) 20:07, 26 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, MBisanz talk 05:03, 28 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. As much as I think this article should be deleted, after four relistings it is quite clear that a consensus cannot be reached. (non-admin closure) Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 03:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Innovation Works[edit]

Innovation Works (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 company / organisation. No refs in article and nothing obvious in google. This appears to be a completely separate entity to the similarly unreferenced EADS Innovation Works. PROD repeatedly removed by creator. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:51, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The twenty some refs I added were reverted by Piandcompany for an unspecified reason (marked as a "minor" change). I removed PROD once in accordance with the message in the PROD, stating that once issues had been addressed it can be deleted without discussion by anyone, including the creator. Cyounkins (talk) 05:22, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected. PROD was removed once and modified once. I have restored what looks to be the only in-depth independent ref removed. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:35, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Lacks WP:CORPDEPTH entirely. Its existence is verified mostly in unreliable sources; its notability is not. JFHJr (㊟) 06:28, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 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]
  • Strong Keep Innovation Works is a well established technology innovation proponent in Pittsburgh and southeastern Pennsylvania.

There are easily located sources from very reliable independent sources, including the Pittsburgh Post Gazette and the Pittsburgh Business Times.

Here are two articles from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, the leading Pittsburgh daily newspaper:

Here are four articles from the Pittsburgh Business Times:

This article should have these reliable sources added, with information from the articles. --DThomsen8 (talk) 14:05, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.g20pittsburghsummit.org/transformation-city/information-communications-technology/innovation-works/ is a blurb almost certain supplied by the company, it fails the independence requirements. http://www.bizjournals.com/pittsburgh/news/2011/10/07/top-7-innovation-works-plsg-investments.html http://www.bizjournals.com/pittsburgh/news/2012/09/14/top-5-innovation-works-plsg-investments.html and http://www.bizjournals.com/pittsburgh/news/2012/05/24/slideshow-scenes-from-innovation.html contain no in depth coverage. That leaves us with three articles which are all local, one of which is niche and none of which contain 'hard questions' Looks like WP:ROUTINE and of local interest to me. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:02, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see that as routine at all. Routine is things that get coverage no matter what, like reviewing restaurants, not coverage of businesses in detail like that. Dream Focus 13:53, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG Delete None of these "sources" apply, it's just press releases etc.. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 01:11, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Bizjournal is nothing but press releases. Take time to look at the other sources found though please. Dream Focus 13:53, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Highbeam shows ample results for "Innovation Works" [23] but they are all about an ex-Google executive in China, using that name for his business creation platform. Enough coverage of that about for its own separate article I believe, should anyone want to bother making it. Dream Focus 17:44, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This company gets ample coverage such as this [24]. Dream Focus 17:45, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For those without access to highbeam, the that same article is at http://old.post-gazette.com/pg/06109/683141-96.stm . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stuartyeates (talk • contribs)
  • Delete. Non-notable. Google searches turned up nothing except routine and tangential coverage in local newspapers, most of which isn't real investigative journalism anyway, but lazy-assed "armchair journalism" based primarily, if not entirely, on press releases from the company itself. I could find no sign that substantial coverage might exist in multiple reliable independent sources with a reach greater than the immediate local community. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 11:16, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you seen this source? [25] Do you not consider that significant coverage? Dream Focus 13:51, 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, MBisanz talk 03:21, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm seeing some coverage but I'm not really convinced it goes beyond local coverage of a local initiative/enterprise. There are lots of seed funding initiatives and business "start-up" support programs - almost every State Government has something similar (even here in my native Australia). I'm not really convinced by the argument that it gains notability from the businesses it has supported. So we need to rely on coverage to substantiate a pass against WP:CORPDEPTH. I don't think we're there yet. As far as I'm concerned, we would probably need to see some national coverage or inter-state coverage to substantiate that this is a program notable beyond the borders of a particular region, as distinct from the myriad programs like it. Stalwart111 01:47, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets the General Notability Guideline  The Steve  23:09, 16 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, MBisanz talk 03:17, 21 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 (t • c) 04:59, 28 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 East Oakland, Oakland, California. The Bushranger One ping only 21:48, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Elmhurst Community Prep[edit]

Elmhurst Community Prep (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)

middle school, not connected with any school district. we normally dont have articles on middle schools unless uniquely notable (landmark building, etc). this has nothing like that. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:56, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 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 00:13, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to district article Consensus is that secondary schools are inherently notable, but not elementary and middle schools. There is no claim of notability here, nor is there much content of any enduring worth. Alansohn (talk) 02:23, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Oakland since it isn't part of the local school district, and we usually just redirect to the city when there is no parent to merge to. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:35, 14 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 00:13, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the locality. That's the usual course when we don't have a school district. DGG ( talk ) 03:44, 28 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 (t • c) 04:57, 28 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 University of North Texas. Courcelles 01:47, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fight, North Texas[edit]

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

No independent sources, not notable, etc. As per WP:NSONG, "a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." Runfellow (talk) 05:32, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Runfellow (talk) 05:32, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:25, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:25, 15 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 00:09, 21 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 (t • c) 04:54, 28 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. There is a pretty clear consensus here from users who expressed an opinion that the article as existing is redundant to a category and relevant guidelines on this. There is a long discussion about ways in which the article could be re-purposed, although obviously I cannot take that into account as closer; however feel free to ask me to userfy the article if you believe the material could be used in some way. Black Kite (talk) 01:31, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of female video game characters by role[edit]

List of female video game characters by role (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)

An incomplete list that is unnecessary due to Category:Female characters in video games. Cyan Gardevoir (used EDIT!) 01:38, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SALAT is a reason to split or limit the scope of lists, not to delete them. Lists that are too general or too broad in scope have little value, unless they are split into sections, try to limit the scope in some way...by sectioning the general page under categories, etc. Diego (talk) 10:02, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - An expansive list, and while I appreciate that female characters are probably disproportionately a minority in video games, even with that fact, the list size is expansive and better handled by the category. Shadowjams (talk) 02:48, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator and Clarityfiend. -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:27, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Cyan Gardevoir and Clarityfiend's reasonings. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:33, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - just noting for the record that I did create that article with the summary "creating article from misplaced section at Portrayal of women in video games". I do not oppose its deletion as long as that does not result in a merge-back. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 06:06, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question to the nominator How is a reader looking for female characters supposed to find Wikipedia's coverage of characters such as: Yorda from Ico, Amaterasu from Ōkami, Faith Connors from Mirror's Edge, Galatea from the eponymous interactive fiction, or any other character that is not independently notable, but nevertheless important to the history of video games? Note that:
  1. Per WP:CLN guideline, lists and categories "should not be considered in conflict with each other" (having one doesn't imply having to delete the other)
  2. The inclusion criteria for Category:Female characters in video games explicitly excludes characters that don't have their own articles, so the category doesn't serve the same purpose. So anyone voting for deletion in terms of redundancy should explain how is one expected to find those non-article characters if this list is deleted.
  3. Concerns of size don't imply deletion either, because Wikipedia is not paper. The list is manageable because it only includes significant characters in notable videogames, so it's not really indiscriminate. See also this recent outcome for a similar list of notable and non-notable fictional characters - the standard for lists of fictional entities is to keep them and split them when they grow. Diego (talk) 09:22, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Faith is atually independently notable (I come upon sources discussing her all the time), just nobody cared to make an article (a proper article, a similar situation is with the heroes of the Assassin's Creed series, or this dude from Dead Space, who are huge, but their articles sucked and so they kept being merged). Amaterasu maybe too (maybe). But anyway: where to "find Wikipedia's coverage of characters", right now? In the articles Ōkami and Mirror's Edge, I suppose. No? --Niemti (talk) 11:20, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That can be done only when you already know that those particular video-games have important female protagonists. The question is how you can learn that fact for games in general in a systematic way. Diego (talk) 12:32, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But "important" according to whom, exactly? Because you forgot to write about it in the article (and actually to use even one reference to source the entire article), so people might think it's just your original research - as far as in know, you just added a bunch of characters randomly (I never heard about "Galatea from the eponymous interactive fiction", or any article mentioning her). --Niemti (talk) 13:54, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of which, I don't think Galatea (video game) is even notable as a game (and even it's "XYZZY Award" has notability questioned and still not estabilished since Feb 2009). --Niemti (talk) 14:13, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Important to reliable sources, of course. If you follow the links to those articles you'll find the sources that establish their significance - even if they lack independent notability according to the Wikipedia standard for stand-alone articles; their relevance is tied to that of the games where they appear. The problem with the Category:Female characters in video games is that it's biased toward characters that appear in game franchises; most often that not, their repeated appearance in separate games (<as well as their boobs>) is what makes them distinct enough to have their own article, since professional media mention how their appearance (<and their boobs!>) evolved as technology improves. Those characters important to gaming history for anything other than <boobs> are unlikely to appear at the category. (Ok, that oversimplifies the problem, but look at the category and think if doesn't have a seed of truth ;-) .
Characters that are important for only one game don't satisfy this coverage as a separate entities, but they're neverdeless being described by video game media in the context of their games. Galatea for example was a huge hit in the obscure field of interactive fiction (and being obscure doesn't affect notability). Yorda and Faith Connors are popular in general and could likely had her own articles; but right now they don't. Amaterasu is a goddess, it makes more sense to have a passing comment in the goddess article than a stand-alone article for the game character, and link to that paragraph; which you couldn't do in the category.
We must provide a way for a researcher in portrayal of females to find all those instances in a centralized way; and again the category doesn't serve to provide that, because it's limited to articles about characters and not games. Size is not a concern, we already have huge Lists of fictional things such as lists of characters and fictional vehicles and so on. Diego (talk) 14:51, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We don't "must" nothing of it, actually. These are just characters arbitraly chosen by you for the reason you think are notable because you think they are notable. I think this Galaeta is much less notable even than, I don't know, that gun-toting hooker from Saints Row: The Third shooting other chicks, because at least I heard of her even as I don't remember her name or care, but I never even heard about this Galetea game, and so did Game Rankings or Metacritic (and yes I just checked), and IGN and GameSpot also had nothing (and I mean nothing at all) - so that's rather something totally obscure, which is a exact opposite of notability. If you want to "provide a way for a researcher in portrayal of" Faith, there are tons of sources for you to make an article Faith Connors, but on the other hand Yorda is not a character that anyone can make a Wikipedia article about, because not only she's from a minimalistic game but also she's literally useless. --Niemti (talk) 22:25, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Galatea (video game), the XYZZY Awards, and interactive fiction as a genre are all three notable even if you've never heard of them, Niemti. The independent notability of Galatea the character is a different matter in my view, but the other three are very abundantly clearly notable if you pay even a little attention to the text adventure scene. -Thibbs (talk) 00:53, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And yet - practically all of gaming media (or media in general) just don't care for "the text adventure scene" since the graphic adventure games became popular (and then unpopular, but now somewhat popular again). Like, at all. And you know the implications. --Niemti (talk) 01:28, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are you talking about the MUD debacle perchance? :) I know modern-genre video games are better represented in the press, but our collective failure to properly cover historically notable gaming genres has literally made us the laughing stock of the mainstream video game press in the past. And of course it only pours fuel on the criticism of Wikipedia's rampant recentism. Sources definitely exist for notable elements of the text adventure scene, and rest assured that the works of Emily Short are notable elements even if some people have never heard of her. -Thibbs (talk) 02:00, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Mark Brown News contributor, Wired.co.uk" failed to notice/understand how thousands of books/films (but books especially - like, millions of them?) also "don't have pages at all." Now, just where are those other sources about Galatea? Certainly not in the article, so where? And the article cites some Adam Cadre as "respected". So I just checked where his "respect" comes from - and it comes from Emily Short (according to Wikipedia). It's a circle jerk and they have no influence on gaming at all (as for "have arguably shaped and influenced huge sections of our current gaming landscape" argument). Don't believe me? The game came out in 2000 - so what was its influence in the 12 years since then? [insert crickets noise] Oh, and as of "Rock, Paper, Shotgun praised the depth and detail of the game," (which was probably the only mention of the game in any mass media) - it's false. What it really was: "This week will be punctuated by some guest-posts from writer chums of RPS. The first of these is by Lewis Denby, and is about Galatea by Emily Short." The guy's from BeefJack. What's BeefJack? I don't know, and they're not helping. The game is not Wikipedia notable at all, like some random mobile game nobody heard about. --Niemti (talk) 09:47, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that you confound notability with overall importance; notability can accept pretty obscure topics, as long as those who write about them are independent sources. It's a common initial error to make (I see you've been around here for less than a year). In any case, this extended talk about Galatea should be at a different place; as it's slightly off-topic to this discussion about the list in general, and there are several other characters in the same situation. Diego (talk) 10:30, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I take it from your question regarding where the sources are and from your suggestion that you think the article is lacking them, that you are keen to improve the Galatea article, Niemti. So I'll post some of the 94 RSes covering the topic to your talk page. Hope you can bring it up to GA level! -Thibbs (talk) 14:14, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm more like "keen to" delete this article for covering an absolutely un-notable game that was not even listed at neither Metacritic or GR despite being released in 2000 for the PC, and when you search for "Galatea" in, say, IGN all you'll get is their pro-wrestling writer Miss Galetea (who no, isn't named after the game, and also isn't notable, and has no article here on Wikipedia). --Niemti (talk) 14:22, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see neither notabilty nor "overall importance". Is it, quoting you, "important to the history of games"? No. Not at all. Null. Zero influence, will never be listed in any list of 10/100/1000 top/best/most influential games of all time by any notable gaming publication. Was it covered when it was released by industry media or other mass media? No. It's supposed notability stems from a very small circle of people who are patting each other on the back (according to their Wikipedia articles, Short is notable due to being acclaimed by Cadre, and Cadre's notable due to being acclaimed by Short - that's cute, in a way). Subjects like that all should be redirected and covered in interactive fiction, in short but (hopefully) well sourced. A guy at Wired talked something about a possibility of making a wiki at Wikia, this too. --Niemti (talk) 14:18, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations, you've mastered how Wikipedia notability works. (And no, that's not ironic, it actually works roughly that way). Diego (talk) 14:34, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But really Niemti, let's stop discussing this extremely tangential issue here and instead move it to your talk page if you are still interested in belaboring this demonstrably tired point. -Thibbs (talk) 14:38, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I just tried to make it better by deleting random characters (with no articles of their own) and sorting them alphabetically, Diego reverted me because it "repurposed the list. The idea is to navigate to all characters described in Wikipedia, not just the notable ones (those are already at Category:Female video game characters)". Uhhhh.... there are, like, thousands of such characters "described in Wikipedia", and I just see no reason for adding them randomly, or adding them all (imagine such a list, which would be still incomplete). Anyway, here's my version: [27] - it's still unreferenced (I just addded the tag), etc., but now it's somewhat better. And no, Cyan didn't nominate my version.[28] (And it wasn't me who started the article neither.) It's usefulness is... some. It's surely better than just looking at the list in the category, where there are only their names and sometimes also the games (in names).[29] I wouldn't start such an article, but I won't vote for a deletion neither. I'd totally rewrite, it though (like, sorting them by a genre, and skipping these unsourced and sometimes just inaccurate/ridiculous descriptions). --Niemti (talk) 11:08, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This one is the version that existed when the list was nominated, and that correspond to the inclusion criterion by which the list was created. I would be OK to repurpose the list to have only characters with their own articles (though then it would be an exact parallel of the category), but then I'd start a new list for "Female video-game characters not in video-game franchises" because I believe the current purpose of the list is important. Diego (talk) 12:40, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But first you would have to demonstrate a need for such an article, and how much is this particular subject of "female video-game characters not in video-game franchises" is discussed in sources so it can be properly referenced. --Niemti (talk) 13:54, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's OK, I'm willing to find out the best possible subtopic of this list to make that list; it's likely to be related to the portrayal of female video game characters, since those are important to the history of games. Diego (talk) 14:51, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: We have a category to cover notable female characters. If we trimmed this list down to match that category, it would be essentially redundant. If we included every single female character in a video game, this list would be unmanageably huge. It's not even close to including every female character in a video game. I'd say it's short by a couple orders of magnitude. Just to take a single example, the list includes Elaine Marley from the Monkey Island adventure games. But if we look more deeply into the LucasArts games, we find that almost every game has at least one female character, many of them playable. That one company's games would add a couple dozen entries to this list all by itself. I could almost see a way forward, if this were broken down by year, maybe, but overall it's just not feasible to maintain what will inexorably become a gigantic mess. —Torchiest talkedits 17:36, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't this list be proposed for deletion after it has become a gigantic mess, then? We manage very well with lists of the size of Lists of characters in a fictional work, which is a superset of the current one, so how can this small part of that list be unmanageable? Also this list is not intended for "every female character in a video game", it has a clear inclusion criterion. Diego (talk) 18:19, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I misspoke slightly. I did mean every significant, but then there is the argument of what constitutes significant. My example still applies. Let's look at another LucasArts adventure game. In Maniac Mansion, you can control two different female characters, and are attempting to rescue a third. One of the primary antagonists is also female. That's four more "significant" characters just in one game. As for the list of lists, notice that it has a section for Lists of video game characters, which breaks the lists down by some of the biggest game series. I think that would probably be another superior option. Otherwise, every one-off game with a major female character would eventually be added. Anyway, I haven't precisely argued for deletion. I just think this particular approach is problematic. —Torchiest talkedits 20:05, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly is the problem with having every one-off game with major female characters? In the case of Maniac Mansion, I'm not aware that any reliable source has discussed the significance of those characters as females, so probably those four wouldn't be included in the list. But if some important magazine has reported how they portray the fair sex, then it's a good thing to list them and register what that reliable source said about them. Nevertheless, I'm all ears to better approaches to achieve the same result (deletion is not one of them, of course). Diego (talk) 21:22, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your article has zero sources whatseover, and you think an actually incredibly obscure character from some unknown self-published game is "notable" and "important to the history of video games". (At least I heard of, and played, Maniac Mansion, and they even have their own Wikia, among other things.) --Niemti (talk) 22:44, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is not Diego Moya's article, Niemti. Otherwise, though, I definitely agree that articles like this need proper sourcing just the same as all other articles on Wikipedia. This issue is a big problem for many if not most of the "list of fictional X" articles. -Thibbs (talk) 01:12, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Diego, the problem with including every one-off character is that it becomes an unbounded list. Like Torchiest pointed out above, "significant" is not a defined term in this article. I would strongly recommend changing the inclusion criteria to "notable" characters which is at least a defined term within Wikipedia. If there are clear inclusion criteria then it seems like the article should be kept because the underlying topic "female video game characters" is a notable topic and list articles are fine for Wikipedia even if they duplicate categories. -Thibbs (talk) 01:11, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I see your point. But notability is a criterion for whole articles, not for content within articles. I have presented examples above for lists where including non-notable elements is not a problem; in fact the common selection criteria displays "failing the notability criteria" as an acceptable criterion for lists. This is what I was aiming for when I included those characters - to list everything that wouldn't fit in the category. This should alleviate the problem you described of recentism and failure to properly report gaming history. In any case we should be debating how to refine the inclusion criteria in the talk page, rather than having or not the list at AfD. Diego (talk) 10:54, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're misreading WP:CSC. Point #2 uses every entry in the list fails the notability criteria as its limitation. Surely you're not suggesting a list of all non-notable female characters that have ever existed, right? Point #1, on the other hand establishes that Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own non-redirect article in the English Wikipedia is commonly used and interestingly it was only a few minutes ago that you removed the claim that it was recently used for "most of the best lists on Wikipedia". I've reverted that edit, by the way because you're clearly invested in the outcome as it relates to this discussion and there's been no consensus in talk there that this is a good move. If consensus emerges then we can restore your deletion later. Regarding this AfD, I vote keep only provided that the list is maintainable. It's not maintainable unless there are clear inclusion criteria. "Significant" is not a defined term and "Significant according to Diego Moya" violates WP:POV. "Notability" is clearly defined and it is listed as CSC#1 - the selection criterion used for what have been described as "most of the best lists on Wikipedia. -Thibbs (talk) 14:14, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happy to have a list with only non-notable characters; and again, Notability is about the topic of the article, not its content; it's ok to have non-notable content about notable topics in all Wikipedia articles. In any case, the policy supports them as valid; and the significant criterion has always been about reliable sources, not my opinion. BTW I made that change to policy way before this discussion started, and because of talk for a different list. I was a WP:BOLD removal of a sentence that was included by a single editor and that had not been discussed at the policy talk page (I checked it), so it didn't have a strong consensus behind it; have I found it had been supported by a previous consensus, I wouldn't have edited it until someone had answered. I'm glad to continue the discussion at the policy page to find out what the real consensus is about that sentence; because there wasn't any, so I believe my opinion is as good as anyone else's. Diego (talk) 14:33, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Please check that date again; November 22nd was not a few minutes ago. ;-) Diego (talk) 14:45, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is about the topic of the article and for lists under CSC#1 it is also about the individual list members. Using this stricter inclusion criterion prevents a massive list like the one we're discussing from becoming unmanageable listcruft like the one we're discussing risks becoming (if it's not already there). There is no "significant" criterion listed at WP:CSC, and it has never been defined. If it is about reliable sourcing then it is really just a stand-in for notability. But however it's been defined according to local convention at the article, it needs to be properly defined so that outsiders can contribute meaningfully. Linking an outsider to WP:N to show what is needed for valid inclusion is much better in my view than blind-siding them that "significant" has a conventional meaning at this article that is different from their understanding of the word. Regarding the WP:CSC talk-page issue, your opinion is certainly valid and I apologize for reading COIishness into your edit. -Thibbs (talk) 14:50, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, if you understand "significant" as tied to notability, let's use "verifiable" instead; my argument remains the same. And, well, the possibilities at WP:CSC are not exhaustive; let's use the general WP:LSC then - Would I expect to see this person or thing on a list of X? Indeed - Is this person or thing a canonical example of some facet of X? Yes!!!. And a list with 60 characters is listcruft? What do you make of the list of fictional vehicles then? Diego (talk) 15:02, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Using verifiability as a criterion is a step in the right direction. I'd still prefer notability though since it keeps lists like this from getting crufty. List of fictional vehicles has good examples of cruft entries, yes. -Thibbs (talk) 15:07, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll answering below, starting a new thread. Diego (talk) 17:06, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The article's existence seems silly because it doesn't have a counterpart article for male video game characters. Mrmoustache14 (talk) 21:33, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 22:38, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 22:38, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 22:38, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I get it, everybody loves to think that women are terribly unrepresented and would for some reason need a silly list like this monstrosity to offset that somehow... But categories exist for a reason, come on. This is so cut and dry it's laughable, but I guarantee the outcry by feminists above are more than like to get this clear example of a delete relisted. T.I.M(Contact) 22:41, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 22:49, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Provided that the term "female video game characters appearing in a significant role" in the lede be replaced with "notable female video game characters". The current "significant role" inclusion criterion is undefined and unworkable. Notability is well defined and provides necessary clarity on the topic of inclusion - something that is made necessary by such a potentially massive topic. To address the specific reason that this list meets the threshold of includability on Wikipedia, we need look no further than the obvious notability of the list's topic - "female video game characters". The lede needs to be expanded to summarize this topic and JohnnyMrNinja's comment suggests to me that Portrayal of women in video games may be the best place to start for material leading to this expanded lede. The article also needs sources badly. Ideally every entry should be sourced. The sourcing should demonstrate notability as well as the descriptive elements of the inclusion criteria (i.e. that it's a female character and that it comes from the video game listed in its entry). The article needs a lot of love and care if it's to start looking like keeper material, but I think at it's core it's an OK list for Wikipedia. -Thibbs (talk) 01:25, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note also that I see a lot of wisdom in Torchiest's suggestion that the list be broken down by year because even before the addition of an expanded lede and actual sources, the list is already getting massive. -Thibbs (talk) 01:27, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Portrayal of women in video games is only a redirect. --Niemti (talk) 01:34, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. It's a redirect to an article that should be used to expand the lede. This one. -Thibbs (talk) 02:00, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The scope is too large, and too redundant to the equivalent category, much as Cyan stated in his nomination. (I'm not saying some of these proposed reworkings couldn't work, but I think they'd require so much change that it wouldn't be the same article anymore - it wouldn't be a "Keep" as much as it would be "Deleting this article and starting a new one.") Sergecross73 msg me 19:30, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sergecross73, delete discussions decide upon the viability of a topic, not the status of an article. If you think the proposed reworkings would work, that's admitting that the list can exist in some form. The proper outcome then should be to keep the list and continue discussing it at its talk page. Diego (talk) 20:46, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm well aware of how AFD works, but that's actually what I'm getting at - I don't think this topic is viable, and any changing of this topic would require so much change that it would no longer have the identity of this topic anymore. Sergecross73 msg me 21:23, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't this be a move then? Some content about these characters is going to be used for that new list; and this article's history would be needed then for attribution of its authors. Diego (talk) 22:47, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Using verifiability or notability?[edit]

There seems to be a beginning of understanding here. I prefer to use verifiability over notability for the inclusion criterion for the reasons stated in my "question to the nominator" above, that so far no one has answered; a navigational list should help readers locate content relevant to the list's topic, whether or not that content has a whole article for it; the way we organize the content is irrelevant to such reader. I think Purposes of lists is the guideline that best describes this approach, but WP:Build the web and Advantages of a list are also relevant.

If we limit the list critierion to include characters that have been described somewhere in Wikipedia with more than a few words and support from a reliable source, the scope is reduced considerably; it's no longer "a list of all female characters in videogames", but "an index to Wikipedia content that describes female characters". The amount of entries in the list is one-to-one with characters that Wikipedia editors have written about, so it is no longer unmaintenable.

Can you elaborate on what you don't agree of this analysis? Maybe you can think of a better approach than a list to achieve that goal? Diego (talk) 17:02, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think there are two different viable approaches to take. An unbounded list (all female characters, what we have now) which requires individual notability of all characters, or bounded (either by game series, year, or something similar) lists that require only verifiability. Having an unbounded list with low inclusion standards will lead make this a magnet for never-ending additions. —Torchiest talkedits 17:19, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that analysis. I prefer a list bounded by year, requiring verifiability. This way the contents of the list can be expanded in the relevant article, the inclusion criterion doesn't replicate the category, and the individual list for each year will retain a reasonable size - since the elements that pertain in it are finite and can't grow after the end of the year. If one year is prolific in female characters, it can be further split by genre - or vice versa, one list by genre, and have each list split by year. Diego (talk) 19:18, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree that if notability is not to be used as an inclusion criterion then some other bounds must be imposed to keep the list manageable. -Thibbs (talk) 05:29, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm classifying the characters by year here. When I finish it, I will split the list by year according to the above consensus. This will make it easier to maintain the list according to WP:SPLIT when it grows. Diego (talk) 16:43, 24 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, MBisanz talk 04:34, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable. This makes 8 delete opinions to only a single, very conditional, keep. Do we have a consensus yet??? I would have closed this long ago, but I assumed somebody already had done so. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 22:54, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We had developed a consensus here to keep the list and change the inclusion criterion to bound the list by year. The people who not-voted to delete did it before this consensus was developed and didn't comment after that. Do you have something to add to that consensus? (the notability hadn't been introduced in this discussion before, but the consensus that female video games characters are considered notable has been made clear several times here and here). Diego (talk) 23:45, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, regarding your first link, you definitely can't pick a subsection of this AFD that supports your claim, and then claim you have consensus to keep - that's ignoring the 8 delete !votes. Secondly, just because we keep the "gender roles" article and the "female characters category" you linked to above, doesn't make this particular list notable. I understand you feel strongly about this, but you can't just bulldoze your way through things like that either. Sergecross73 msg me 17:29, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are you aware that the "!" in "!vote" means not? You should re-read and understand WP:POLL and WP:CONSENSUS, because you don't seem to understand how consensus is reached through discussion, not polling. Of course I can link to the point where consensus was formed in this AfD, since the arguments in those 8 comments were taken into account (basically a soft form of WP:NOT -not pointing at any particular NOT criterion- with some IDONTLIKEFEMALE-ONLYARTICLES and worries about article size). This is what is expected to happen at AfD discussions - consensus is not magically formed when and admin closes the talk by counting people at each side. Rather editors are supposed to decide the best outcome for the article by building consensus and compromising on the concerns that each editor have. This is what happened in the discussion above between Torchiest, Thibbs, and I. Diego (talk) 19:03, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, I don't need you to tell me how AFD works, I've probably participated in close to 300 hundred of them now. I'm just saying you can't just take a sample of the discussion that sides with your argument, and say "there's consensus now". There's at least 8 people who don't agree with you, they're not all winners, but there's still certainly considerable opposition here. Many people go to an AFD, say there stance, and then never revisit it, so you can't just say "Well, they never responded to my subsection, it must means they gave up/ don't care. Let's ignore them." Sergecross73 msg me 19:38, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The people who don't agree with keeping should be making policy-based arguments and trying to build consensus, not casting me-too not-votes based on unexplained reasons or arguments to avoid and then disappearing. If those people who didn't mention any policy have their comments are rejected with policy-based arguments and don't discuss further, their comments should indeed have little weight, because AfD is not a poll but a discussion. Diego (talk) 20:33, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. This isn't meant to imply that editors should return again and again to discuss the AfD, only that they should make an articulate argument at some point, either from the beginning or when requested for clarification. Diego (talk) 07:15, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arguments for notability[edit]

User:Sue Rangell introduced a new concern of notability. (There was a conversation with Niemti about notability above, but it was about individual characters and not the notability of the topic). Sue's argument is a just not notable (a form of just pointing at a policy or guideline) with an argument to the person added by Sergecross73 (my involvement with the article should not have any weight for nor against my arguments); counting the !votes is a form of the support argument. There's a reason all those arguments are listed in the arguments to avoid - they are against current policies and guidelines, and as such they make very poor arguments against the list. An argument against notability should rely on the number or quality of the sources describing the topic.

Now this list has the exact same topic as the category, that had direct consensus to keep at this afd discussion. The sources that User:coelacan gave there (such as this and this, together with the references at Gender representation in video games), are a solid way to establish the notability of female characters in video games as a notable topic. Diego (talk) 19:09, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear here, that wasn't my rationale for deletion, that was my description of how you were handling things at this AFD. My argument was that the list was poorly defined, redundant to a category, and that any sort of changing in criteria would require so much changing to meet notability standards that it simply wouldn't be the same article anymore, so this article in particular should be deleted. My "argument to the person" was that you came to an agreement among a few editors in a new subsection, and declared there to be consensus, ignoring all of the 8 people who disagreed with you, because they didn't comment further in your subsection, which is very wrong, there were some poor rationales, but you grouped everyone who opposed you as one big "poor rationale". I feel like you're pushing your stance a little too hard. (And based off of what a truly terrible job you did at summarizing my stance, I continue to think this.) Sergecross73 msg me 19:57, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, how would you define the topic of this article? I define it as "female characters that appear in notable video-games", and I've shown how it meets notability. Your other reasons for deletion are surmountable problems (P.S. or not even a problem, like being redundant with a category) and thus don't merit deleting the article, as I pointed out before. (I didn't ignore the 8 Delete not-votes, everything that was not an argument to avoid was responded either at my not-vote (Question...), in my talk with Torchiest at his comment, or later with Thibbs. Having all active editors making articulate comments in agreement about everything that had been said, and the rest not commenting is a very good way to achieve consensus according to WP:CON). Diego (talk) 20:42, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's the thing though, you haven't proven this article to be notable. You've said, "here's an article we have about it, and here's a category, therefore, the list is notable". Notability isn't WP:INHERITED like that. The list, as is, is extremely broad and WP:INDISCRIMINATE, a valid reason for deletion of vaguely defined lists. While the "Deletes" haven't necessarily cited these by linking to them, I feel like that's what the nomination the first few deletes are getting at. I know you have ideas on changing the definition of what the article is, and that's great, but then it's no longer this article. If we're changing the criteria, and all of the content (I mean, right now, it's largely unusable - a randomly selected group of video characters, largely unsourced, with a bunch of WP:OR, personal observations about the characters) we should delete this mess and start new with a notable topic.
  • Additionally, I think you're misusing the term "active editors". I'm pretty certain "active editors" is meant to include any editors who have commented on the topic in the last week and a half. Additionally, there's nothing wrong with leaving a stance and being done, people have no obligation to argue this out with you until the end like I have. (In fact, many editors don't like it when people like us carry on, they prefer it doesn't deter others from joining in and creating a clearer consensus. I'm about to be done myself, as I fear all of this arguing may just lead to a "No Consensus"... Sergecross73 msg me 21:07, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just to make one thing crystal clear: I'm NOT saying the opposition should have small weight because they've not commented recently, but because the have not made an articulate argument on why this should be deleted. If an editor had made a link to a relevant policy and explained how it applies to this list then of course it should be taken into account. The only comment that did this (Clarityfiend's link to WP:SALAT) has been addressed with the consensus to define a specific inclusion criterion.
  • You're again committing the same mistake that AfDs are not to discuss articles but topics; we're supposed to decide whether Wikipedia can or cannot have an article about female video characters at all, not if this WP:IMPERFECT article is the one to have. Only content with legality problems (such as WP:COPYVIO and unsourced WP:BLP) is deleted because of its status; the rest falls under WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM, which is a Wikipedia policy even if people at AfDs tend to forget it.
  • You keep pointing to policies that don't support what you say except in the title. INHERITED here would imply that the list is notable because the Category:Female characters in video games is famous, which is not exactly what I said, is it? And INDISCRIMINATE is for lists without a defining criterion, but this is not one of them.
  • Your "this would be a different article" argument is but an attempt to disguise a WP:NOTCLEANUP argument. It's for that reason that AfDs decide on topics not articles, and even you admit that Wikipedia can have a list about female characters. Your argument is against WP:PRESERVE (all the items in the list should be in whatever list of characters would be created from anew, even if it's incomplete now), WP:COPYRIGHT (we must retain the history attribution for the authors of the work done until now) and Wikipedia:Deletion policy and WP:IMPERFECT (articles are deleted as a last resort when editors agree their content cannot be fixed, not when they're in a poor state).
  • I recognize there's a lot of opposition based on the status on this list; the talk page is the place to discuss those, not AfD. I've been taking notes on how to improve this list after it's retained. Diego (talk) 06:15, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Look, it's abundantly clear that we don't see eye to eye on this, so I don't see a point in beating a dead horse and continuing this. I feel this article should be deleted because it has a massive indiscriminate scope, and any proposed changes are outside of the scope of this AFD. It's not simply "clean up" when it requires pretty much a clean start in concept, inclusion criteria and content, and I don't see the point in preserving the history of a completely different article, an article which will pretty much cease to exist whether it's kept or deleted, according to what you're proposing to do to it. Sergecross73 msg me 18:03, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article history is required to track WP:copyright of the retained content even if the topic changes. Diego (talk) 18:29, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting this article, and you starting up a different one with a different title, inclusion criteria, content, and sources - is absolutely not a copyright issue. It's a new article. That is a ridiculous argument for keeping this article. Sergecross73 msg me 04:02, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For last time, what matters is not that it's a different Wikipedia article, it's that some of the content will need to be kept in it and this requires attribution. There are no other available sources for the new article nor a different collection of major characters in the history of video games to choose from. Also your position is in direct contradiction of WP:IMPERFECT, WP:PRESERVE and the idea that articles are not created from scratch every time they have a problem, but built upon the work of previous editors. Diego (talk) 06:25, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but not when your proposal is so radically different than what this article is. Sergecross73 msg me 16:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but exactly how my proposal is radically different? The only change I propose is a rewording of the inclusion criterion and a new layout. Diego (talk) 16:48, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you just said different inclusion criteria and layout above, and the article is currently almost entirely unsourced, and consists entirely of random WP:OR observations of random characters. Everyone seems to agree that that is not okay. So, putting that all together, how is different name, different content, different inclusion criteria, different sources, and different descriptions not radically different? You're only changing everything! Sergecross73 msg me 17:08, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Cyan and T.I.M . There is no written criteria as to which characters are notable, and there is no "List of male video game characters by role." The list just doesn't make sense. I agree with Sue Rangell, there is a big opposition. There are 9 delete votes + nom against 1 keep. Although this is not a poll, it is clear that the consensus is delete. (Don't say that I don't know how this works because I'm new to Wikipedia, anyone looking at this Afd can see that the consensus provided by the arguments above is delete.) Jucchan (talk) 21:14, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    They are notable because they are blue links to their own Wikipedia articles, or have been a main character in a notable game series. And the fact that another article doesn't exist yet, is no reason to delete this one. Dream Focus 23:11, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is that how it works? Any list can be assembled as long as it contains all blue links? Sergecross73 msg me 00:14, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
YES, if it's a list of similar items with a common defining property, unless it's a cross-categorization of two unrelated characteristics, something that is not the case here. Diego (talk) 05:49, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The list is superior to the category, since it list what role they had, not just that they were female video game characters notable enough to have their own Wikipedia article. Dream Focus 23:11, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Diego, if you really need to have an otherwise random list of characters that you think are important and discuss their roles or whatever, maybe make your own wiki or a blog or even a whole website like this one (I'm not saying it's good, it's actually very poor and just ridicalous, but it's there). You now, that's why. --Niemti (talk) 23:16, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Everything in this list is attributable to reliable sources, even if not actually attributed (as I pointed out they're well referenced at their respective articles, one click away). You should read the policies you link to, they explain a lot. Diego (talk) 05:53, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Really? OK. Attribute your selection of characters (and "notable video game[s]") "to reliable sources". (This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented.) Show me these lists that you based your list on. Must include video games such as Monster World IV (no reception section on Wikipedia at all) and La Pucelle: Tactics (1 review on Wikipedia) being described as "notable" in the sources "directly related to the topic of the article". Btw, GiantBomb has many "video game concept" articles for female characters and tags for all that stuff. And they need no sources. And their lists are much, much more extensive. For example, just "Female Protagonists" has 733 games and also lots of characters; Female Antagonists - 146 games; Sexalized Women - 463 games; and so on. And you can make your own lists, like that or that. Your insistance on making your own list on Wikipedia really leads nowhere. --Niemti (talk) 15:39, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is a cleanup issue. We can discuss it at the list's talk page if you wish, as it has no relevance to this deletion discussion. It could be a problem to the list's existence if all or most entries were original research, but most characters are notable, and I've shown several valid references already for some of the rest. (BTW I don't understand how pointing to reliable sources that cover the topic can be stated as an argument for deletion?)Diego (talk) 16:14, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not. It's a fundemental issue. You're doing exactly what, for example, users of GiantBomb are doing for a long time (and with much better effects), using the same method (original research). But Wikipedia is not GiantBomb. And your refusal to show me these (supposed) reliable sources that directly led to your inclusion of these 2 specific games (Monster World IV & La Pucelle: Tactics) on your COMPLETELY RANDOM list (GB has more than 10 times more games only for featuring female protagonists) of this is really tiresome for me and evidently it's leading nowhere, so I'll just end it here. Oh, and Delete. --Niemti (talk) 17:34, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Check the article again - it took about ten minutes. Doing it for all entries is a matter of time (maybe more than the one week that an AfD usually takes, but it can be done). Diego (talk) 18:27, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Why do you assume I was the one who added those particular characters to the list? Wikipedia is a collaborative work. I didn't know about their existence before some else added them to the list, something that couldn't have happened with the category, but I now know their basic characteristics and roles in the games thanks to the links to their Wikipedia articles. This is the purpose why the list was created. Diego (talk) 18:44, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree with Niemti. This is a fundamental issue. Almost any female character in a videogame can be in this list, as long as someone decides that she's important to them. The references, like Niemti said, only supposedly "justify" adding 2 characters on this biased list. Jucchan (talk) 20:28, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Diego (talk) 09:10, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Note that I didn't list this debate at the above page, I've just added the tag when I noticed. Diego (talk) 09:10, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break[edit]

  • I think the use of specific examples is not particularly helpful here since 1 or 2 cruft inclusions (if they even are legitimately cruft additions) have never been enough to invalidate the list's topic and demand its deletion. What I see here is that the topic (i.e. "female video game characters") is at its core a valid topic for a list - it is certainly one that is covered significantly by multiple independent RSes and non-list articles like "Gender representation in video games" demonstrate this clearly. So I really don't think the GNG is a problem for the article even if it is for individual list entries. The list needs an expansion of its lede including clearly defined inclusion criteria and proper sourcing at last. Beyond this I think the reason most people here are !voting delete is out of practical concerns. This is a large list and with its current inclusion criteria it has the potential to become enormously unwieldy and unhelpful for navigation or illustration of the topic. Such a list is unencyclopedic. The only solution to this very valid concern is to delete the article or to impose stricter inclusion criteria so that it isn't just a list of every female character anyone can think of significant or minor and notable or trivial. I think that with a large effort it can be salvaged but it seems that those !voting delete think it's a lost cause. It's a judgment call, but I think there is broad agreement that the list in its current form (a large list topic with very inclusive inclusion criteria) is not something that helps Wikipedia as a project. -Thibbs (talk) 15:10, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The list is not for every female character anyone can think of significant or minor and notable or trivial. Read the inclusion criteria to see that it already has the more restricted criterion that you demand; it's only for prominent characters that have been described with reliable sources at Wikipedia articles in major roles (the list currently holds only protagonists, sidekicks and/or playable characters). We could rewrite it to make the accepted contents clearer, but please don't base your argument on false assumptions as to what is the inclusion criterion. WP:NOTPAPER is a core content policy created to prevent your "too big" argument. Niemti pointed above how other wikis can work to create and maintain lists much bigger than this, so why the assumption that we couldn't do a much better job? We've done it already with lists much more difficult than this one.
The problem with the current debate is that the people opposing the current status and inclusion criterion are using all the wrong reasons for a deletion, to achieve a solution that would stop dead the list from improving; a delete outcome would make the current contents unavailable and I wouldn't be legally able to continue working on this because of the WP:COPYRIGHT lack of attribution. The community-wide consensus codified in policies is designed to prevent that outcome even if there's a local consensus against the current situation. I want to Keep this list against those poor arguments, but if the sentiment against the list is so strong that, against the rules, the community cannot take its WP:IMPERFECT status, let's soft delete and WP:INCUBATE it until I have time to finish the cleanup work I'm doing behind the scenes and restore the list to an acceptable status, splitting it by year and with in-line citations as was requested.
It would also greatly help that someone addressed my concern, my "question to the nominator" above, and explained what is considered acceptable as a way to solve that problem. Dispute resolution and consensus building is supposed to address the valid concerns made by all participants, but so far all participation has been in the negative and nobody cared to find a solution to the reason that motivated the creation of this list. Diego (talk) 16:38, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well it's certainly clearer now that you moved the inclusion criteria from talk to lede... But I still have concerns due to the undefined nature of "major" and "prominent" and the apparent lack of interest in using a defined term like notability as an inclusion criterion. The potential for the list to become large and unmanaged/unmanageable is clear if we impose no restrictions and like Torchiest explained above, I don't see it as much better if we use loosely-defined terms like "major," "significant," or "prominent." These terms don't strike me as "direct" and "explicit" or "unambiguously clear." Surely characters that are truly major, significant, and prominent are also WP:N notable, no? So why beat around the bush? Is there any concern that a list of all notable female characters in video games would be too small?
I don't think it's correct to imply that the numerous comments from editors above regarding excessive breadth/expansiveness of the topic (as currently defined) aren't valid concerns simply because they are negative. Too large a scope can easily allow a large list article to become unmanaged and/or unmaintainable. Such list scopes are un-encyclopedic - a violation of one of Wikipedia's fundamental principles - and they work directly against list navigation. These are valid concerns. NOTPAPER isn't carte blanche to include everything verifiable, and it clearly states that "keeping articles to a reasonable size is important." The list's current definition is loose enough to render it over-broad and over-inclusive. There are ways to fix it including tightening the inclusion criteria beyond mere verifiability and personally-defined terms, but there seems to be clear consensus that the status quo is not workable. I for one would have no objection to your request for incubation/userfication as an alternative to deletion. -Thibbs (talk) 05:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is a bad criterion for this list because 1) it's a definition created by Wikipedia, not external sources, 2) the Notability definition is intended for creating whole articles, not for content, 3) using it makes the list completely redundant with the category anyway, removing the additional benefits.
The criterion I wrote at the lead section is already stricter than the original one. The terms used to establish the accepted major characters (protagonists, antagonists and playable characters) also have clear definitions in the articles for Protagonist, Antagonist and Player character, with the additional advantage that we could rely on external sources to support the criterion instead of depending on editor's judgement. And no, not all characters in a role that's major to their plot are Wikipedia-notable - if you've been around AfD you'll know that WP:N is a very hard to make and not inherited from the video game to the characters in it. That was the flaw that this list intended to solve - major female characters were being removed from the category because the articles that described them were about their videogames instead, so it was impossible to use the category as an index to Wikipedia coverage of the topic.
My question to the nominator that nobody has answered is for an acceptable way to solve this problem. I can't see how an index like this can be unmaintainable - it would contain exactly the same amount of characters that Wikipedians have already written about somewhere, and would thus grow at the same pace that Wikipedia video game articles.
Size in lists has always been dealt with splitting, not deletion, as the NOT policy that you linked to explains. Why do you assume everything should be kept in one Wikipedia page? It's not. Torchiest above suggested splitting the page by year to make each sub-list finite. This would keep each page within WP:Article size limits, but there are other workable critera (by role, game franchise, etc). This is how navigation lists of this nature are usually handled.
The consensus about the status quo is unclear because everyone seems to be getting a different idea of what could go in the list (for instance it never accepted "any major or minor character" to begin with). This is a sign that the original inclusion criterion had a problem of clarity, but it's unclear whether opposition would extend to the new criterion. Btw "uncencyclopedic" is a bad argument if you don't also explain what guideline it violates and how. I don't imply that the opposing comments are not valid, but they're unclear and badly expressed - given that nobody has been able to do just that (saying how the list breaches any guideline), I think that's a symptom that the perceived problem is radically simple to solve and thus a reason to fix it. Diego (talk) 06:47, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A few specific responses:
1 - The fact that notability is defined in the encyclopedia in which the article appears rather than in an external third party source is actually a benefit. And individual list-member notability while not strictly required for all lists is certainly used for a large number of very large and featured lists. If you're trying to come up with a reason notability as a criterion is inappropriate for this article then you must come up with a reason specific to this list's topic.
2 - While notability is not always a requirement for content, it is definitely allowed to be adopted as a more restrictive criterion. See Common Selection Criterion #1. This guideline presents allowable and encouraged selection criteria. While you have pointed to CSC#3 in the past as your vision for this article, the consensus above seems to suggest that this list's current topic is too broad for this CSC.
3 - The argument of list redundancy with categories is just as invalid now as it was when I noted this above. See WP:NOTDUP.
4 - The fact that characters are removed from the category or that they will be from the list is not a problem. As counterintuitive as it may seem to you sometimes improvement comes from cutting out unhelpful material. Massive lists of everythign verifiable are not appropriate for Wikipedia. They are hard to navigate and the reader gets lost in the cruft. They are unmanageable because in my experience nobody has them on their watchlist apart from perhaps the list's creator. And when loosely-defined terms like "major" or "very important" or "big-name" are used as the list's definition we end up with a situation where the article's creator is the ultimate arbiter of what comes in and what stays out. When the article's creator retires from Wikipedia then the article degenerates into truly ungovernable chaos. Splitting them then makes them even harder to navigate.
-Thibbs (talk) 13:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: splitting by year as Torchiest discussed is not an ideal solution in my view, but it's better than the status quo with which there is quite clearly a problem. I'd prefer using notability as the cutoff, but if a consensus emerges that a split by year is sufficient then I'd bow to this consensus. -Thibbs (talk) 13:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)There is a problem that is specific to the current list and for which notability is inadequate. I have stated it repeatedly throughout this conversation but so far no one has even acknowledge to have read my articulation of the problem. The problem is that characters that are important to the history of video games, as recognized by reliable sources, are being left out of the Wikipedia index as defined by the "notability of the character", because they've been included only under the notability of the video game. See characters like the girl that Mario rescued in Donkey Kong, Yorda from Ico, Amaterasu from Okami, several protagonists of notable games (such as Faith Connors, Farah, and Chell before Portal II)... These characters have influenced the portrayal of females at later games, but they wouldn't be considered notable by the way WP:GNG is currently interpreted by Wikipedia consensus about game characters (which, as I stated above, is centered around the character's evolution throughout a game franchise).
I'm asking you to recognize that you're aware of my definition of this problem, even if you don't agree with its extent; otherwise I don't think we could continue having a rational discussion anymore. I don't know if this gaping hole in coverage of history is caused by a bias in the sources themselves or by the way editors in the Video Games Wikiproject are selecting them; but it's definitely a factor that I encountered when discussing the index with other editors of the project. The criterion that only characters that are subjects of whole articles is being actively enforced in the category. This makes impossible to create an encyclopedic index of the Wikipedia coverage for this topic - the de-facto criterion is based in whether the character currently has a Wikipedia article or not (a self-reference problem), not in any objective criterion based in the real world. Because of that, I think the current consensus for notability is not adequate as the basis for the index.
I'm planning an exercise to assess what is the real consensus for what's acceptable for a list on this topic (I will post it tomorrow). Meanwhile, please comment on the criterion defined below; it doesn't depend on "major" or "big name" criteria, only on categories that are classics in the story of narrative. We can't say that the consensus against the current list can be extended against that criterion because it's completely new. Diego (talk) 13:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously WP:SELF doesn't have to be a block if it's handled appropriately within the lede. Otherwise it wouldn't be listed as a Common SAL Selection Criterion. Notability has meaning in both the Wikipedia sphere and the real-world sphere so it's unlikely to cause any more confusion in the readership than "majority" or "significance". Using the term as it is currently used in the lede is not a problem and it has the potential to greatly reduce the list article's tendancy to become bloated with cruft. I've responded to your other concerns in the new subsection below since the argument is essentially the same. -Thibbs (talk) 16:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion criterion[edit]

What do you think of this inclusion criterion? The idea is to explicitly avoid saying "notable characters", because then any characters without an article of their own could be argued to be removed from the list, which is less than ideal. Diego (talk) 07:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the list is to be kept and it to be easily maintainable I prefer the following:

I think the ideal solution would be to allow for the removal of characters that bulk up the list and make it harder to read without enhancing reader navigation to the more useful articles (i.e. those on notable topics). WP:N provides such an allowance without requiring the local-article-only definition of otherwise ill-defined terms. -Thibbs (talk) 13:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think of the topic-specific problem with notability that I've identified above? (i.e. characters influential to the portrayal of females are not being considered notable by the current interpretation of notability for video games) Diego (talk) 13:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How do you know that these characters are influential to the portrayal of females or are otherwise important to the history of subsequent video game development? Are you reading this in reliable sources or should it just be obvious? Because if reliable sources indicate that the characters are important to the history of video games then that means that they are notable. If no reliable sources are available to back up this claim, though, then I am very comfortable with removing them from the list in the interest of increasing navigability and maintainability. -Thibbs (talk) 16:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can ask you the same question back. How do you know that each item in the list is notable? The only way to be sure is by consensus at a deletion discussion or when the article is assessed for quality; none of those can be done when you don't have an article for the character but only for the video game. This is the problem that you haven't recognized yet, but that it's a real behavioral problem with the way the project is currently working. By definition we lack a defined procedure to assess notability for things that are not articles; to the point that characters that definitely have reliable sources demonstrating its impact have not been recognized as notable by the project. Can you acknowledge that this is a problem or not? By your criterion Galatea should be removed, but you acknowledged that it's important to the history of interactive fiction. Diego (talk) 17:16, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I must be misunderstanding you because I'm 100% sure you're aware of WP:N. Notability can be determined by any editor at any time if he can find multiple reliable sources that cover the topic. It doesn't take an AfD, a GAN, or even a private conversation to recognize when a topic is notable. It's something any individual can recognize based on the definition of the term. And notability alone doesn't guarantee an article on the topic. There is no need, for example, to have separate articles on the notable Disney character, Chip, and his notable partner, Dale, when a single article on Chip 'n' Dale eliminates duplication and merges two intrinsically connected characters. Both are notable, but merging them makes eminent sense from a practical perspective. In a hypothetical "list of notable fictional straight men in double acts," it would be acceptable to list Chip alone because he is notable and he is the straight man. Chip's notability could be demonstrated by showing reliable sources demonstrating his notability. To give an example more pertinent to the list at hand, sources #3-6 at Pauline (Nintendo) would be sufficient in my view to show that she is notable enough to remain on this list despite the fact that the lack of non-duplicative detail on her is insufficient to allow her her own article. As far as Galatea is concerned, I'm not sure how much coverage the character has received. There's no question that the game is notable, and I would say that since the character is so tied to the game there would be no point in separating them into distinct articles even if Galatea (the character) was determined to be notable. But if she was then she could stay on the list of female video game characters (together with the sources demonstrating her notability) despite her lack of a separate article. -Thibbs (talk) 01:00, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Now go and explain that to the people maintaining Category:Female characters in video games. (I agree with your analysis and have made a similar one myself (but notice the outcome: I "lost" the argument). I suppose I only wanted someone who wasn't me to arrive to the same conclusion.
The problem with that approach is that notability is usually decided in such cases by looking at whether there's an actual separate article for the character or not. If it's made abundantly clear that the inclusion criterion is the one you describe and not the one is currently used by the project, I wouldn't be so head-on opposed to notability as the inclusion criterion. But note how you've just shifted the problem and just opening a new can of worms - now the inclusion criterion for Galatea is that "she is so tied to a notable video game that they can't be separated". You were against poorly defined criteria? At least if we include protagonists and antagonists, we have external reliable sources to ratify the criterion. Diego (talk) 08:12, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If other editors are determining notability by looking for Wikipedia articles on the topic then they are very confused about the rules here. I'd direct them to WP:N which clearly shows that reliable third-party sources define the concept. AfD demonstrates that Wikipedia articles currently exist on all kinds of non-notable topics and Wikipedia is an ongoing project so articles haven't yet been written on every notable topic. The existence of a Wikipedia article is at best an indication that the topic is notable. Of course there is nothing to bar the use of this as an inclusion criterion, but it's not the same as "notability" - it's generally a stricter criterion.
On Galatea, of course the decision to merge or split character from game is subjective. It's a matter of editorial discretion instead of a hard rule. But whether or not a character like Galatea should appear in a "list of notable fictional female video game characters" is not up to editorial discretion. It's up to whether or not she's verifiably notable. That's the reason for imposing the notability inclusion criterion. Using notability as an inclusion criterion is a long-term solution allowing the article to be cleaned up by neutral third parties when the list gets out of hand whereas using loose terms like "major" or "significant" requires the article to have maintainers (something too close to WP:OWN for me to be very comfortable with) and has the potential of leading to protracted arguments over the inclusion or exclusion of every entry that one editor feels is "major" and that the other doesn't. Not all list articles require this criterion of course - there's not much potential for "list of minor paracetamol brands" or "list of characters in Chrono Cross" to become morasses of cruft since WP:V can be used to remove nonsense entries - but for inherently large topics like "fictional examples of X" we need some long-term way other than the use of case-by-case consensus and resident maintainer-editors to prevent or to remedy the accumulation of cruft. -Thibbs (talk) 15:03, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And then we are back at square one. If you use the Wikipedia definition of notability, it doesn't create a good one-on-one match with the impact that particular characters have in the genre; even if that impact is verifiable, you can't tell how much of it is because of the character and how much for the video game, unless you resort again to editorial discretion. Lots of valid entries will be excluded because their fame is overshadowed by the games they appear in, while other characters that aren't that influential (cardboard cookie-cutter playable fighters anyone?) will get in because they appear at lots of franchises; but fame is not notability and that's not a balanced portrayal of the topic, it's too random. No, the inclusion criterion should be focused on something specific to the topic at hand - a sort of specific notability guideline for video game characters (female or otherwise - with a section about "notability for being female" to use at this particular list). The GNG is simply too generic to provide good focus as the main and only test for exclusion. A good specific guideline would allow the long-term support that you talk about, not centralized in a few editors, but would be based on the defining characteristics of video game characterization.
Galatea is a very good example because it's directly related to the topic, the portrayal of female characters and the influence that good characterization and writing can have on the storytelling at IF, and should definitely be found in an encyclopedic coverage of the topic because it's relevant to it. But it's hard to find direct coverage of the character as such, not enough to show independent notability (which is a quite hard criterion to meet) - all coverage of the character is intermixed with the game structure, the style, the multiple endings. We could try an IAR exception for a few characters like this, but then you couldn't avoid a topic-wide bias and imbalanced inclusion. Diego (talk) 17:02, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No editorial discretion is involved with lists where WP:N is used as a bright-line inclusion criterion. If there are no sources covering the character then the character is not historically relevant. This isn't a question of trying to figure out how to argue that a character is notable despite a lack of sources. If no sources exist then they're not notable. I hate to say it but the Truth isn't really all that important here. This isn't intended as a forum for publishing original ideas that are not reliably sourceable. Your suggestion of "a section about 'notability for being female'" sounds great to me, although it's actually a stricter criterion than simple notability (under which female characters notable irrespective of their sex would also be included). I'm not sure how I feel about your suggestion of independent notability, though. On the one hand independent notability is not listed as a CSC, but on the other hand it does seem like a "list of notable X" should be kept separate from members of a "list of X in notable Y." In other words, "notable female video game characters" is a different set than the much broader "females in notable video games". But I think this issue is kind of tangential and would best be saved for after the AfD is closed. -Thibbs (talk) 21:24, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is not about "THE TRUTH" - it's about WP:VERIFIABILITY, which is as good and well-defined and "bright-line" criterion as notability, and much easier to assess. For some reason you don't find enough that a reliable source has clearly identified a character as relevant to the topic and provides an academical description providing due weight, it's required that "multiple secondary, independent sources address the subject directly in detail", to the point that we could write a whole article independent of the game. That's something that I really don't get, everybody insists on tying the encyclopedic description of this topic to the notion of Wikipedians being able to write a whole article. How is this guideline to write clear prose, this "article-bility" related to the encyclopedic properties of female characters, it's a mistery to me. (I'm not suggesting independent notability of the character from the game as the criterion - I'm actually opposing it for being unencyclopedic, in the sense that it's completely irrelevant to the topic). A "notability for being female" would be an improvement in the sense that it would be a whole new ad-hoc definition directly related to the topic, not tied to the GNG that is about volume of coverage and not quality nor relevance (and thus not necessarily stricter; like other SNGs, it can include items that don't pass GNG). Diego (talk) 23:22, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. In other circumstances maybe could agree with your analysis of the distinction between "list of notable X" and "list of X in notable Y", although I'm not sure that it's very useful. But given that this is a "list of X in notable Y" after all, the distinction is tangential and should also be saved for later. As much as anyone say that there are zillions of female VG characters, the history of them is not as famous, widespread and well-studied to guarantee that there will be enough sources to write an article for every character relevant to it. But there will be enough sources to verify what characters are the ones that provided the highest impact. Diego (talk) 23:42, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's really rather hard to imagine a female video game character for whom reliable sources exist sufficient to demonstrate that she provided "high impact" on gaming and yet who isn't notable herself. If the objection is that she should only be supported by one instead of multiple RSes then I question how much of an impact she may really have had. If the objection is that she should be able to be supported by RSes only mentioning her trivially along with other "high impact" females rather than significantly, then I'd imagine that other RSes actually explaining her impact might be readily available as well. In fact almost any character who is important in a real world sense will probably show up as notable in the RSes. The only kind of character I know of that is "high impact," "important," or "formative" but who simultaneously lacks more than one RS covering her in depth is one that I merely believe on a personal level to be notable but who isn't according to the GNG. The reason anyone is trying to come up with a way to narrow the scope of the article to only include characters that reliable sources demonstrate to be notable is because without this reduction in scope the article is unmanageably large and difficult to navigate. You clearly disagree and that's obvious. But it's a matter of opinion at this point. You don't think it is too large a scope. Most of the others do. I don't know what else to say. I had hoped tightening the inclusion criteria might provide a workable compromise but it seems like there is a lot of resistance to the idea. -Thibbs (talk) 00:32, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another break[edit]

Gaijin42 (talk) 17:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • No one really contests that the general topic of "females in videogames" is notable, that respective article, it is, we just don't know if it's right to have such an WP:INDISCRIMINATE list. Using criteria like your aforementioned "for characters that aren't notable enough for a standalone article" makes for a ridiculously large scope... Sergecross73 msg me 17:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The list doesn't match any of the criteria defined at WP:INDISCRIMINATE. It's not a summary-only description of works (it includes context and significance to the real world -the character's role-, it's not lyrics, and it's not a listing of statistics). Can you detail how this list is not WP:discriminate? The problem hasn't been explained yet beyond it grows too much or I don't like how it looks. Diego (talk) 17:21, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
An indiscriminate collection of information is one gathered without care or making distinctions or in a thoughtless manner - Using the idea of "for characters that aren't notable enough for a standalone article", that strikes me as rather thoughtless. (The only distinction is that they wouldn't be notable enough for an article, which isn't a very good "distinction".) Keep in mind, I was talking to him about his comment, who is talking about the current article up for deletion, it's not a judgement towards your proposal for a completely different article. (I don't believe I've ever claimed anything about "not liking it", so I'll assume that was just a misinterpretation on your part.) Sergecross73 msg me 17:30, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A question here, is this a list for characters who are notable for being a female character in a leading role (Samus), or a list of characters who are in a leading role who just happen to be female (Amaterasu...). If the first, there needs to be reliable sources that show that they are notable for being a female hero (which has become a videogame cliche) . If the second, this list is pointless and is almost infinitely big, because almost every videogame (other than FPSs) has a female character in a leading role. Jucchan (talk) 17:41, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How do you define such complex test as "notable for being a female character in a leading role"? Certainly not with WP:Notability, which is a test for "can/can't have an article". If you meant "important" instead of "notable", other editors above have called such criteria "too personal and arbitrary". Diego (talk) 18:25, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Stand-alone_lists#Common_selection_criteria lists which contain (or are entirely comprised of) non-notable entries are explicitly approved. 18:04, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Right, but the scope here would be ridiculous. List of characters in Chrono Cross is a perfectly acceptable list populated entirely by non-notable characters...but there's a relatively finite number of characters to discuss. Any "non-notable female video character" is enourmous in scope though. You could add 20+ from Chrono Cross alone, 1 single game amongs thousands and thousands in existence that contain a female character. Sergecross73 msg me 18:17, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming that the minimum criteria for this list is that the game itself be notable - it would be perfectly acceptable to create a "list of characters" for every game scattered stand-alone. Why is merging them unacceptable? Gaijin42 (talk) 18:21, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
'cause that a LOT of characters... Jucchan (talk) 18:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's like proposing "Why don't we merge all notable video game articles because they're all notable?" It'd be a massive mess. Sergecross73 msg me 18:34, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The inclusion criteria is really confusing me here, apparently, any female character in a notable game can be on the list. Almost every game has some sort of female supporting character, damsel in distress, or villain. Characters on this list are there just because someone thought they should be there. Who says that Daisy(Mario series) shouldn't be on the list? Or any other female character like Palutena(Kid Icarus), Epona(LoZ), Rosalina(Mario), or even Goombella(Paper Mario TTYD)? Epona and Goombella are "minor", but they satisfy the conditions, don't they? As do every single female protagonist, antagonist, side kick, animal, etc. in every single game! Also, GLaDOS isn't technically female, it's a robot... Jucchan (talk) 19:12, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can anybody please explain what is so outrageous about that possibility? The topic has been found notable as a group by a walth of reliable sources, so all those characters are verifiably part of a notable class. Letting readers find them is thus "encyclopedic" (whatever that means) by a direct application of the notability for lists policy. Given that those characters don't need to be listed at this page, and it's enough to point to those separate lists containing them, I fail to see what is the problem that so many people are so strongly trying to avoid. Diego (talk) 19:40, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And yes-I'm aware that LISTN allows for restricting a large list to only notable items. But it's not mandatory and to be done "at discretion", which means that there should be a good reason to; this is what I'm asking for. But since there's a reason not to limit the list this way (that I explained above), I can't see what could be the cause for that limit. Diego (talk) 20:05, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's going to attract all sorts of unencyclopedic WP:GAMECRUFT entries. Ridiculous people who love to push the boundaries are going to add "generic Female Toad (Mario) character 1-50" from Paper Mario, or, "Lisa", the shop girl who sells items to characters in the town of Termina from Chrono Cross, which consititues .1% of the overal plot and 0% significance to the game on a whole, but under the vague description given by Gaijin, there wouldn't really be any grounds to contest people adding such trivial things. Anywhere between Lara Croft to "Lisa the bit role shopkeep" would be fair game. It'd turn in a massive unencyclopedic mess, because of the incredibly large/vague scope. Sergecross73 msg me 20:42, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Although gender representation in video games is notable, the specific instances, which are limitless, are not. Just listing every single female character you can think of creates an extremely long and meaningless list. The list should be limited to characters that are notable for being female, not "another one of those cliche female fighters or supporting characters". Amaterasu is female, but she is not notable because she is female, only because she is the protagonist of Okami. A character that would be notable is Samus, because it shocked the video game community when it was revealed that Samus was female. Now, almost every video game tries to balance the number of male and female characters. Imagine all the female characters in one list, all Fire Emblem characters, Final Fantasy characters, Pokémon characters, Mario characters, etc. etc. etc. etc. Such list would be seemingly infinitely long, hard to navigate, with inclusion based completely on opinion, and even make it harder to find the character readers are looking for. Jucchan (talk) 20:44, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTCLEANUP - We can easily use our editorial discretion to limit the criteria - playable characters, or significant NPCs. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Under the article you are proposing, I don't understand what grounds you'd be able to remove them. They are female characters, and that's all the article requires. And that leads eventually back to the argument I have going with Diego, where I say that while it could be possible to find an encyclopedic list somewhere in there, so many inclusion criteria restrictions would have to be placed that it would cease to be the same thing anymore. It'd be like if "List of ham sandwiches" was deemed non-notable, but "List of types of hams" was. You wouldn't propose moving one into the other. You'd delete the first and create the second, because they're very different things with slight connections. Sergecross73 msg me 20:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We may create whatever criteria we want for inclusion as part of our editorial discretion via consensus. Such criteria is not WP:OR, as we are not redefining the topic, we are just defining the subset we wish to discuss in a particular article. There is clearly a middle ground between "Only blue linked interdependently notable characters" and "Every female that ever appeared on screen for one millisecond". Gaijin42 (talk) 21:15, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be a misunderstanding on how long lists are handled by the community. A wide inclusion criteria doesn't mean that all characters will be included in one plaing, long list in a single page. Characters passing the criteria will still be grouped and moved to separate pages as described by WP:SALAT - and you don't need a more restrictive criterion to organize the list in that way. You simply fork the parts of the list that are too big to a separate page per WP:SPLIT and point to the new list in a See also section in the main page. Do this several time and it turns into a "list of lists", just like the Manual of Style recognizes as the community recognized way to handle this situation.

Sergecross73 described an interesting case above - the list of characters from Chrono Cross don't need to be merged at all with List of female video game characters - it's enough that the first be included somewhere in the list or its sublists. But if you restrict the criterion to only notable characters, the link to Chrono Cross won't be included and a reader interested on the topic won't be able to navigate to it and find that this game's article has a verifiable description of female characters.

Above I talked with Thibbs about the need for a kind of "specific notability" criterion for the list that is based on properties relevant to portrayal of females. I'm planning a WP:straw poll to find out what's the detailed position of editors (beyond a simple "support" or "oppose" for the whole list) for each of the main subjects in the current conversation. I'll include questions about the overall notability of the topic (of female characters as a group), the possibility to define a new inclusion criterion for this topic (whether at this list or a new one), the use of GNG notability as the inclusion criterion, or some properties relevant to female characters that could be used as part of a new criterion. If you have some ideas for more questions that you'd want to see in the straw poll, let's us now and we'll add them to it. I think this will help the poor admin that must do the closing to get a better idea of where the consensus (or lack thereof) lies. Diego (talk) 18:32, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think your proposal on specific notability criterion falls well outside of the scope of this AFD. It sounds like something more that Wikiproject Video Games or even Wikipedia as a whole needs to come to an agreement on. Hasn't there been enough discussion already? It's been over 2 weeks and this discussion is way out of control as it is. With none of the "Keeps" being on the same page on how to handle this, I feel like we need an Admin to close this, delete it, and then you can work on a your extensive proposal/criteria stuff at WP:VG or something. Sergecross73 msg me 23:08, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The topic of the list is "female vg characters by role", and this does not meet WP:GNG/WP:LISTN. I'm sure "female vg characters" does, hence we have Gender representation in video games. However, this list is indiscriminate and inclusion criteria seem to be "mentioned in RS". There are hundreds if not thousands of examples, and this basically fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY. I agree this may be useful to some readers, but that is not Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. I would support converting this to a list of characters we have an article for, to be a navigation guide among other things. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:43, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn by nominator. Procedural close Monty845 17:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Horn[edit]

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

No indication of notability. Running for office and losing does not meet WP:POLITICIAN. Gtwfan52 (talk) 04:33, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The article has BLP issues, and generally needs improvement, but I think the subject is clearly notable. A major party nominee for the US House couldn't avoid generating sufficient media coverage to pass WP:GNG even if they tried. The article does not currently contain the sources to show that it does meet GNG, but if anyone cared to, I'm confident they could improve it to do so. Monty845 04:47, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - the BLP issues have been addressed. I've had no problem finding sourced material to put in the article, and will continue to work on it. GregJackP Boomer! 17:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep given the availability of sources, although at the moment she is primarily known as running for office. This article in The Keene Sentinel is useful for filling in the gaps in her biography. At the moment the WP article lacks any biography at all and is simply an account of her political activities. Voceditenore (talk) 17:48, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator withdrawn This article looks fine now. Gtwfan52 (talk) 17:49, 28 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 21:04, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FlipTop: The First Filipino Rap Battle League[edit]

FlipTop: The First Filipino Rap Battle League (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 video recording. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 17:43, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 23:25, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 23:25, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 23:25, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Conditional keep - I can see an awful lot of hits online, but no reliable coverage. No newspaper articles, no serious blogs, etc., just Blogspot. Note that having millions of hits on YouTube does not guarantee notability. And despite its apparent popularity, I have never heard of it before, and I read the newspapers and watch the news everyday, which is a warning sign that there's probably not enough coverage at the moment. I'm willing to reconsider if someone finds a source; with the amount of hits I get on Google, there's got to be a reliable source out there. (Addendum) However the Philippine Star column having in-depth coverage, for me at least, this is notable by the smallest of margins. However, this is dependent on if several more sources are be found, which normally wouldn't be a problem since most Philippine media is in English and online. Given the difficulty that I had when finding sources, however, this could prove difficult for others as well. If more can't be found, then assume that my !vote is for delete. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 07:54, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Considering you !voted "weak keep" (on this AFD) with just half of a newspaper article devoted to the subject of that AFD, I was sorta expecting for something this is stronger than a "weak keep" but still weaker than a regular "keep" vote due to the in-depth coverage of the subject on an entire newspaper article.
    • Also, searching can be quite hard as "FlipTop"/"Flip top" returns a variety of potential sources, mostly about cigarettes. I dunno what should be a better search parameter to narrow down the results. –HTD 12:40, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional keep if better sources are found. Just snooping around, I've found two: GMA News says that the most popular Youtube channel in the Philippines is this one, and Saab Magalona's Philippine Star column has an in-depth (certainly not trivial) coverage. And it has also been pissing off PBA on AKTV viewers lol –HTD 12:06, 23 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, KTC (talk) 00:18, 28 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, MBisanz talk 04:31, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems that no one wants to work on the article so this can be deleted w/out prejudice for recreation. –HTD 17:44, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not notable, unsourcable, and incredibly non-encyclopedic. Not wikipedia material. There are two conditional keeps, that's it. The conditions were not met and from the comment above, and the original choice of the first, they apparently reverted to deletes, correct? --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 22:59, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there's the Star coverage, so should it be deleted and recreated, then that could prove useful. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:12, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the star article mention above is a dead link, and the only significant coverage in a reliable source that I can find is the one listed in the article done by GMA. That being said, I am of the opinion that this does not pass WP:GNG.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:54, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    On my part, the Star link I linked above is working; it is the one on the article that's dead. –HTD 14:13, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 21:05, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

JoJo's untitled third studio album[edit]

JoJo's untitled third studio album (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)

Yet another rumour fest that violates WP:CRYSTAL, WP:NALBUMS, and WP:HAMMER. Per WP:NOT#CRYSTAL, Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumours. A project that has gone on this long may never come to fruition, and we shouldn't be tracking all the various rumours and tidbits that appear about it. We can have an article about the album when there's an album. —Kww(talk) 20:15, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. We can make article again, when it's 100% sure, that album comes. Just redirect page to JoJo is now okey. --Stryn (talk) 20:24, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:HAMMER. No objections to incubation or userfying. --BDD (talk) 20:36, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Well enough sourced article about the background to a forthcoming album. I would have gone for a merge to the artist article, but there's too much here for that to be reasonable, so best to keep it separate. --Michig (talk) 21:30, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • If there is many sources, it does not mean that we have to keep the article. And if there's too much text that we can't merge it, it's not a reason to keep it. I think that (unfortunately) this album will never come out. --Stryn (talk) 14:29, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Incubate or userfy. Quite frankly, there's a lot of useful information here. Clearly, her upcoming album is notable, but it just keeps being pushed back. I think incubation or userfying would be the best bet.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 12:51, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, JoJo has been working on the album a long time, granted. The album has been completed several times and restarted several times so all the information is actually useful. This isn't a violation of WP:CRYSTAL because its not actually an indiscriminate collection of rumours. Its all confirmed information direct from reliable sources being the artists or labels. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 17:56, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'll just point out that the standard is not whether the statements are reliably sourced, but whether the event described in the article is almost certain to happen. None of the various failed albums described in this article have ever met that standard.—Kww(talk) 07:21, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, and I shall point out that if JoJo was to never release another album the article would still have relevance as it documents a part of her career. Whether another album is released or not it doesn't change the fact that she recorded an album called Can't Take That Away from Me that was delayed numerous times before being re-recorded and renamed Jumping Trains which was also ultimately shelved. It boils down to an interpretation of the guidelines. Much of this article details events that already happened, that is the recording sessions for two previous incarnations of the album. If the bulk of the article was about the upcoming incarnation of the album then i'd say userfy but given that the majority of the article is about previous recording sesssions there is much useful information which cannot all be merged to the artist's own page. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 13:32, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A few dodgy statements, but all in all a useful article. However, if consensus doesn't swing to a keep, I would strongly suggest incubation as the article will almost certainly be recreated in the next few months. —Andrewstalk 06:14, 25 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, MBisanz talk 04:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Being well-sourced and having useful information is not a consideration here because we don't have an official release date or even an official title. The existence of this article is a violation of WP:CRYSTAL, and for an album that has been in the making for five years, the speculation about its release could go on forever. Till 02:27, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stop. WP:HAMMERtime. (Delete) - The Bushranger One ping only 03:30, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus.  Sandstein  20:49, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of world club champions in association football[edit]

List of world club champions in association football (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)

See here for reference.

The Intercontinental Cup was clearly not a world championship. This has come from numerous times by FIFA and they gave their reasons (very valid ones at that). For example, the Afro-Asian Championship could also claimed to be a world championship just for having two confederations coming together.

Seeing the above information, and the little relevance in having this, I propose this list be deleted. God Football (talk) 21:16, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I strongly disagree with the proposed deletion. The article emphasizes that the symbolic title of "world champion" which were referred all the twenty-five Intercontinental Cup winners from 1960 to 2004 was granted de facto and, precisely, FIFA is the first governing body that points that in its institutional mass media and, especially, in its official documents like this (cf. p. 62). Here nobody is inventing anything or exposes theories like as some published in Wikipedia. In the article its mentioned the title (name someone champion it's just that), not the competition (s) itself (s) and before it was created the FIFA Club World Cup, the only competition in association football history in which that recognition was related was the Intercontinental Cup/Toyota Cup.--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 23:21, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note an editor copy/pasted another editor's comments from the article talk page to here. It doesn't work that way. I've removed the pasted comments. --Floquenbeam (talk) 04:45, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I've now completed the second and the third step of the AfD-process, and I suggest that the nominator read WP:AFDHOWTO before nominating an article for deletion next time. Mentoz86 (talk) 09:58, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I agree with the deletion. Read Dantetheperuvian's argumentations and how weak and false they are. First of all, he himself fancied the "concept" of "de facto world champions" , a concept which is not present in any relevant source related to football at all. He simply shows a dicitionary definition of the "de facto" expression but shows no relevant source related to football (FIFA, UEFA, CONMEBOL) speaking of "de facto champions" of anything. This stuff of "de facto world champions" is something that this Dantetheperuvian fancied in his head and cannot be taken seriously.

It must be pointed out that no one here is denying the fact that the IC was a very relevant soccer trophy , official at UEFA and CONMEBOL, and a forerunner to the FCWC. All this are facts. However, the thing is just that. Nothing more. UEFA and CONMEBOL do not have jurisdiction over worldwide soccer (only FIFA has it) and therefore UEFA and CONMEBOL cannot give "world level legitimacy" to competitions. Besides, being "a forerunner to something" is not the same as being "that same something": the fact that one thing is forerunner to another does not mean at all that they have the same status or worth or value or importance. The fact that the IC was a forerunner to the FCWC does not mean that they have the same status or worth or importance. I will not make "copy and paste" here. Check the Portuguese-wikipedia article on the IC and you will find tons os links (in English) to the most valuable sources (FIFA, UEFA , CONMEBOL, BBC, Toyota, Japanese FA, several if not most IC-Winning clubs as Manchester and Real Madrid) making clear that the FCWC has a bigger dimension and is considered far more relevant than the IC.

All this was already indicated to Dantetheperuvian: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Intercontinental_Cup_(football)#The_Intercontinental_Cup_is_NOT_official_as_a_world_club_cup

Another example of text that was not listed inside the link above but I remember it now- FIFA making clear that the FCWC has a bigger dimension than the IC- http://www.fifa.com/tournaments/archive/tournament=107/edition=4735/news/newsid=95645.html

Other examples:

On its web-site, FIFA tells its official documents (http://www.fifa.com/aboutfifa/officialdocuments/index.html , http://www.fifa.com/aboutfifa/officialdocuments/doclists/matches.html) apart from the other parts of its web-site, implying that the latter parts are not its official views. The only one FIFA official document to mention the Intercontinental Cup (http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/fifafacts/mencompcwc/01/15/71/66/fcwc2012_kit.pdf) does NOT use the word "world" to refer to the Intercontinental Cup. In this document the word "world" is limited to the FIFA Club World Cup. The Intercontinental cup is mentioned as a predecessor to the FIFA Club World Cup but is NOT mentioned as being itself a club world title.

A UEFA official document saying that FIFA did NOT authorise the Intercontinental Cup: http://pt.uefa.com/MultimediaFiles/Download/EuroExperience/uefaorg/Publications/01/59/87/45/1598745_DOWNLOAD.pdf

For those who read Spanish, three times on which FIFA openly referred to the Intercontinental Cup as a non-World and non-FIFA Cup: http://hemeroteca.mundodeportivo.com/preview/1960/09/05/pagina-2/1384381/pdf.html?search=Intercontinental and http://hemeroteca.mundodeportivo.com/preview/1967/03/16/pagina-8/931136/pdf.html?search=Intercontinental and http://hemeroteca.mundodeportivo.com/preview/1966/07/27/pagina-6/936416/pdf.html?search=intercontinental

Here FIFA refers to the Intercontinental Cup as a symbolic world title (http://www.fifa.com/tournaments/archive/tournament=107/edition=4735/news/newsid=95645.html) ;

in a July 28th 2005 text (about the 2005 FIFA Club World Cup) called "Japan welcomes the world with open arms" on its web-site, FIFA writes "Brought up watching the annual Europe-South America clash, Japanese fans are counting the days to the kick off of the true world club showdown", therefore FIFA makes clear the difference between "Europe-South America clash" (IC) and "the true world club showdown" (refering to the FIFA Club World Cup). therefore FIFA makes clear that only the FIFA Club World Cup is the true world club showdown.

also in a July 28th 2005 text (about the 2005 FIFA Club World Cup) called "Continental champions prepare for Tokyo draw" on its web-site, FIFA writes "the Toyota Cup, which superseded the Intercontinental Cup in 1980, has been revamped by FIFA to reach out to all confederations and associations across the globe so the winners may truly be regarded as the best club side in the world", therefore FIFA makes clear that only the FIFA Club World Cup truly indicates the world club champion.

(http://www.fifa.com/tournaments/archive/tournament=107/edition=4735/news/newsid=99485.html)

And, as I said, there are many many more sources at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Intercontinental_Cup_(football)#The_Intercontinental_Cup_is_NOT_official_as_a_world_club_cup and also at the IC and FCWC Portuguese-Wikipedia articles.

You see: in many texts FIFA makes very clear how bigger the FCWC is relative to the IC, and Dantetheperuvian keeps trying to "equalise" the IC and FCWC based on one single FIFA text.

As you will see through the link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Intercontinental_Cup_(football)#The_Intercontinental_Cup_is_NOT_official_as_a_world_club_cup , Dantetheperuvian has already been informed all of this, and he intentionally decided to ignore it . He is not here impartially and honestly. He has behaving dishonestly on this matter, ignoring all these sources and trying to "mingle oranges with apples" (he intentionally mixes different concepts and aspects of the thing in order to confuse the debate and enforce his views). This Dantetheperuvian cannot be taken seriously - he is just a supporter of Juventus who insists on the sheer lie that the IC was equivalent to the FCWC because his Juventus only got the IC while its Milano rivals (AC Milan and Internazionale) won both the IC and the far-more-relevant FCWC. It is pointless to discuss with a person like him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soccer historian (talk • contribs) 12:44, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See the Portugues-Wikipedia article on the IC: http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copa_Intercontinental . See the links on it: UEFA, CONMEBOL, FIFA, Japanese Football Association, Toyota, several IC-winning clubs such as Ac Milan and Internazionale Milano, FC Barcelona, BBC's Tim Vickery's articles on BBC and UEFA-archive sites, Korean//Mexican/Spanish/CostaRican newspaper sources, and etc. All of them agree the IC was a predecessor to the FCWC. None of them says that the IC was a "world title" or "value equivalent" to the FCWC. Perhaps the IC was a "de facto world championship" in Dantetheperuvian's cheap talk, but not in the real world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soccer historian (talk • contribs) 12:55, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

— Soccer historian (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:27, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:27, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:27, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I am fairly neutral, having raised questions myself in the past (answered at some length on the talk page) about the applicability of the title to winners of competitions other than FIFA, if only because I absolutely refuse to allow a new editor to get his way by so incredibly rudely insulting an editor of long term good standing. God football has edited with exceeding arrogance on numerous pages in the last week or so, and the even newer editor seems to me to quack. If is is determined that the title should not be back dated, then change of article title would be far more appropriate than deletion. Kevin McE (talk) 18:14, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: - The articles of opinions that the "IP" and cyberfriends "Soccer Historian" and, more insistently, "God Football" published discrediting the Intercontinental Cup, besides being obviously biased, exclusively represent the point of view of the authors, not those of their newspaper (that makes only editorial signed by the director himself), while the FIFA's Activity and Statistical Reports, among others, are the Federation's official documents and in all of it is referred the Intercontinental Cup/Toyota Cup as the same official competition organised jointly by UEFA and CONMEBOL from 1960 to 2004, which categorically denies this theory and this other. In addition, these documents only eats the qualifying tournament predecessor FIFA Club World Cup, disqualifying this other theory. Also, in various articles published in the FIFA/UEFA/CONMEBOL institutional media that competition was referred to as "world title" and all its winners as "world champions" (Blatter said the same thing to FIFA Executive Committee before the 2005 Club World Cup, the first held after the discontinuation of the Intercontinental Cup), so it's not my invention to favor someone or something. Now if there are doubts about these articles published on the official website of these organizations, reject these media as sources for the articles of Club World Cup and the Intercontinental Cup and we just say what official documents, which are the same as I posted in useless discussions on the Intercontinental Cup, the Club World Cup and the request for mediation.--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 00:17, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: - Once more, proving how dishonest he is, Dantetheperuvian intentionally tries to confuse things before readers, playing dirty as he has done all over the debate. From my part, I do NOT deny the facts that: 1- Intercontinental 1960-1979 and Toyota 1980-2004 are the same competition in all aspects ; 2- it is official competition under UEFA and CONMEBOL auspices ; 3 - it is considered by FIFA as the (sole) predecessor to the Fifa Club World Cup. I DO agree these are facts. HOWEVER, these facts do NOT qualify the Intercontinental Cup (let's call it IC for short) as having the same "world cup value" of the FIFA Club World Cup (let´s call it FCWC for short). The mere fact that the IC is a predecessor to the FCWC does NOT mean that both have the same "world cup value". After all, a "predecessor to something" does NOT necessarily have the same value/worth/importance/dimension of that specific something. To begin with, Dante insists in using two expressions that exist nowhere , in no source at all : "de facto world club champions" and "de jure world club champions". These "concepts" are found in no source at all as they are the result of Dante's imagination. Second, Dante bases his idea that the IC was a "de facto world club championship" on news texts on FIFA's site , while there are many other texts also on the very same FIFA site that make clear that the IC did not have the same value/worth/importance/dimension of the FCWC (see the IC talk page) . Not only on the very FIFA site, but from many sites (UEFA, CONMEBOL, etc). Third, and most important: The FIFA Club World Cup Statistical Kit, the only citation to the IC among FIFA official documents, says that the IC merged to the FCWC in 2005, and says ONLY THAT. As Dante is dishonest, he always cites the FIFA Club World Cup Statistical Kit to "prove" his point that the IC was a "de facto world club championship", but in reality the only things this document says are that the IC was endorsed by UEFA and CONMEBOL and that it merged in 2005 to the FCWC. At no point at all the FIFA Club World Cup Statistical Kit says that the IC was either "world championship" or "de facto world championship" or anything like that. What happens here, in reality, is the following: Dante is a staunch supporter of Juventus which got the IC while its rivals (AC Milan, Internazionale) got both the IC and the more-relevant FCWC; Dante deliberately lies and distorts facts in order to try to "equalise" the value/worth/importance/dimension of the IC (possessed by his beloved Juventus) to the value/worth/importance/dimension of the FCWC (possessed by Juve rivals). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soccer historian (talk • contribs) 02:45, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As Dante has now decided to cite Mr Blatter , I would like to show Blatter stating (to 2 Brazilian newspapers) that two-continent-limited competitions (such as the IC) cannot be considered world titles (one of them shows FIFA faxes in English language with the mentioned statement): http://acervo.estadao.com.br/pagina/#!/20001019-39083-nac-0033-esp-e3-not/busca/Toyota+Fifa+Mundial e http://www.gazetaesportiva.net/noticia/2012/12/campeonatos-mundial-de-clubes-fifa-2012/em-2000-fifa-confirmou-a-gazeta-esportiva-corinthians-1-campeao.html . Actually, see the FCWC talkpage: this information was alerady showed to Dante, but he tehn dismissed them. In his "great intelectual honesty", Dante only takes into consideration the FIFA views when they fit his ones.

  • Comment Well that's enough of that. If you make any more personal attacks on Dantetheperuvian, you will be blocked indefinitely. Discuss this like a grownup, starting now. --Floquenbeam (talk) 04:50, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • A last Comment: - I note that the first Soccer Historian's link is unreadable due to "subscription" and, from the second link, that was a response signed by a member of the FIFA media department in 2000, the same group in charge of writing all those "contradictory" articles available in its official web and FIFA World magazine which the Intercontinental Cup/Toyota Cup title is referred as "world title", to a Brazilian newspaper. Also, I remind that user that the "symbolic title" conferred by FIFA is FIFA World Champions since 2000, which is not the same as simply saying "World Champions" although both represent the same planet and, though curiously Blatter admitted the validity of that title, FIFA's official documents explicitly point out that the title of "world champion" who was known all the 25 Intercontinental Cup/Toyota Cup winners (and I speak for the assigned title, not by the competition whose value insist to discredit with your theories) was "valid" and for that reason, this article should be keeped. To conclude this, I remind Soccer Historian (and cyberfriends IP, God Football et al) discuss here only about the propost of cancellation of this article, so I beg they not fill this page with the same useless points of views.--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 03:26, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - agree with Kevin, the issue here appears to be content as opposed to notability - AFD isn't the place for that kind of discussion, the article talk page is. GiantSnowman 14:09, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. This nomination has nothing to do with the notability or otherwise of the subject. It appears to be the latest forum for a content dispute conducted in an unedifying manner that does Wikipedia no credit. Suggest closing early. Struway2 (talk) 13:28, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I do not believe that we should be grouping lists of competition winners together merely because they represent the de facto world champions for each year. We have a list of winners of the Intercontinental Cup at Intercontinental Cup (football)#Finals and a list of winners of the FIFA Club World Cup at List of FIFA Club World Championship and Club World Cup finals. There is no official link between the two competitions, but we should put a wikilink from one page to the other and that should be enough. – PeeJay 17:28, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • What do we do with this page?--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 23:53, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think that page should exist either. To combine winners of multiple competitions, a lot of which occurred concurrently, is silly IMO. Plus, the Mitropa Cup for example didn't even encompass the whole of Europe, just a few countries in the south-east of the continent. – PeeJay 18:02, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • So, Could you request the deletion of that page?--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 13:23, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Maybe I will once this AfD is decided. – PeeJay 14:43, 30 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, MBisanz talk 04:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: the nominator has since been indefinitly blocked for "disruptive editing against consensus". - The Bushranger One ping only 03:31, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Mike Resnick. (non-admin closure) — Yash [talk] 03:38, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Carol Resnick[edit]

Carol Resnick (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 individual on their own right. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. No reliable sources to support any claims, and even article claims they are "an uncredited editor" - which makes them uncredited and non-notable. Article was an undeleted WP:PROD and appears to have been heavily edited by the subject themself, with much WP:COI (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:54, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I was the one to PROD the article, after coming across it while going through the notability tag backlogs (this one from December 2007). I did so for the same reasons BWilkins states above, mainly WP:NOTINHERITED and lack of reliable sources. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 23:16, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteMerge and redirect - non-notable spouse and covert collaborator of notable writer; fails the need for independent coverage of her as her own person, per WP:NOTINHERITED. No particular evidence of serious COI or NPOV failure; edit history shows involvement by one of our best SF editors, Dravecky. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:23, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • For crying out loud, PLEASE give me at least two weeks which are NOT a major holiday in which to work on improving the article. It has been less than a day since the article was undeleted. Some of us have a life. In my case, I have a 2 yo toddler who was vomiting all over me last night (and I personally have a cold). And Christmas is in 5 days. The fact that old references are no longer available at the given links and therefore current editors cannot read them does not negate the fact that at one point they existed. Subject won a major costuming award in the sf community for four years running at the international level. She is an author and an editor. Yes, her husband is a *more* famous author (who has noted publicly that his wife line-edited all of his work -that makes her a credited editor - by the author, just not in the text of the works). The phrase " covert collaborator of notable writer" implies something distasteful or unethical in their collaboration, or that you don't believe it was actually of any value. Is that what you mean to imply?Netmouse (talk) 04:38, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Then ask for it to be moved out of articlespace into a draft where you can try to salvage over a period of a few weeks. And NO, because her husband said so does not make it so. If the book and publisher doesn't credit that way, it cannot be used. After all, my wife has therefore "edited" many of my larger works too - can she have an article? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:48, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • She is credited as an author on the screenplays listed, both of which have been sold to major movie production houses, and she is credited as co-editor of the book series that is listed - you can see the covers on amazon.com. Her name is on all of them. Netmouse (talk) 01:59, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Mike Resnick and leave behind a redirect. The article in its current state presents plausible claims of some notability but not quite enough for an independent article. With better references from reliable third-party sources, I could be easily persuaded in the direction of "keep". - Dravecky (talk) 23:54, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • This suggestion would at least preserve the editing history, as deleting would not. I would prefer it to straight deletion; I think it's a good suggestion. I won't have an opportunity to see about new references to replace whatever convinced me to create the article in the first place until after Christmas. Netmouse (talk) 02:02, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or redirect. Didn't look at the contents, but longstanding precedent supports having the name of a nonnotable spouse of a notable person as a redirect to the notable person's article. Nyttend (talk) 14:54, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with redirect, at least at the moment (to Mike Resnick, and from Carol Resnick), per Dravecky and Nyttend; as her work becomes more known as such, she may well become notable on her own. htom (talk) 01:10, 26 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, MBisanz talk 04:27, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect. Sometimes a person can establish notability outside of their famous spouses, as is the case with Tabitha King. Sometimes they don't, as is the case with Soon Yi Allen. In this particular instance all of Resnick's notability stems from her work with her husband. I haven't really found anything that would show that she's established any notability outside of her husband. If there were articles that focused on her or if she'd written anything by herself that had received coverage, then she'd merit an article. Since she hasn't, she doesn't merit her own article. However she is mentioned in relation to her husband so a merge and redirect would be appropriate.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:26, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect per consensus to Mike Resnick, minus the dead links. Mephistophelian (contact) 16:54, 31 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. Snowballs have a better chance than this WP:VANISPAMCRUFTISEMENT. The Bushranger One ping only 21:51, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lourdes Duque Baron[edit]

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

The person fails notability because insufficient independent sources exist. An internet search found only press releases related to personal appearances and book signing events to promote her new book. Further, the text of the article is a copy-paste of those press releases. Recommend deletion. Senator2029 leave me a message 04:26, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Altered Walter (talk) 11:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Altered Walter (talk) 11:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Altered Walter (talk) 11:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:VANISPAMCRUFTISEMENT with no assertion of notability per WP:BIO, WP:AUTHOR, 3rd-runner up in a national beauty contest, etc. No significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Evident WP:Conflict of interest by article's creator, whose sole contribution has been repeated creation of three articles like this about people promoted by WorldWideVital Marketing, as noted in one of the sources currently listed. Altered Walter (talk) 11:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails to meet our standards of notability. Long and disgusting history of shameless spamming and publicity efforts on her behalf are of course irrelevant to the discussion, but should be noted for the record. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:29, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:VANISPAMCRUFTISEMENT and WP:COI. Not enough coverage in reliable sources, and creator appears to have a conflict of interest. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:30, 29 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. Courcelles 01:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Varalaxmi Sarathkumar[edit]

Varalaxmi Sarathkumar (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)

Contested PROD. Biographical article about an Indian actress. I am bringing this to AFD because I cannot establish whether or not the coverage provided as sources and what I found is basically WP:ROUTINE. From what I understand of the Indian movie industry, this doesn't seem to be particularly substantive. If that is the case then the subject fails WP:GNG; I also find the two movies she has acted in to be less than enough to meet WP:ACTOR. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 03:48, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uncertain - A Google News search immediately provides several results as does a Google News archives search here. For both films, it seems she has received a good amount of attention and has gained attention in other areas including an award, a Chennai fashion show and a musical of Mamma Mia!. It also seems she had a career in dancing as this article mentions. Because the production of her first film started in 2008, she has received attention every year since. I think she would classify as an Indian version of an American newcomer in acting. I must say, I'm surprised at the abundance of sources because English sources are usually slim with these foreign articles. If she has received good attention for two films, I would think she would also receive good attention for a third or possibly a fourth film, with this in mind, I'm tempted to lean towards keep. SwisterTwister talk 17:07, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Yes, a relatively new-comer, acting in significant roles. She seems to have had some media coverage. Meets notability for actors criteria.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:22, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – She has acted in a film and signed up for one more film. Looks like she gained adequate media coverage which is quite enough to establish the notability. —Vensatry (Ping me) 07:48, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per SwisterTwister. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 13:30, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep as per SwisterTwister. Thanks! -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 15:02, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 01:53, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Steven M. Cohen (Attorney)[edit]

Steven M. Cohen (Attorney) (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 per WP:BIO. WP is not Linkedin or a place for filing a curriculum vitae -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 07:33, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the article subject fails WP:GNG. Listed references feature news articles about the cases, not the attorney. My assessment would be different if there was significant coverage where Mr. Cohen as a litigator was the subject. Blue Riband► 13:20, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article as is Steven M. Cohen has been recognized by the Super Lawyers of New York for the past number of years as among the top litigators in the state. http://www.superlawyers.com/new-york-upstate/lawyer/Steven-M-Cohen/4224dc55-b4dc-438f-89db-10b9551da529.html Cohen has also been regarded as among the best lawyers in New York State according to the New York Times.

Steven M. Cohen has been featured on local, regional, national and international news sources for his involvement in high profile cases. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nysfbla (talk • contribs) 04:57, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The "superlawyers" link which you provided appears to be a trade rating service. The links WP:SIGCOV and WP:BIO outline that the article's subject must be covered in detail and not just mentioned in passing. The main notability issue with this article in its current form, and why it is nominated for deletion, is that the references describe the cases tried but have only a passing mention, if any, to the subject. Blue Riband► 12:17, 22 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, Courcelles 02:42, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The subject doesn't meet notability standards; the fact that he's been involved with significant cases does not in itself confer notability. The "Superlawyers" listing by itself doesn't establish notability. Majoreditor (talk) 03:17, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per Majoreditor. I'm not sure how "Superlawyers" selects its "best lawyers" and thus I'm skeptical that there's a reliable independent source out there discussing Cohen. The NYTimes articles are not about him, but rather about public-interest cases he's mentioned in. Lord Roem (talk) 18:51, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Save Article - I live in the Greater Buffalo Area and have personally been at conferences where Mr. Cohen is a featured speaker. He is published in such books as Elder Care by Thomas Cassidy. Steve Cohen consistantly makes headlines in Western New York through his pro bono work on such matters as Amanda Wienckowski (case where a girl found naked in a garbage tote was ruled an accidental death). As an attorney for Lynn DeJac he obtained one of the largest verdicts for a wrongfully convicted victim in New York State history. -MarkJermey — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.243.18.130 (talk) 16:54, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No showing of notability other than the handling of some cases that have received some notoriety and perhaps might be notable. Many thousands of lawyers have similar experience and credentials. He may be a good lawyer who has handled some interesting cases but that does not appear to confer enough notability for an article under wikipedia guidelines. If he has other accomplishments to boost his notability, they are not shown in the article or easily found in searches. Supporters of an article should find further sourced material and include it; otherwise the article should be deleted, at least until someone can write a more comprehensive one that meets the guidelines. Donner60 (talk) 06:46, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 21:52, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Janoo[edit]

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

This article is unsourced and barely readable. Andrew (talk) 08:57, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete under criterion A1 "no context". Nothing can be done with this article. JoshuSasori (talk) 13:21, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 22 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, Courcelles 02:41, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am finding it impossible to source this, assuming the claim is true. Apparently it's a common Indian name so searches bring up nothing. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 04:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I don't anticipate anyone speaking up in favor of this one, when can we call it in favor of delete? Andrew (talk) 04:29, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: There seems to be enough context to avoid A1 speedy deletion, but it's unreferenced and barely readable. Lugia2453 (talk) 23:06, 28 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 01:50, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Darling (Dutch band)[edit]

Captain Darling (Dutch 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 may fail WP:N and likely WP:BAND. After several source searches, I found these Dutch sources, but the reliability of them is questionable regarding Wikipedia's purposes: [30], [31], [32]. Northamerica1000(talk) 11:24, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I love the line about the singers deep, raw voice. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 11:29, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:29, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:29, 22 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, Courcelles 02:39, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I have checked in Dutch sources, this is just another local band that occasionally gets to play a few gigs. There are so many bands like this, they're not notable. 83.80.170.157 (talk) 20:51, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Kubigula (talk) 17:48, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OWASP[edit]

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

no assertion of notability - fails WP:GNG / WP:ORG with no independent sources. I personally would like sources to be found, and the article improved per WP:FAILN. suggestions? Widefox; talk 14:57, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

good start, but we need more than one per WP:CORPDEPTH "A single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization." Widefox; talk 09:26, 22 December 2012 (UTC) Here's the MS link, [33], not a RS. Widefox; talk 10:50, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 22 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, Courcelles 02:39, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There most notable feature is the top 10 standard adopted for security audits, here's another article [34]

and here is another [35] , and here it is talked about by Nessus [36] Though I agree the article here sucks. Another possibility is to turn it into OWASP top 10, an equivalent of PCI DSS Seektrue (talk) 05:58, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Courcelles 01:51, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A Southern Season[edit]

A Southern Season (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 store, fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG. ukexpat (talk) 17:43, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mild Keep: http://www.heraldsun.com/news/x2083612240/Southern-Season-store-to-open-in-Charleston-area , http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/12/14/3726126/southern-season-looking-at-charlotte.html , and http://www.wral.com/gift-guide-gifts-for-hard-to-shop-for/11837923/ for starters.Naraht (talk) 19:12, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: sources shown above are reliable and directly related, thus meeting requirements for General Notability, however all of them need to be added to the article to put the issue to rest. HarryZilber (talk) 16:54, 23 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, Courcelles 02:37, 28 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, redirect, and protect. The Bushranger One ping only 01:50, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Annabeth Chase[edit]

Annabeth Chase (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 character. This page has been repeatedly redirected to List of Camp Half-Blood characters#Annabeth Chase. This may be an option over outright deletion. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:42, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete page history, redirect, and protect. While the character would absolutely merit a mention in the overall character page, this character isn't really notable outside of the series as a whole. It's not like the character of Hermoine from Harry Potter or Jeeves from the Wodehouse stories and when you get down to it, that's the level of notability a character would really have to have in order to pass notability guidelines. I'm aware that any sources about the character would be in relation to the series, but there aren't really any sources that are actually about this specific character as opposed to her being mentioned in an article that's more about the series as a whole (review, etc). I suggest deleting the page history since that would discourage it getting un-redirected if the page was semi-protected.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:46, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Google News Archive link above shows plenty of sources which could be added to this article. Since the problems could presumably be solved by regular editing, deletion is inappropriate. Jclemens (talk) 20:42, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete looked through the sources. A lot of WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs, and sources that verify elements of the plot. But we need something with real context to WP:verify notability, which is more than verifying plot elements. There are no sources of that quality, and that absence is the circumstance where deletion is appropriate. I could support a redirect if it's protected from further efforts to revive a topic that doesn't meet policy/guidelines. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:12, 25 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, Courcelles 02:36, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Redirect. I searched for secondary sources and found only one that briefly mentions her dyslexia. One cannot build an encyclopedic article at the present time around this topic. Given that an article List of Camp Half-Blood characters exists with about as much information one would need on this character, redirection is appropriate. Also, redirection of such characters to such lists is the longstanding consensus, repeatedly used thousands of times on Wikipedia. Abductive (reasoning) 20:52, 30 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. WP:SOFTDELETE The Bushranger One ping only 01:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suburban fluxus[edit]

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

This is a term coined by Hillerbrand+Magsamen and seems to be used sparingly by them and no-one else. Therefore I'd say this was a non-notable neologism. Sionk (talk) 20:53, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 09:16, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Already covered in the Hillerbrand + Magsamen article to appropriate length (one sentence). No need for a separate article. AllyD (talk) 09:21, 22 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, Courcelles 02:35, 28 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. The Bushranger One ping only 21:52, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

South Carolina Lowcountry[edit]

South Carolina Lowcountry (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)

WP:OR. Found several books that throw the term around, but none that actually give a definition to what it actually is. The article is completely OR from top to bottom, and I see no sources that give a clear definition of what the South Carolina Lowcountry is. "Economy" and "Tourism" merely parrot other articles. The fact that this article has been completely devoid of sources SIX YEARS is appalling, but likely stems from the fact that there seems to be no clear definition for "South Carolina Lowcountry". Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:05, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do any of those actually give definition to the term, or do they just throw it around casually? All I could find was the latter. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:42, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Slavery, Disease, and Suffering in the Southern Lowcountry on page xxiii has maps that I cannot access through the preview; Rural Life in the Low Country of South Carolina has a map on p. 6; Plantations of the Carolina Low Country maps out the plantations on pp. 8-9. -- Whpq (talk) 17:58, 27 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, Courcelles 02:35, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I acknowledge Hammer's point about the dearth of sources, but the Lowcountry is a well-known and well-covered region of the state. The lack of a single formal definition is not surprising, but we do have the South Carolina Department of Parks & Tourism and the Lowcountry Council of Governments definitions (already cited in the article). Maybe also worth noting that the Bureau of Labor Statistics offers statistics for the "Low Country South Carolina nonmetropolitan area"[37] and that the United States Fish and Wildlife Service provides a simple explanation of the term: "a geographic and cultural area distinguished by low-lying lands that extend from the Atlantic coast to the western sandhills of the state."[38] --Arxiloxos (talk) 02:56, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The Low Country is a well-known geographic area - see this from National Geographic[39]. It may be better to rename the article Low Country (South Carolina and Georgia) because the region properly covers parts of both states. Majoreditor (talk) 03:23, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow Keep - A well-covered topic that passes WP:N with ease. I agree with the notion to rename the article to Low Country (South Carolina and Georgia). Northamerica1000(talk) 09:18, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable topic, and, as Upstate New York, shows the lack of an officially-defined boundary does not automatically qualify it as OR. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:37, 28 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. The Bushranger One ping only 03:32, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Esteban Escobar[edit]

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

This article is repeatedly recreated. The current version has multiple sources, and they're very nicely formatted, too. Not a one of them meets the reliable source guidelines. Do we think that this person meets Wikipedia's notability criteria? FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:05, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep because there are many other potential sources on the subject and all of the claims are verifiable. From research, the subject appears to be local self-starter with fingers in many pies, clearly has social relevance. In terms of notability, there are fairly substantial references to the subject in imultiple independent sources online (which will make their way onto the wiki page), awards and honors are present. The case is borderline, but I think on the side of notable. P.S. examiner.com is blocked as a source on Wiki, but was going to be used. Anastasia Bykova (talk) 02:19, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If there are multiple independent sources online, why did you only cite press releases when you created the article? Could you add some of the independent sources to the article? Examiner.com isn't a reliable source, unfortunately. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:30, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Because Diversity News are an information spammer, clearly :-) Just added one non-press-release, also the Shorty Award ref was not a press release. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ana Bykova (talk • contribs) 02:33, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Escobar is the editor-in-chief of Diversity News. Yahoo Voices, like Examiner.com, will publish pretty much anything they are sent, and what you've added clearly originates from Escobar and says nothing about his significance to his field. I don't know what a 'Shorty award' is, or whether it is a notable award or not, but Escobar didn't win one, and anyone can nominate anyone for one, so being nominated is not an accomplishment. To show this person is notable, you'll need to find things about his importance that he didn't write himself. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:48, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have found other sources that qualify as independent. However, after a thorough examination they do not represent in depth coverage of the subject. As a result of this research, I feel happy to change my mind and say that the subject is not notable. The page should, therefore, be deleted. I would also suggest blocking it in some way (if at all possible), so that an article couldn't be added without a prior request. I think that would be fair given the fact that a very informed decision was made, not simply on the basis that the article didn't refer to anything, but on the basis of lack of notability. Thank you for your patience, Anastasia Bykova (talk) 04:52, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not yet notable per WP:BIO or WP:CREATIVE; awards nominations were public nominations via Twitter etc., and his (public) People's Choice Awards nomination is for "People’s Choice Fan Award for Favorite Profile Picture on Facebook", according to the announcement on his website. No significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Altered Walter (talk) 10:56, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails to meet our standards of notability. Long and disgusting history of shameless spamming and publicity efforts on his behalf are of course irrelevant to the discussion, but should be noted for the record. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 29 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. Due to the ambiguity, any "merging" should be done from scratch. The Bushranger One ping only 03:33, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Family Catholic Parish and School[edit]

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

This article was nominated by TonyTheTiger for WP:PROD in January 2012. His reason was, "Grade school with no evidence or assertion of meeting Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)." Danjel objected, saying that "per WP:OUTCOMES and general consensus at WP:WPSCH, this primary school should be merged/redirected to its locality or school authority, NOT deleted". I agree that WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES urges us to redirect the article to the relevant school district or locality, but that solution is not possible for this article because "Holy Family" is a name used by several Catholic parishes and schools. Edge3 (talk) 01:49, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:27, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:27, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge We're not talking about a disambiguation, which as you say is not appropriate because there are many "Holy Family"s, what we're talking about is an redirect to another article which ideally should include the same information. In this case, the target should be the Diocese of Joliet. That there isn't much said there in regards to primary schools (including this one) suggests that there should be so that readers looking for some information find something. Merge is the appropriate solution. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 06:49, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    A merger would not be appropriate because there are many parishes named "Holy Family". A quick Google search reveals that they are in Fond du Lac, Wisconsin, Concord, Massachusetts, Seattle, and many other places. It would not be appropriate to redirect this article to Diocese of Joliet because it would also be equally valid to redirect to another diocese with a parish named "Holy Family". Edge3 (talk) 06:57, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is that particular problem solved by deleting this article, then? It requires a more creative solution than simple deletion, perhaps a disambiguation which then takes people through to the diocese/school region articles. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 07:20, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That implies creating a disambiguation page which lists every parish and every school named "Holy Family", including those which aren't noteworthy such as this one. There are dozens and dozens in the U.S. and who knows how many in other english-speaking countries. Not to stop there, but the same situation exists for "Immaculate Heart of Mary", "Sacred Heart of Jesus", <Adjective><Organ> of <Sactified Entity>, St. Paul, St. Peter, St. Mary, St. Gregory, St. John, Our Lady of <etc> ... you get the idea. Are you prepared to endorse the de-facto creation of a comprehensive parish and parochial school directory for all English-speaking countries? I just want to get a sense of how far this will go. Or - as an alternative - would you list only noteworthy schools and parishes on the disamb pages? Majoreditor (talk) 15:10, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This one might not be notable. In fact, every one might not be notable. However, the Dioceses, or whatever the relevant school systems, likely are because of their massive impact over several communities, and the collected notability of their parts. The alternative is that when someone searches for Holy Family Catholic Parish and School that they find nothing, or at least nothing relevant. How does that help us to build a comprehensive encyclopedia? ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 15:20, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is a difference between an encyclopedia and a comprehensive directory. Wikipedia is not a directory. It's OK if searches for non-notable entities don't produce results. We're building an encyclopedia, not the Yellow Pages :) Majoreditor (talk) 17:30, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've read it, thanks. There's a reason why I used comprehensive encyclopedia rather than comprehensive directory. I am not talking about a directory. Disambiguation and directories are radically different things, but I get that you're trying a silly argumentative trick.
If we were to talk about schools on a regional level, then you'd be able to talk about initiatives that span several schools. For example, one of the secondary schools for which I work has a "network" of schools in which most of the feeder primary schools for the high school are involved. In that network, there are a range of educational initiatives, some of which are a bit esoteric, but others such as music ensembles, and academic opportunities for gifted students regularly get news coverage. But how could you talk about such initiatives in the absence of mentioning the primary schools?
Thus, this school, like other schools of the same name, should be redirected to their regional structures. If there are many schools of the same name, as is probably the case in this instance, then an effort should be made to disambiguate between them should be made. After all, we do not delete John Smith (the disambiguation page) nor any of the individual John Smiths included on that page, just because there happen to be many John Smiths. You'll note that a few of those John Smiths are redlinks or redirects. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 17:46, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
By that same logic we should have redirects and disambiguations for every non-notable) soldier who was a member of a notable platoon or brigrade. Consensus is pretty clear on this: if the entity is not notable then it doesn't need to be redirected or need to be mentioned on a disamb page. Please don't try to create a redirect or disamb for every non-notable school. Majoreditor (talk) 20:16, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (or maybe Merge infobox into prose somewhere) and Redirect title to Holy family (disambiguation). No evidence of WP:ORG, but maybe details of the school could be mentioned in another article. Redirect because there are other churches and schools (and combinations) with that name. --Closeapple (talk) 17:55, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per Tony pbp 17:50, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 01:48, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apogee Instruments, Inc.[edit]

Apogee Instruments, Inc. (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)

Article about a company that seems to fail WP:CORP; it has been created twice by an SPA, with the previous one deleted because of copyvio issues. I believe the purpose of this is purely promotional, since I cannot establish that the company is actually notable in any way, regardless of the attempt to claim notability for the founder. If sources are not found and the article is deleted, the title should probably also be salted. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 15:57, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Myniceguy: I've taken the liberty of adding "keep" in front of your comment, which is obviously your intention, after the conventional style here. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 01:48, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have to admit I didn't think to search in that context. I will let other editors more familiar with the subject matter to chime in. Not sure if that in and of itself can establish notability. If that is the case then I will gladly withdraw the AFD. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 23:57, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:22, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:22, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:22, 15 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 21:24, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and this is yet another example of how much WP has become a spam magnet and it is another increment towards WP becoming a business directory. We need to write a prescriptive notability guideline for companies. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:32, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:SPAM --Artene50 (talk) 07:40, 25 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, ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 01:33, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Myniceguy is the creator of this unnotable company and so its not a surprise that he would vote to keep this article. --Artene50 (talk) 08:56, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable. Puffery --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:05, 30 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 Low Anthem. MBisanz talk 04:37, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Futur Primitif[edit]

Futur Primitif (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)

Has been on patrol page for a month, no reliable references. Should be rolled into the Low Anthem article, if anything. -Jordgette [talk] 05:04, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Non-notable band from non-notable member of another band. Reference overload there with nothing of substance. Fails WP:BAND. §FreeRangeFrog 06:04, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — sparklism hey! 13:37, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain Apologies if this band is thought to be non-notable but I disagree. The artist is currently touring in USA, has already played in UK and is due to play at a significant festival in UK again in 2013 [2]. He is now releasing his second album (demonstrating longevity). He has signed to a notable UK record label (established in 1994) (showing international recognition, not just domestic recognition). His current single has already been played on the UK's most important independent national radio station (XFM), on the national BBC (6 Music) and on the quickest growing online station (Amazing Radio). He was formerly a full member of a very notable, current, international band (Low Anthem). I have been careful to provide several references which are independent and, in some cases (e.g. record label site) official. It is entirely incorrect for another user to say that there are "no reliable references".Arseur (talk) 15:31, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean that the references provided were unreliable, but that Wikipedia has a specific definition of a reliable source. This would be something like a mention in a national magazine or non-local newspaper, or being cited as noteworthy by a well-known notable artist. The airplay lists are close, but I still think Futur Primitif should be rolled into The Low Anthem until we have more indication of the band's importance or influence. -Jordgette [talk] 21:44, 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, MBisanz talk 21:10, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain. For the reasons Arseur mentions above. 1292simon (talk) 07:19, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per WP:BAND, most of the sources are not articles directly about the band. For example the BBC source is merely a playlist from an evening where their song was played. They have not produced a hit single, released a full album that has achieved success, nor been the subject of a wide variety of notable third party sources. Mkdwtalk 23:46, 14 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, John F. Lewis (talk) 21:27, 19 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, ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 01:33, 28 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. Consensus following relisting. The Bushranger One ping only 21:55, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of 20th-century Philippine comedians[edit]

List of 20th-century Philippine comedians (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 page does not provide any purpose that cannot be served by the category Filipino Comedians Op47 (talk) 22:41, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per WP:CLN categories and lists are not exclusive. This list may need to be edited to include only notable persons, and possibly renamed to delete the "20th-century" limitation, but there are plenty of bluelinks in the list, and the list format allows the collection of information not available at a category page.--Arxiloxos (talk) 02:25, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to List of Philippine comedians List of Filipino comedians per Arxiloxos. A list can provide information that a category cannot. But it should be moved in such a way that it wouldn't be restricted to the 20th century. Restricting it to that would leave out prominent comedians like Vice Ganda. Nevertheless, since there's enough content, work can still be done. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 07:59, 22 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, ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 01:26, 28 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. Could be userfied if someone wants to competently write a new and sourced article about this topic.  Sandstein  00:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

China marble[edit]

China marble (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 no references and is completely unreadable. The only way someone could fix this article would be to rewrite it entirely. Prof. Squirrel (talk) 00:47, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Seems this is a translation of some kind of material about marble from China? Either way, it looks marketish at best and I couldn't find enough information that could possibly turn this into a viable article. Let's say it fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE and leave it at that. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 00:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The user who started it appears to have been trying to market their wares: I speedy-deleted some more overtly promotional material. This was not quite in speedy deletion territory, but isn't usable in its current form. Acroterion (talk) 01:00, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There should be notification of this deletion in the China project and the Mining project. This is a transparency comment, and not a comment on the merits. --DThomsen8 (talk) 02:58, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It seems like a promotional piece and the lack of reliable secondary sources adds to it. --Cold Season (talk) 14:21, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy This article is very poorly written and should not be kept in mainspace, but it could be userfied for reference purposes for a start on a new and completely rewritten article. I looked into the Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts project, which is not applicable for this article.--DThomsen8 (talk) 14:37, 30 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. The Bushranger One ping only 21:58, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of social democrats[edit]

List of social democrats (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: as a subjective, OR list; potentially unlimited but of as little utility or value as a List of capitalists would be, for instance. Quis separabit? 23:18, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 22 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, Courcelles 00:33, 28 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 21:06, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

UFC on FX: Belfort vs. Bisping[edit]

UFC on FX: Belfort vs. Bisping (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 sports event fails WP:NOTNEWSPAPER policy, the primary routine sources quoted just cover the announcements of who is going to appear which NOTNEWSPAPER explicitly says "is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. There is no attempt in the article to demonstrate what the lasting significance of this event will be, there will I have no doubt be 10 winners and 10 looser of 10 fights listed but beyond that any significance is pure speculation.
For the avoidance of doubt this nomination has nothing to do with the events notability or not, as a professional sports event, meeting the WP:GNG is not in doubt, however that is no guarantee of a subjects suitability for an article in an encyclopedia if, as in this case, it fails the inclusion policy. Mtking (edits) 23:17, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - WP:NOTNEWSPAPER does not apply. As Odie stated in another AfD discussion, it exists to prevent people to copy from their newspaper. And it do passes the "inclusion policies".
An event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance is likely to be notable. - A number one contender will emerge, so the event has a lasting effect.
Notable events usually have significant impact over a wide region, domain, or widespread societal group. - Event has received coverage in Brazil, England, North America, Australia... --LlamaAl (talk) 19:44, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If the event will result in a number one contender, that is not explained at all in the article. Even if this were true, I'm not sure it would make the entire event notable enough for its own article. International coverage does not denote notability, it's the depth of that coverage. Coverage thus far seems to be the usual reporting of matches as they are announced by the UFC or otherwise leaked. Additionally, the article cites no non-MMA media/websites as sources. Thus far the article is failing WP:SPORTSEVENT in that it doesn't have much in the way of "well sourced prose" which would go into the background of the important fights that will be on the card. This event would seem to me to be a good candidate to start 2013 in UFC on FX events. --TreyGeek (talk) 21:06, 27 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, Courcelles 00:32, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We don't need to wait until the day of the event to create the article. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 04:34, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just another page that the disgruntled Mtking wants to remove. The event will have lasting significance, and the main event could possibly determine the next top contender. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.155.73.246 (talk) 08:59, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Regarding lasting effect, the specific text says "It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable." As thus, an event that is not at least several months old should not be eligible for deletion on those grounds according to that criteria. Furthermore "primary" sources is only listed in WP:NOTNEWSPAPER in the context that " Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories. Wikipedia does not constitute a primary source." That is entirely inapplicable here. Furthermore the only section that appears to be potentially applicable in WP:NOTNEWSPAPER is section 2, News Reports, but it specifically makes a contrast to Wikinews which is literally emulating a newspaper and reporting on things daily. Adding information to an event article as more information emerges over a period of months is quite different from creating entirely new articles for each new piece of information. As such per the text of WP:NOTNEWSPAPER I do not see how WP:NOTNEWSPAPER applies here as a criteria for deletion either. Beansy (talk) 14:57, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, CRYSTAL, NOTNEWSPAPER, coverage is routine, not notable. --Nouniquenames 07:11, 31 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 Milladoiro. The Bushranger One ping only 22:00, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Milladoiro 3[edit]

Milladoiro 3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No suggestion of notability, merely a listing of non-notable tracks (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:34, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article was nominated for deletion on the grounds that it listed no tracks. That was because I was in the middle of writing the article and hadn't added them yet. The track listing is now included. Peyre (talk) 23:49, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • You may wish to re-read: I said that all it is is a listing of tracks. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:50, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 22 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, Courcelles 00:31, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Milladoiro, as is commonly done in such cases. Diego (talk) 14:56, 28 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. WP:SOFTDELETE The Bushranger One ping only 01:46, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hoard magazine[edit]

Hoard magazine (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, defunct online magazine. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:35, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I can find no sognificant coverage about this magazine/website in reliable sources. The article itself consists of a massive quote from teh magazien describing itself, and a massive link farm. Remvoe that and 80% of the article is gone. -- Whpq (talk) 15:11, 27 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, Courcelles 00:31, 28 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. The Bushranger One ping only 01:46, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John Lawless (footballer)[edit]

John Lawless (footballer) (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-league footballer, only really gained independent coverage for one event and otherwise likely to remain low-profile, which is a classic example of WP:BLP1E. I might add he never played in a fully professional league or in a match involving two fully-professional teams. C679 00:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C679 00:30, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I feel the article is just below WP:GNG a lot of citations arn't direct to the player and more about the clubs he has played for. However I agree and go by WP:BLP1E as Cloudz has pointed out. Govvy (talk) 16:21, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league, thus failing WP:NSPORT and there is insufficient coverage for him to meet WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:06, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:NFOOTY. Also fails WP:GNG as the subject hasn't received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Most of the citations in the article does not address the subject in detail, and not enough to pass GNG. Mentoz86 (talk) 21:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 01:44, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Valeria Vorobieva[edit]

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

Does not meet criteria of Wikipedia:WikiProject Figure Skating/Notability, see

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:21, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:21, 22 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 00:09, 28 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:58, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kristina Lenko[edit]

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

Does not meet criteria of Wikipedia:WikiProject Figure Skating/Notability. Didn't win Dancing on Ice either. Entry on List of Dancing on Ice professional skaters is sufficient. Hergilei (talk) 13:11, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:23, 22 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, 28 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.
  1. ^ http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=apogee+instruments+pyranometer&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C45
  2. ^ http://nodirectionhomefestival.com/artists/futur-primitif/
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2012_December_28&oldid=1142635577"