Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 July 13

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 12 July	14 July >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:08, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Harmony (Honeyz album)[edit]

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

Turns out this album doesn't even exist. No notability, no sources and even the cover shown is not of the album.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 00:38, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm unable to find coverage for this unreleased album in reliable sources; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NALBUMS. Gongshow ^Talk 16:19, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Gongshow ^Talk 19:32, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:42, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I cannot find any coverage to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:40, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as completely unreferenced and lacking coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:50, 19 July 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. Speedy G3 Hoax Alexf^(talk) 12:31, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Going to America (song)[edit]

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

Blatant hoax but for some reason the speedy deletion was declined. The web has never heard of this song which supposedly is number one in ten different countries and a favorite of Kanye West and Justin Bieber... There may also be a link with a bunch of sockpuppets Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dari Feitosa/Archive who also used the name "Dariani Belle". Pichpich (talk) 23:30, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. GregJackP Boomer! 02:45, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball Delete - I can't find any indication this song exists. However, I think the reason the admin declined your CSD was because it looked quite believable, and the slightest belief that the song is real is enough to decline a "blatant hoax" CSD. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 19:16, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as G3, and shame on the admin that declined it.--Otterathome (talk) 12:25, 15 July 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. Should be improved with sources included — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:26, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good Agricultural Practices[edit]

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

This article is tagged as having "instructions, advice, or how-to content," but really, that's about all it is. See WP:NOTHOWTO. Even if we could address that issue, it's difficult to see how we could avoid it being WP:DICDEF. Merging doesn't seem like an option; at most, it could be a sentence at Best practice. --BDD (talk) 22:54, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 22:54, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 22:54, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve – Good Agricultural Practices are often referred to as "GAP", and are principles that the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations uses (see: this link), practices that the United States Department of Agriculture includes in their audits (see this link) and standards that significant agriculture industry organizations use (see: this link). This term is definitely not a dictionary definition. This article needs some work, but deletion is not in order, per WP:PRESERVE. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:02, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – See also:

"Good Agricultural Practices Manual". Joint Institute for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, University of Maryland. August 2010. Retrieved July 15, 2012. (Free download)

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:23, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – More sources:

"Good Agricultural Practices Minimize Food Safety Risks". Almond Board of California. Retrieved July 15, 2012.
Andrews, Nick (Fall 2008). "Good Agricultural Practices & Marketing Agreements". Vol. III, No. 4. Small Farms, Oregon State University. Retrieved July 15, 2012.
"Mushroom Good Agricultural Practices Program" (PDF). Penn State University and the American Mushroom Institute. May 2010. Retrieved July 15, 2012.

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:31, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

-My own vote would be to KEEP this article. Although it is true that Wikipedia is not a "how-to" manual, as clarified at Wikipedia: What Wikipedia is not, this article - as its name implies, is obviously playing a useful function and has much important significance. I agree entirely with the above comments that improvement,rather than deletion,would be the correct course action in this case. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 13:51, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As one of the original author of this article, in times where the editorial policy war far less refined than what it is today, I appreciate the comments supporting keeping the article and thank Northamerica for the improvements he brought. Anthere (talk)
Is listifying this article an option? It's already list-heavy, and I don't think I'd object to a List of good agricultural practices with a lede mentioning best practice and the relevant defining organizations. --BDD (talk) 22:58, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Best practice. Listification as above is also a good option is someone is willing to put in the work. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:59, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve per Northamerica's rationale and sources. Ugly state does not justify deletion. Cavarrone (talk) 09:03, 19 July 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 Malmstrom Air Force Base. Contact me when merger is done and I'll delete this article; unviable redirect — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:27, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oscar Flight UFO/Missile Incident[edit]

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

No WP:RS hits on Google books, no RSs in the article. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:17, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the only sources are WP:FRINGE. Might be worth a mention in the base's article, but doesn't need a redirect. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:40, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination and per The Bushranger's comment: UFOs don't exist. Nick-D (talk) 23:42, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most of the sources appear to be a collection of non-official youtube videos. Others are just plain unreliable. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:38, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep/Redirect/Merge~~ Include comment regarding allegation of incident at Malmstrom Air Force Base - unusual events do happen, and we need to remain open minded. If official documents mentioned this incident, we need to remain open minded and not delete this wholesale. We may not be able to prove positively that UFOs exist, but there have been a large number of unexplained incidents (even over Iran during the Shah's period). Buckshot06 (talk) 16:14, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the only sources claiming official documents exist are fringe sources that take for granted that UFOs are real. No other sources even mention this. I ask that you please provide some reliable sources discussing this incident if you wish to keep the article. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:58, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK; I'm not a UFO editor and do not know the literature. If a number of editors in good standing doubt the existence of official documents, I strike my comment, and suggest as the Bushranger says that a note that there were allegations that a UFO incident took place be included in the Malmstrom Air Force Base article. Buckshot06 (talk) 11:25, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to a paragraph in Malmstrom Air Force Base. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:01, 19 July 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:28, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Advisory Panel on Astrological Education[edit]

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

No coverage in google news, google books, google journals. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG at the most basic level IRWolfie- (talk) 20:36, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:38, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:38, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:38, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the article already has a reference to one good reliable independent source and as an organisation this is a very important one within its field. This general [web search] demonstrates its notability. I'm sure this will not suit IRWolfie, who appears to be to be targetting astrology-related content very verociously of late. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 21:38, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The google search doesn't demonstrate anything, please consult the above guidelines and policies. Please focus on issues not editors. Which one reference is the "good reliable independent source"? IRWolfie- (talk) 21:45, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Does not satisfy WP:GNG or WP:ORG. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 23:56, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete? unless the following issues can be addressed:

--If the "good reliable independent source" is the Directory of British associations & associations in Ireland vol.18 p.116, this would seem to fail the test of significant coverage in an independent source. Sorry Zac, maybe there's another source out there -- I'd check Peter Whitfield's history of astrology which is recent enough (2004) to mention it.
--The google search linked by Zac shows exclusively "in-universe" sources within the astrological community. These are independent of the organization in question, but for a "pseudoscience" topic, my understanding is that isn't good enough. Please correct me if I am wrong.--Other Choices (talk) 01:13, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The reliable source I was referring to is James Lewis' Astrology Encyclopedia. This book has been reviewed in previous discussions on reliable sources for astrological content and was recommended as a good source of info for this topic.

On the second point, independent astrological publications can be used for content about astrological organisations. Subjects defined as alternative or fringe are not excluded from Wikipedia on the basis that they are alternative or fringe. Consider this was an organisation that established policies for education in music, we wouldn't say its notability can't be established because the books that discuss its relevancy are dedicated to music matters. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 01:25, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Zac, I don't know if the results of the google search qualify as "notable," but if Lewis's encyclopedia of astrology is acceptable to other editors as a reliable source, and if the coverage therein qualifies as "significant," then I change my assessment to keep.--Other Choices (talk) 01:53, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call the coverage in Lewis significant, since its focus is on Nicholas Campion's role in the association. I would say it gives demonstration of recognition by a good reliable independent source and my arguments for keeping are that this association is known to be important within astrology for the role it plays in assessing standards of practice, and the notability is shown by the references I gave earlier. For a page like this that offers outline information on what an association is and what it does, do we really need or expect 'significant coverage' to be given outside of in-universe sources- plenty of details in astrology journals from around the time of its creation -- Zac Δ ^talk! 03:40, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep what is already included in a printed encyclopedia is surely suitable for being included on Wikipedia. Cavarrone (talk) 06:15, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which encyclopedia did you confirm it was in and which page? IRWolfie- (talk) 09:33, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This page is part of WP's problematic walled garden of astrology pages that are based on poor sourcing and lack notability outside of a very fringe minority (i.e. in universe). Taking a look at [1], one can see that this page is an orphan with the exception of redirects and user space links, and there's no real reason that other pages would link here anyway. As a serious encyclopedia we should not be hosting articles on such ancillary aspects of a pseudoscientific topic unless they are noticed and commented on by the mainstream; this precludes using organizations like the Astrological Society of Britain in the same way that we shouldn't use the Flat Earth Society to establish notability of random flat earth related organizations. The other source, an encyclopedia of astrology, again demonstrates that this is a niche topic that doesn't warrant coverage in a general purpose encyclopedia. Sædon^talk 21:53, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not much to find about this in reliable independent sources, which makes notability very questionable. Looking at the sources currently used in this article: Ref #1 comes directly from one of the member "school's" website, so is not independent. Ref #2 is just a mention in a "directory". Ref #3 seems OK. Ref #4 is a wordpress blog with only one post in June 2009. If no better sources can be found then there is no good reason to keep this article. MakeSense64 (talk) 08:04, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Little if any mention of this in independent reliable sources, and even in the unreliable in-universe sources, mention is scant or tangential. My own Google, Google Books and Google Scholar searches turned up nothing even fainly promising. Clearly fails all of our notability requirements. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:18, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking independent coverage. Note that organisations they accredit are not independent. See also Accreditation mill. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:27, 19 July 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:30, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Michele Verginelli[edit]

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

Non-notable boxer. No content about him. Rcsprinter (rap) @ 20:24, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nomination.Peter Rehse (talk) 02:09, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article has no content and no sources (except for a link to his fight record at sherdog). He has no fights for a first or second tier organization and fails all notability criteria. Papaursa (talk) 23:16, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete wikiepdia is not a sports result database. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:33, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails general and specific notability guidelines. Cavarrone (talk) 09:59, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom, seems pretty clearly non-notable, no content in article.CaSJer (talk) 17:45, 19 July 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:33, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MetricStream[edit]

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

Non-notable corporation, likely WP:COI, appears promotional (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:01, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article had been a restored Prod but a significant part of its content was a paste of the text from the company website where it is marked as Copyright; I've removed that text. (If there is a claim to notability in the article, it would appear to be around the company's ComplianceOnline site.) AllyD (talk) 07:58, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I was unable to find any indpendent coverage, only press release after press release. If there are sources that i miseed in wading through the mass of PR pieces, please bring them forward for evaluation. -- Whpq (talk) 16:47, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - My search also only turned up company press releases or stuff that is based on them. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 18:02, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I prodded this after a guy whose AfC I declined called my attention to some WP:OTHERCRAP that he modeled his submission after. I agreed that this was no better than his and have been unable to locate independent sources of the depth required to confirm notability sufficient to ensure that any biases could be corrected. Kilopi (talk) 02:04, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: another IT business advertising itself on Wikipedia with nothing indicating its impact or at least differentiating it from the rest of similar businesses. – Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:24, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on July 18 sourced additions to Awards and Media sections: Sources 4 and 5 are uninteresting press releases. Source 6, while a primary source for the rating, has enough substance that it could be used as a secondary source for the product itself. Though the Media section asserts that, "MetricStream and its executives have been often featured ...", this is disingenuous. Sources 7-9 show that CEO Archambeau has been interviewed about various topics unrelated to MetricStream, while 10 and 11 are press releases reprinted without editorial oversight. Since WP:GNG asks for sources (plural) and only one of these is usable, my delete vote above still stands. Kilopi (talk) 20:19, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Dmitrij D. Czarkoff. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:12, 19 July 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. Whether the article should be merged or split out is not a matter for AfD. Black Kite (talk) 21:22, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Newco Rangers[edit]

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

Per the discussion at WP: AN. Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 18:08, 13 July 2012 (UTC) Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 18:08, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Comment at the momnent there is no censensus how to deal with this and i am in process of taking this to request for comment see here, it has been in disptue fora while again one side of the argument are pushign there agenda but nither side is right or wrong, i think this afd is pointless it wont solve the underlying issue no consensus--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 18:27, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:28, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Rangers Football Club (Oldco) have themselves confirmed that "The Club" is to be liquidated. Source: http://i48.tinypic.com/123s8i8.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.202.17 (talk) 23:42, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's a list of links at the bottom of this page. Number 24 is listed under the links which purport to say that Rangers weren't liquidated, but it's actually a link to a story about someone buying the assets of them when they are being liquidated. Is it in the wrong bit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.127.7 (talk) 01:18, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. From the top of the article talk page: "This page was nominated for deletion on 16 June 2012. The result of the discussion was keep." Do we really have to go through all that again just because someone doesn't like the outcome last time? There is abundant evidence - as a google search will illustrate - that 'Newco Rangers' is a term being used to describe the new club that has been formed to replace the old Rangers that entered liquidation. I would agree that a better name would be an improvement but this can not really be done until the article about the previous club - Rangers FC - is renamed something like 'Rangers FC (1872)' as that will then free up the name to be used for this article. Until that is done, Newco Rangers is the best title we have. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 18:35, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This was originally "Strongly Oppose deletion", but for the sake of readability I've changed it to what is obviously the same thing but worded in a way that AFD regulars will not be confused. Fishiehelper, votes are just almost always "keep" or "delete", so "strongly oppose deletion" can easily be misread (especially quickly) as "strong delete". Nyttend (talk) 00:51, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Rangers F.C.. Recent consensus seems quite clear on the talk page there. The demoted team seams to have the same staff and players ... contracts seem to have carried over. Where this end's up isn't clear, but there aren't two teams - at this time at least. Not sure why this would be dealt with any differently than many other recent examples. The name of the page is quite bizarre - and clearly violates WP:COMMONNAME. Nfitz (talk) 18:37, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With very few reliable sources, most of which say that the development of the future team is questionable as well, I believe this article is due to be deleted. It is an obvious case of WP: CRYSTAL. The unfortunate matter that you are concerned with is that football fans can be fanatic, and I know this. But, as soon as this "Newcastle Rangers" is in fact a real team the article will be up and ready to go. Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 18:38, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

huh where did newcastle rangers come from?--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 19:00, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, sorry. Spell check mistake on my part. Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 19:10, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It has not been confirmed by the Scottish football authorities that the new company (Sevco Scotland Ltd) will be treated as a new club. The SFA is presently considering an application to transfer the Rangers FC membership of the SFA (which predates the existence of the limited company that is due to be liquidated) to Sevco Scotland from the insolvent Rangers FC plc. I believe a Liquidation of Rangers F.C. article would be more appropriate to cover this issue. This article is guilty of WP:CRYSTAL, WP:SYNTH and WP:NOR. James Morrison (talk) 19:03, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with this statement wholeheartedly. The article is based on wikipedia editors opinions and interpretation of the facts. Koncorde (talk) 20:13, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The act of transferring a membership from one club to another would surely indicate that Rangers FC (IA) and Sevco Scotland Ltd. are in fact two separate clubs. Why would a club transfer its membership to itself? WeeJimmyFaeGorgie (talk) 16:24, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "Newco Rangers" is basically just a slang term for 'new company rangers'. It presents itself as the page of a 'football club' however. I reccomend that Wikipedia foolwos the Leeds example of having 1 page for the club: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leeds_United_A.F.C. and 1 page for the 'Newco' which purchased the club from the liquidated OldCo: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leeds_United_Football_Club_Limited allowing the 2nd article to give a more detailed account of why the Newco was set-up & the insolvency of the OldCo. Ricky072 (talk) 19:14, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sevco Scotland Ltd. did not purchase Rangers FC (IA), it purchased some of the assets of Rangers FC (IA) from the administrators of the club, prior to the club entering into liquidation. WeeJimmyFaeGorgie (talk) 16:26, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: nothing has changed since the last time, except several more noisy WP:SPAs have arrived from Rangers web forums. There is no WP:CRYSTAL, WP:SYNTH and WP:NOR in this article at all because it's adequately sourced. Editors have had the opportunity to make specific objections to content but have tended towards generalised WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Apparent WP:FORUMSHOP and a failure to notify interested editors here and at a unilateral ANI is also disappointing. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 19:20, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could elaborate on just who you are accusing of being a WP:SPA? I think pointers to this dicussion have been posted to all the active ongoing discussions. I've nailed all I'm aware of ... but if some have been missed, perhaps you could contribute by adding? I'm not aware of this other AFD you are referring to. Nfitz (talk) 19:27, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm being accused of being a WP:SPA, then I'm sorry to disappoint, I've never posted on a Rangers forum, and I have edited a few pages on wikipedia over the years. Not many, but then I do have an incredibly busy academic career to get on with. I'm merely interested in accuracy. Digitalantichrist (talk) 19:36, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - until the request for comment that Andrew is doing is finished. While I think the conclusion of that debate will be that it should either be moved to Liquidation of Rangers, or just merged with the original article. I think we should wait until after that debate as an AfD is not an appropriate way to gauge community consensus on this issue. Escpecially considering there has already been one which resulted in keeping the article. Adam4267 (talk) 19:22, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of any active AfD. I don't see any point delaying a process that is in place, for a future process that may, or may not occur. If he wanted to do an RFC he should have done one. And if that is your position, surely your vote should be "No Consensus" or something rather than "Keep". Nfitz (talk) 19:27, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wait ... this old AfD is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Rangers Football Club Ltd. That article was then moved to this one. That article appears to have been about a company, not a team ... and not a team with all of the Rangers F.C. players ... not really comparable. If you look at what is was then, it was a very different beast. Nfitz (talk)

Oppose deletion. There is no doubt that Newco Rangers is a company, owns Ibrox, Murrayfield, some of the players, and the club logo and name. It is a very notable company with 327,000 Google results for "rangers newco" and a further 264,000 Google results for "newco rangers". It therefore reaches the Wikipedia notability criterion so the article should not be deleted. Whether Newco Rangers is or isn't the same club as Rangers FC is therefore a non sequitur.--Dingowasher (talk) 19:46, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's entirely relevant, as at the moment, the page is about a Football club named Newco Rangers. If the page was about a company that owned the club, that would be different. But the page starts off "Newco Rangers is the common name being used to describe the new football club formed to replace Rangers F.C.". It's written in the style of a football club page, not a business page. Look at the page categories. You can't claim that this page should be deleted because the company exists, when the page, in it's current form or name, isn't about the company. Nfitz (talk) 19:53, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect. If there should be an article about Sevco on its own is open to debate, as their only notability is as the new owner of Rangers. I would argue it should be merged within the relevant history of Rangers football club as per other takeovers of other teams. I'm also a West Ham fan, if that somehow mysteriously makes my viewpoint any more valid because I'm not "Rangers" presumably. Koncorde (talk) 20:03, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect Sorry guys as I'm new to all this stuff, however I believe this page would be about the story of the new company i.e. "Servco 5088 Ltd" (might even be "RFC 2012 Ltd" by now), that is operating RFC. The RFC should be returned to present tense however to facilitate neutral browsers of active football teams. Cheers S2mhunter (talk) 20:14, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia articles refer to the clubs not the companies behind them. The football club still exists even if a new, an old or no company operates it. This case is just a part of Rangers history. Isksin (talk) 20:39, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- The company 'behind' Rangers FC (IA) was called Wavetower. Rangers FC (IA) is the club which is being liquidated, which is why it is no longer an active football club. WeeJimmyFaeGorgie (talk) 12:38, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. My stance is that of several others, that the club still exists, and that the newco relates to the new company which operates the club. In Celtic's own statement on their vote they describe their decision as being against readmission, suggesting continuity. Digitalantichrist (talk) 20:48, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Clavdia chauchat. I don't know how the topic has done anything but become more notable since it was last nominated for deletion. --BDD (talk) 21:21, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It also seems some editors are mainly unhappy with the current title, in which case WP:RM is the place to go. --BDD (talk) 21:22, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Oppose deletion - I googled: "the new club" rangers, and got a large number of matches from mainstream news and sports websites. This new club needs a home and "Rangers newco" is the term being used by the Scottish media. Zimmer79 (talk) 21:49, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The NewCo Rangers team, the subject of this article, were accepted to Division 3 on 13 July 2012, and as such there is no reason why this article should be deleted. It's furthermore important to note that a deletion attempt was rejected only a few weeks ago. doktorb _words^deeds 22:02, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Yet the SFL statement clearly says Rangers F.C will play in the Third Division. Its the same club, different company. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:31, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wait for Request for Comment i am just putting the final touches to the request for comment i have been making that will be to do with all rangers related articles and will provide sources for both sides of the arguments and hopefully comments form users, this should hopefully get a consensus then we know if this article should stay or not but there is too much POV pushing on both sides--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 22:18, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect So what happens to people searching for a comprehensive story of the history of Rangers FC? There is a team called Rangers FC who still play in the SFL, when others search for such a team, what search in Wikipedia do you expect them to type? S2mhunter (talk) 22:22, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete/merge with Rangers F.C It is very clear that this is the same football club , just a different company. The old company was so relevant to the main article it did not even say when it was founded on the page. So there should be just one article, alternatively this second page should become a general article about the crisis / Administration, liquidation, new company etc. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:28, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is not at all clear that they are the same football club. They are both in existence right now. Rangers FC, in its roll as a football club, was able to vote for Newco Rangers, as a separate football club, to become a member of the SPL. This is only possible as they are separate clubs.--Dingowasher (talk) 22:59, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thats not entirely true. Charles green purchased the club but cannot purchase a licence belonging to a different company not club. He had to apply to have that licence transferred into his company that now own Rangers. The old company can vote because its there licence. As was in their rights the SPL refused to transfer it. Newco Rangers is not a football club, it cannot register players or play matches as the licence does not belong to them. So trying to make out they are is totally incorrect and full of pov. The only way to handle is one article that fully explains and does not leave us open to wide accusations of bias. Two articles both say different things and neither are accurate. we are not a forum for views or pov we are Wikipedia and Encyclopedia.Edinburgh Wanderer 00:51, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Green purchased the assets of the now defunct club, not the club itself. If he wanted to purchase the club, he would have had to have gotten control of the shares from Craig Whyte. WeeJimmyFaeGorgie (talk) 16:22, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The point of the discussion is that Rangers FC were allowed a vote regarding another organisation (Sevco Scotland), regarding what league said organisation will be playing in next season. How can anyone think that it is not a new club when there are facts as clear as this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andevaesen (talk • contribs) 06:29, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

merge and redirect to Rangers F.C. We have a major situation where this article is full of pov and bias. This cannot be sorted as long as two articles exist, at the moment although they are regarded as newco Rangers which means new company Rangers. The history has been allowed to transfer there is precident for clubs having the same article as a continuation. They will always be commonly known as Rangers, they wear they same strips, use the same crest, same players and same stadium how do you differentiate the two. The correct way to handle was one article with a sub article details the process of ranger in administration and liquidation. The whole pov mess can be sorted now, however if we go on we will always have an article full of pov and non neutral.Edinburgh Wanderer 00:31, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose deletion They may share a name but this is not the same organization as the old Rangers. The old club is no more. Merging this with the old Rangers would be like merging Winnipeg Jets with Winnipeg Jets (1972–96). --Kevin W./Talk•CFB uniforms/Talk 01:58, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Awful comparison. The US franchise system works differently and you know that. The Winnipeg Jets are the former Atlanta Thrashers franchise relocated. Specifically as part of the transfer process the historic elements of a club transferred to the Phoenix Coyotes, while the new Winnipeg retain the history of Atlanta. This is MK Dons territory, not anything to do with Rangers. Koncorde (talk) 09:43, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that while they may share a name, they're clearly two separate entities. That holds true for Rangers as well. --Kevin W./Talk•CFB uniforms/Talk 01:43, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But in Rangers case they are not two separate entities distanced by 15 years and two defunct franchise names. They are a club that has been bought out wholesale and re-admitted to the football league albeit in a different division. Koncorde (talk) 17:24, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not simply that the team was bought out and re-admitted to a different division. The old Rangers are no more. They are two separate organizations. Merely having the same name and owning the old club's assets does not make them the same club. The old Rangers are no more. --Kevin W./Talk•CFB uniforms/Talk 03:00, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Facts are facts. This is a different club. It has been treated so by the SFL, SPL, SFA, the press at large and fans and officials of every single other club in Scotland, as well as it's own ex-players. The majority of people who want it deleted are massively biased towards the articles removal - And we all know that wikipedia is meant to be WITHOUT bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.109.92.139 (talk) 05:58, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The vast majority of editors suggesting it being kept are not bias at all? And how what evidence do you have towards your allegation? Koncorde (talk) 09:43, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Rangers F.C., add new page for current dealings. Leaving aside all issues of notability and the finer details of whether this is a new club, people who looking for the Rangers page will expect all this information there, and people looking for Newco will expect the information on Rangers as well. Merge with Rangers, possibly with a section link to a page on the recent financial troubles. --Quadalpha (talk) 07:25, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's Important to Recognise the Difference Between a 'Newco' & a 'Phoenix Club' - i notice some users who are argueing 'keep' citing phoenix sports clubs as precedent. It's important to recognise the difference between a phoenix club & a newco. What is a 'phoenix club'? A phoenix club is when the original club is wound up, and supporters groups create an entirely new club from scratch, without purchasing any assets from the old club/company. In football, this requires the new club to have a different name, and a different badge (as they dont own any intellectual property from the old club). Examples: Chester City was wound up, fans created Chester FC. Halifax Town AFC were wound up, fans created FC Halifax Town. So when have clubs gone down the NewCo route yet retained continuity? Luton Town, Leeds United, Rotherham United F.C, AFC Bournemouth, Charlton Athletic FC, Middlesborough F.C. These are all examples of football clubs who have had companies liquidate or dissolve (which anyone is free to check by searching for them on companies house), and the business purchased by a NewCo. This purchase is inclusive of history & other intellectual property such as the clubs name, badge & crests. Examples outside the UK include S.S.C. Napoli & ACF Fiorentina. The most important aspect here is consistency within Wikipedia. Looking at the precedents here, are Rangers F.C a 'phoenix club' such as Halifax or a 'Newco' such as Leeds? From the facts, we can see that the Old company is being placed into liquidation, with the new company purchasing the business, inclusive of the name, history & crests/badge. The precedent to follow then, is that of Leeds & the other NewCo's cited above Ricky072 (talk) 07:31, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion. The football club is a company/business, this is quite simply a new one34834y3843 (talk) 09:00, 14 July 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Wikipedia:There is no deadline - Keep and Wait until the SFA has accepted the new entity - things should become a little clearer then. Pretty Green (talk) 09:04, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. I am terribly sorry to all of you mergers and deleters but the basic plain fact is that when a company goes into liquidation it no longer exists. Irrespective of the size of Rangers F.C., it no longer exists even on paper. It's records, trophies and history ended when the club folded. That is the painful truth. Just because it is a huge entity supported by many people does not preclude it from "continuing". The clock has been reset to zero!! I can only speak for myself but when Chester City F.C. was wound up in 2010 it became Chester F.C. on Wikipedia. There was no hoo har or furore like the one going on over Rangers. It happened, what was 100-year-old Chester had gone, it was now being superceded by another club called Chester. The king is dead, long live the king!! Sorry but my logic trumps all this WP:CoMMonName and other obfuscation like Wiki lawyering. Rangers FC has gone forever unless some very benevolent person wants to pay the debts of £134m owed to its creditors (and then by all means it would come back). I write this as a neutral solely on the grounds that I like to see parity on Wikipedia. Just because a big club goes bust makes it situation any more "special" than a small one. This article is about the successor club, business, and what it does on the pitch. Nothing more, nothing less. This has discussion has to be about the Prima facie facts not the emotions of seeing you're best team going down a certain creek without a paddle. Blame Craig Whyte for that, not Wikipedia!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.150.239.204 (talk) 09:11, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chester was an entirely different situation. As Ricky has explained the difference between a Phoenix Club and otherwise. Chester FC in their own history (on their own website) even differentiate between the two clubs. [2] Koncorde (talk) 09:50, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes like i explained above, there are clear difference between Chesters phoenix club, and say, Leeds, who were continued with a newco asset purchase. Wikipedia creates new articles for phoenix clubs, but clubs purchased via the newco route live on under the operation of the newcompany, and is documented y Wikipedia in a single page. Ricky072 (talk) 13:18, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Sorry but the club that is going to play next year is a new club, the old one is in Administration soon to be liquidated at which point it will no longer exist. Old rangers and New Rangers are two different entities. Those advocating deletion appear to be doing it in away that is contrary to the Wikipedia policy Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. There is a case to move the current Rangers F.C. article to Rangers F.C. (1872 - 2012) and then move this article to Rangers F.C. but that is outside the scope of AfD. On a side note as the nomination fails to advance an argument for deletion this should be closed under item 1 of Wikipedia:Speedy keep. VER Tott 09:46, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not document football clubs as companies. If it did, you would be correct, like the motorcycle brand Triumph, its documented in Wikipedia as 2 different companies. Wikipedia documents football clubs as clubs, not companies. Therfore Leeds United, Luton town, charlton (to name a few) woudl all have multiple Wikipedia entries. Ricky072 (talk) 13:18, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And please explain why Rangers F.C. does not mention once when the initial company was incorporated. It only mentions the founding of the club, that is because it is an article about a club, not a company. And that club continues to exist today, under the ownership of a new company. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:44, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete/merge Most editors agree that this page was created too rashly seeing as consensus hadn't even been reached on the Rangers FC page. Should be following Wikipedia precedent with Newco clubs and have the one page. Two pages claiming to be the same club makes no sense. BadSynergy (talk) 11:38, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would make much more sens to follow the precedent of Airdrieonians F.C. and Airdrie United F.C.. Those two are not the same club, and neither are Rangers FC (IA) and Sevco Scotland Ltd. WeeJimmyFaeGorgie (talk) 16:29, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Any information should just be at Rangers F.C.. No need for a separate article on the continuation of the same club. Number 5 7 11:42, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ranges Newco and Rangers are not the same club, the Rangers that were founded in 1872 are DEAD. They don't exist any more. Unreal7 (talk) 13:33, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - Totally redundant. The club is the same, a new company bought it because the old has entered liquidation. So what... Business language about new companies etc has nothing to do with the essence of the club which remains the same. 94.65.51.241 (talk) 13:40, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rangers FC (IA) are being liquidated, and are no longer an active football club. Sevco Scotland Ltd. are a new football club. There is no dubiety here, those are the simple facts of the matter. WeeJimmyFaeGorgie (talk) 16:32, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename - the league appears to be treating this as an entirely new entity. That said it should be moved to Rangers F.C. with the old team moved to a name with an appropriate historical modifier. Gateman1997 (talk) 19:56, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This could have been sorted out in the original AfD, where if you strip out contributions from people fond of different parts of Glasgow, there was a strong case to convert the then-infant article into Liquidation of Rangers F.C.
The business itself is non-notable, and this article is unquestionably about what is believed to be a new club. Given that the status quo was that Rangers F.C. covered the football club based at Ibrox, the onus is on keepers to demonstrate that this is not only a new business (that is an undeniable fact), but also a new club. They have failed to convince me of the latter after a reasonable period of time, and therefore the previous status quo should be restored. An article such as Liquidation of Rangers F.C. would still help though. —WFC— 20:06, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Surely it's up to the SFA. If they accept them as a new club, then they are a new club. If they accept them as the old club demoted to Division Three, then it's a new club. Undoubtedly, Newco Rangers have purhcased many of the assets of the old club. My mark would be whether a continuous registration is maintained, or whether a new registration is required. Pretty Green (talk) 21:35, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(If I've understood your point correctly, I think you've made a mistake in your third sentence).

I agree that how the SFA handles this would be an implicit indication of whether it's one or two clubs. I also agree that the SFA are the lead that the media etc would probably follow. But up until now most of the discussions have been about the transfer of registration, and most of the media reports I've seen have talked about Rangers' demotion to division three. As of yet, there isn't a concrete basis for calling the team Ally McCoist now manages a new club, other than that it is a new business.

Also a factor in my gut instinct to delete is that deleting for now and restoring if appropriate, combined with the full protection of Rangers F.C., would help cool this issue down a bit while we work out what's going on. I think that would be good for Wikipedia as a whole. —WFC— 23:06, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and restore if nessecary I agree with WFC's comment. This seems to be the best course of action for this hotly contested topic. Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 23:12, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

since this debate is still going on and people can not wait for the request for comment i am finalising just now i thought i would post the source si been collecting for both sides of the argument, have a look through it shows why there a problem wikipeida bases things on 3rd party reliable sources and the sources are contradicting each other, it should be 1 article until it is known but both sides are correct. review them at your own pleasure i have quote the bits from the article that are signification.--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 23:23, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete and a new article should be created to detail the administration and liquidation of the Plc.Monkeymanman (talk) 23:42, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Why wouldn't the liquidation of Rangers FC (IA) not be dealt with on the page of the now defunct club? WeeJimmyFaeGorgie (talk) 12:41, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. This is a editorial issue, and consensus must be found regarding how to handle the whole thing before to push for AfDs. A RfC makes way more sense here. --Angelo (talk) 00:25, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Several editors are have proposed a merge and/pr redirect, so the article can be "handled". Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 00:29, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then, you should probably request to close this AfD. This discussion is located under the "Articles for deletion" space, so it is supposed to be a debate over the deletion of the article itself, not a merely editorial choice to merge it / redirect to another page (a issue that would better be addressed in the article's own talkpage). --Angelo (talk) 00:46, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But, there is still enough consensus within the editors that the article should be deleted. I am still being wary. Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 00:56, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've counted 14 comments in favour of keeping it, and 7 to 10 in favour of merging and/or redirecting it, whereas only 7 to 9 for a plain deletion. With the number and the heated debate all around, and considering I am an admin myself, I honestly doubt a deletion would ever pass. I'd personally focus to solve this problem from a editorial point of view instead (cleaning up and/or merging the article content) rather than keeping the Pandora's box open. The issue is quite sensitive, and that's definitely clear, and proposing the whole article for deletion is not really a solution as far as I can see. --Angelo (talk) 01:10, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Numbers mean something, but not as much as strength of argument. In the interests of helping to clear up the situation on both fronts, I challenge you (or anyone else) to find a single merge or redirect rationale which is suggesting that we should have separate articles for an old and new Rangers. If you decline to do so, I can only assume that you are conceding that a merge or redirect rationale is an argument for a single article on Rangers. —WFC— 17:08, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - the media consistently refer to the club as ether 'Newco Rangers' or 'Rangers Newco' to distinguish it from the former Rangers club. In the vote for the membership of the SPL the old Rangers had a vote, cast by the administrators, as to whether Sevco Scotland, trading as Rangers, should be admitted to the SPL whereas the new club had no vote. This is crystal clear evidence that they are considered separate clubs by the football authorities. TerriersFan (talk) 03:16, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The media clearly differentiates between "old" Rangers and the new company, which is incredibly notable. No opinion on how the old club should be accounted for, that should be decided by talk page discussion; but deleting the newco article is not appropriate.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:41, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wait (and Comment) - wikipedia should so with how it is viewed by the league itself. If it becomes viewed as different, then have two articles - If not, then have one. So wait for the moment to find out how this is going to be recorded (as can be seen in the sources section, currently there is no clear indication yet) 188.221.79.22 (talk) 14:13, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge; the current way with speaking of Rangers on the main article in the past tense and having a seperate article for the club as it currently stands is just madness. Clearly they're talking about the same thing, the current mess surrounding the club is irrelevant to making two seperate topics (though a seperate article about Rangers' current misfortunes could be a good idea). As a neutral I have to suspect this is all the work of a bit of schadenfreude on the part of those Scottish football fans who don't much care for Rangers.--219.160.148.118 (talk) 12:01, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Liquidation of Rangers F.C. - I've been watching this saga for a while now and in my opinion it's pretty clear that this "Newco" is not a new club nor a "Phoenix Club", but rather a continuation of the existing club but with new owners and financial structure. A comparable example would be Bristol City F.C., who declared themselves bankrupt in 1982, then subsequently reformed as a new company but as a continuation of the club - the fact that this is the same club has never been questioned, although it's a great source of amusement to us Gasheads! After looking at the club's official website, it's also worth noting that the club don't regard themselves as a new entity - an official statement reads "HMRC has taken the view that the public interest will be better served with the liquidation of The Rangers Football Club plc as a corporate entity. The Club will continue to operate as it has always done but within a new company structure".[3] Naturally, that amount of media exposure makes a very notable subject so a deletion wouldn't be appropriate, rather a renaming and reworking of the article. ★ Bald Zebra ★ ^talk 14:36, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- If you look at their website, it also states that the club is the company which is being liquidated. http://www.rangers.co.uk/clubHistory/article/2495830 for example. "as Rangers formally became a business company". It seems quite clear to me that it states that Rangers FC (IA) is the plc, that which is now being liquidated. WeeJimmyFaeGorgie (talk) 12:44, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the previous deletion discussion, this is coming back up too soon. Will support a move to Liquidation of Rangers F.C. Mentoz86 (talk) 16:13, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
CommentIn this interview[4] with Neil Doncaster he is asked why the SPL will help a club that isn't a member of the SPL to facilitate its entry into Division three. He states that it is an existing club if not a new company. Just over 40 seconds in.Edinburgh Wanderer 21:52, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Comment The exact phrase from the above mentioned interview ith Neil Doncaster on why the SPL are facilitating the transfer of Rangers from the SPL to the SFL: ".. it is an existing club, even though it's a new company". An existing club. Digitalantichrist (talk) 22:12, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know i listened to that at least three times. Main point is he says its the same club.Edinburgh Wanderer (talk) 22:48, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I completely agree with you. Digitalantichrist (talk) 09:45, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CommentCould be resolution by the 28th of July as that is deadline Charles Green has on whether to accept oldco's responsibilities in exchange for a transfer of membership. If refused Green will have to apply for a brand new membership. SFA membership. BadSynergy (talk) 21:25, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This article is hilarious. The Rangers as a club still exist (everything is the same except for the ownership) but some people here decided to approach Rangers' article differently (as a company and a registration number) compared to articles of other well known or not very popular clubs. Fortunately, real life is

something different from wikipedia. Sthenel (talk) 20:02, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Scottish Premier League clubs meet on Monday to discuss reaction to the decision to place the Rangers newco in the Third Division after warnings that up to five of them could follow the Ibrox club into administration.". [5]. One of numerous sources that makes it clear that 'Rangers newco' refers to the club not the company. TerriersFan (talk) 21:55, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete The SFA's intentions to give out sanctions based on 'oldco' clearly indicates Rangers are being looked at as the exact same club. Sparhelda 20:29, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

The sanctions apply to the SFA membership, and by extension, to whichever club holds it at that time. It has absolutely nothing to do with the SFA viewing Rangers FC (IA) and Sevco Scotland Ltd. as the same club. I could set up a club today and apply for the membership. My new club would be subject to whatever sanctions were applied to the club which previously held that membership, it does not mean, or even imply, that my new club would be the club which previously held the membership. WeeJimmyFaeGorgie (talk) 12:26, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but new clubs do not take on sanctions relating to crimes of another totally different club, no such a thing is heard of. Sparhelda 15:08, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

The sanction would apply to whichever new club wanted to take on the membership of the old one. The sanctions apply to the membership, not the club. If the membership was subsequently transferred to another club, that club would have to accept the sanctions of the membership. It means nothing in terms of being a new club or not. Any club can apply for this membership, and they would have to operate under the conditions attached to it. WeeJimmyFaeGorgie (talk) 16:18, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The transfer ban was given to Rangers Football Club, not Rangers' SFA membership. The EBT investigation is about Rangers Football Club's activities, not Rangers' SFA membership's activities. Again I ask, where the precedent for a totally new club taking on punishments of a totally different one? Sparhelda 16:50, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

The transfer ban was issued to Rangers FC (IA), and any club which wishes to take on its membership will have to take on any sanctions which were applied to the previous holder of that membership. As I've said, if any new club wishes to apply for the transference of that particular membership, then they will have to accept whatever sanctions were recorded against the club which previously held that membership. As far as I am aware, no club has ever previously asked to be transferred a membership which has any sanctions attached to it from the previous owner, so there could be no precedent. WeeJimmyFaeGorgie (talk) 17:16, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a new club, formed from the assets of a now defunct club. I have absolutely no idea why this is even being discussed, it's a relatively straightforward matter. WeeJimmyFaeGorgie (talk) 12:28, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources vary on the issue, other liquidation and newco senarios have clubs remaining as the same in one article, it's a very valid discussion. Sparhelda 15:10, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, the most recent precedent for this in Scottish football would be Gretna F.C.. Again, I'm not seeing what exactly any confusion is caused by. Rangers FC (IA) was the club which is being liquidated. If someone wants to buy their assets and do something else with them, then fine, but buying assets does not make you the previous owner of those assets. WeeJimmyFaeGorgie (talk) 16:15, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For one thing Gretna never went through any sale, the fans just created a new team and did not enter the SFL. HMRC, Duff and Phelps treated it as the club being sold, and similar things have gone on with clubs such as Leeds United F.C, Middlesbrough F.C., Bristol City F.C., ACF Fiorentina. Point is liquidation does not automatically mean the club is gone, as other clubs have failed to exit financial problems through a CVA, so it is NOT a clear cut issue. Sparhelda 16:26, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not getting the relevance of gaining entry into the SFL? Would you be so kind as to elucidate? The systems of foreign authorities have no bearing on the system used in Scotland. I'm dealing with precedent in the Scottish setup. You are correct, Gretna were liquidated, in much the same way as Rangers FC (IA) are being currently. What happens to their assets is irrelevant. The assets of the now defunct Airdrieonians were bought by Mr Ballantyne to set up his new club, Airdrie FC, a situation which almost perfectly mirrors that of Rangers FC (IA) and Sevco Scotland Ltd. WeeJimmyFaeGorgie (talk) 16:39, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Point I was making is Gretna 2008 was an amateur team formed by the fans. They didn't purchase any assets, apply to take Gretna's SFA membership or the SFL spot, have any of their players and coaching staff remain etc. Worth noting Airdrie never got to take Old Airdrie's membership even though they tried, they took over Clydebank eventually. Fiorentina you could argue isn't relevant, but other UK clubs hardly count as 'foreign', we aren't independant yet! Sparhelda 16:50, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Buying assets, the level the club played at, SFA membership, leagues applied to are all irrelevant to the fact of Sevco Scotland Ltd. having absolutely no relation to Rangers FC (IA) as a club. Purchasing assets does not make you the previous owner of the assets. Applying for a league does not make you another club. Applying for an SFA membership does not make the applicant the previous owner of the membership. 'Foreign', in this instance, would refer to any clubs outwith the jurisdiction of the SFA. WeeJimmyFaeGorgie (talk) 16:58, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wee Jimmy, i've given a clear explanation above detailing the difference between a 'Newco' asset purchase such as Leeds or Luton Town, and a 'phoneix club' such as Gretna or Halifax. Hopefuly this is a clear explanation why precedent for Rangers would be, say Leeds, rather than Gretna. Ricky072 (talk) 16:38, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I am aware, although I may be wrong, Leeds have never played in Scotland. I'm using examples from the Scottish game, such as Gretna, Airdrie etc. as those would provide the precedent. What happens in other leagues under the jurisdiction of foreign national associations would be a matter for them. WeeJimmyFaeGorgie (talk) 16:41, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Surely the closest situations to what actually happened in this case is slightly more important than which governing authority of the thing happened in? The example of Gretna is nothing like what happened in this case. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:57, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. The most important thing is to look at previous cases, under the auspices of the same governing body as Rangers FC (IA) were, to see how it should be dealt with. The example of Gretna is quite similar. Gretna FC went bust, like Rangers FC (IA) are, someone set up a new club with a slightly similar name, as Charles Green claims he intends to do with Sevco Scotland Ltd. It's really quite similar. WeeJimmyFaeGorgie (talk) 17:02, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I fully accept that there are difference between English cases & Scottish ones. This debate hs 2 sides to it, the legal implications of a new company, and secondly, how the footballing authorities deal with it. From a legal perspective it's almost identical to what happened at Leeds, so therefore there is no reason to discard that as precedent. The Scottish Footballing Authorities are another matter however. Leeds were granted permission to transfer their share in the FA & EFL (at the cost of 15 point deduction), while the SPL put it to a vote & the SFA yet to make a decision. So i fully accept there are difference in regards to how footballing authorites deal with the process of liquidation/newco. Gretna should never be a precedent however, they did not undergo the lqiuidation/newco process, making the situation fundamentally different, they are a new club with a new 'club name' and new badge, there is no legal link between the Old club & the new one. It's like compairing Halifax to Leeds. Surely anyone can see the difference between a NewCo purchasing all of the assets which make up a club (including the name, badge, goodwill & other intellectual property) and transfering them to a new legal entity, compared with starting again entirely from scratch with a enw club name & badge.Ricky072 (talk) 17:09, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From a legal perspective in Scotland, which does still have its own legal system completely independent of that of England and Wales, what happened at Leeds is of much less importance than whhat happened at say, Gretna, or Airdie, or indeed Third Lanark. Purchasing assets makes absolutely no difference in terms of whether the purchaser is a new club or not. Were, for example, Tesco to have purchased Ibrox, I doubt anyone would be claiming that Tesco were in fact Rangers FC (IA). WeeJimmyFaeGorgie (talk) 17:21, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In that case perhaps you can tell us the legal differences between the liquidation process in England and Scotland, and why it makes Rangers a different scenario than Leeds. What the Newco purchased was in fact "the business, history & assets" from the old company. Infact hey purchased everything that makes up a football club. That includes intellectual property such as the club name, (allowing thm to continue to be called & recognised as 'Rangers F.C'. It also included the badges, crests and all other intellectual property of the brand. This process is nothing new in football, clubs dont even need to be insolvent to move all the asstes out of 1 company and into another, this would merely be a straight forward corporate restructure. In the case of Gretna, the asstes & business that made up the club was not sold, and therefore dissolved with the old company. Hence why the new club name is "Gretna FC 2008" and they redesigend the badge. Ricky072 (talk) 17:28, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the absolutely nonsensical idea that history is an asset which can be traded, as I have stated, buying assets is meaningless. Someone bought the old Woolworths domain name, they are not Woolworths, someone bought some of the old Woolworths shops and set up pound shops in them, they are not Woolworths, buying assets does not make you the previous owner of the assets. You are correct, anyone could buy assets from Rangers FC (IA). Some clubs bought players, it does not make the buying club Rangers FC (IA). Some people bought pies from Rangers FC (IA), it does not mean that the individual purchaser of the pie is Rangers FC (IA), in actual fact, buying any asset of the club, does not make you the club. This is rather simple. The club was the company which is being liquidated, and nothing else changes that. The only way for Rangers FC (IA) to have transferred to a new owner would have been for the purchaser to complete the purchase of the club from Craig Whyte, by virtue of buying his shares. WeeJimmyFaeGorgie (talk) 17:37, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Whyte's shares were bought by Charles Green, albeit for the token sum of £2. "Green has purchased Craig Whyte's 85% shareholding in Rangers, joking that he paid £2 to give the former chairman "a 100% profit"" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.45.215.177 (talk) 19:53, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When did Charles Green acquire Mr Whytes shares? The last I heard, that offer was dependent upon a CVA being successful. the failure to achieve such being what precipitated the death of Rangers FC (IA). WeeJimmyFaeGorgie (talk) 23:33, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that Green's offer to buy the shares relied on the acceptance of the CVA. Indeed, Green's offer of an £8.3 million loan to Rangers PLC was dependent upon the CVA being accepted. If a CVA was not accepted by the creditors then Green's offer states that he would purchase the business and assets of Rangers for £5.5 million and completion would have to occur by the 30th of July. In Duff and Phelps 29th May statement: "In the event that either this CVA is not approved, or the other Conditions of the loan are not satisfied or waived by 23 July 2012, Sevco is contractually obliged to purchase the business and assets of the Company for £5,500,000 by 30 July 2012. All further terms of that sale have been agreed in advance and are confidential." Duff and Phelps stated that they continued to run Rangers as 'a going concern', and they point out that sale of Rangers as a 'going concern' is preferable to the liquidation of the company, but second to the CVA settlement. The 'old' company has not yet been liquidated - it is in the process of liquidation. In Duff and Phelps 29th May statement they announced that "From 6 June 2012, Charles Green will be appointed to assist in the day-to-day management of the business of the Company (at no cost to the Company or the Joint Administrators), in order to manage the ongoing trading costs of the Company and allow for a smooth transition in ownership". The same statement lays out the various payment options under the three conditions - CVA, New Company and Liquidation. In the case of liquidation there is an offer of £4,590,214 for the Freehold property - no offer is made on other assets. At the moment the deal struck with Green is the New Company deal, where the business, assets, "intellectual property, player contracts, goodwill and stock" have been purchased and completion must be made by the 31st of July. The stance of the SFA has been that in order for Rangers to be considered a continuation - they are as yet seemingly unsure - then the history of the club ahs to be accepted, which includes the disciplinary history... so, it's all up to Green now. If the newco accept the punishments of the oldco, then it's the same club. If not, then they're a new club. A side note. I've found this website to be enormously entertaining and informative: http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2012/06/17/why-rangers-fc-continues-even-in-newco-and-why-this-is-no-use-to-ceo-green/ 84.45.215.177 (talk) 09:22, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If someone purchased all the assets that mad eup woolworths, including the shops, stock, the name, logo & goodwill they could continue to trade as 'Woolworths' and the chain would continue on as before, under the new ownership. It's common practice in business, many big brands have been baught-out in this manner as the old company is liquidated and the new compnay carries on. It's common practice. Your arguement is fundamentally flawed as it means the business & assets which form a club can never be moved out of the old company and into a new company, without creating an entirely new club. This simply isnt the case and the footballing associations allow for such procedures. Ken Bates purchased the business & assets which formed Leeds united and moved them into a Newco. The OldCo was liquidated. The club continued on under the new corporate entity, but it's recognised as the same club, has it's history intact, and is documented within a single page on Wikipedia. Now if your theory was correct that buying assets was meaningless, then this would not be possible and Leeds United would have died in 2007, with a new club forming in 2007. Ricky072 (talk) 17:53, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The purchaser of the assets can do whatever they like with the assets they've bought, including having their new company trade as Woolworths. They're still not Woolworths. Assets are moved from club to club all the time, they're called players. It doesn't generally involve setting up any new clubs/companies to facilitate the transfer of assets. I have no idea what the Football Association in England permits or disallows, I don't follow foreign football, and this case is not any more within their jurisdiction than it is of the Football Association of Uzbekistan. There is no precedent in Scottish football for a club which has been liquidated to carry on in any way, shape, or form. Quite the reverse when we look at the examples of Gretna, Third Lanark and Airdrieonians, as high profile examples. WeeJimmyFaeGorgie (talk) 18:12, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I made this point elsewhere, but dimissing sanctions and debts in this dispute is surely madness? If the 'newco' are taking on sanctions and paying football debts formed by the 'oldco' then it puts across and incredibly strong case for it being the same club. The same example as I said elsewhere too, if someone get convicted and given a prison sentence, they cannot just make and agreement with some other person for them to take the jail time. If Rangers are unable to sign players and have money owed to other clubs then how can they seriously be called a new club? Sanction and debts to not belong to an 'SFA membership'. Sparhelda 18:10, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Can you name any other case of a new club attempting to gain hold of an SFA membership from a club which previously had sanctions attached to it? WeeJimmyFaeGorgie (talk) 18:13, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide any evidence to back up your opinions and theories? Ricky072 (talk) 18:19, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell me where it says the SFA membership is what has the sanctions and the debts? The way you're talking is as if Rangers weren't given the punishments and didn't owe the money to other clubs, the membership did... Sparhelda 18:26, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, a desperate POV arguement to fit an agenda. Ricky072 (talk) 18:29, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to NPOV on here? This talk page is downright hostile. "opinions and theories"? "The way you're talking"? Seriously? Look, the SFA board has the power to impose whatever conditions it wishes to to transfer a licence from one club to another. The potential transfer of membership has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not Rangers FC (IA) (SC004276) is the same club as Sevco Scotland Ltd. (SC425159). As things stand, right now, you allege that no one knows if this is a dead club, or a club which lives. Is this some sort of Schrödinger's Football Club which no-one knows is alive or dead? Rangers FC (IA) was the club which is now defunct, Sevco Scotland Ltd. is the new club which Charles Green is trying to put into place. How complicated is this? WeeJimmyFaeGorgie (talk) 23:24, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You'r right'weejimmy', it is very simple. A club is made up of assets and is owned by a company. Those assets which make up the club have now been sold to another company. Same club, under new ownership. No different from Charlton, Middlesborough, Napoli, Fiorentina, Bournemouth, Luton & rotehrham united. (Unless you can state why these cases are different?) Ricky072 (talk) 23:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why does a club have to be a company? Some are private members associations, some are publicly limited companies, some are private limited companies, some are charities, and lots are any manner of variance of these and more which there isn't time to mention. A club is not made up of assets, the club is the owner of assets, such as players, stadiums, pies, etc. Buying or selling pies, players, etc does not signify that the purchaser of those assets is the seller, merely that they have purchased the assets from the seller. Buying a pie, a player, or a stadium from Rangers FC (IA) does not make you Rangers FC (IA). Unless I'm mistaken, none of the clubs you have mentioned are based in Scotland, play in Scotland, or indeed have ever been under the jurisdiction of the SFA. Why don't you look into the cases of Gretna FC, Third Lanark, Airdrieonians, and the numerous other clubs which have gone bust and ceased to be football clubs. WeeJimmyFaeGorgie (talk) 23:40, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So Wee Jimmy, Rangers Football Club never had those punishments or debts, just the SFA membership? If the club is totally dead all punishments (apart from past honours being revoked), debts etc should die totally with it, it's a total fantasy what you're suggesting. Unless you can show proof where anyone has said 'the SFA membership has been given a 1 year player registration ban' or 'the SFA membership owes £900k to Hearts in future transfer payments.' As for 'hostility', you've shown some yourself by claiming the debate isn't even worth having, and going by your username there's a very good chance you're showing plenty of POV yourself. No SPL club or it's fans is going to want to conceed Rangers being the same club due to resentment. Sparhelda 00:51, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

(SC004276) and (SC425159) are different companies, nobody is claiming they are the same company. The point is it is the same club. Please explain how the club existed BEFORE the company was incorporated if the two things are entirely the same? Also please explain why Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs said that liquidation of the company would not prevent the sale of the club? BritishWatcher (talk) 23:34, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Through the process of incorporation of the club. It's even listed in the clubs own history. "as Rangers formally became a business company" http://www.rangers.co.uk/clubHistory/article/2495830 "when the club became a limited liability company" http://www.rangers.co.uk/coaching-staff-profile/article/1555141 The club is the company which is being liquidated, even their own website says so. There's nothing stopping actually buying the club, as HMRC say, Di Stefano is trying got do so right now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WeeJimmyFaeGorgie (talk • contribs) 23:47, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Their own website says so". Who is the "their" that you refer to? That is the website of "newco rangers" rather than the football club founded in 1872 isnt it? or maybe just maybe.. its the same club, but a different company? BritishWatcher (talk) 00:07, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This opinion that a club becomes a company and can never be undone is increidbly bizarre. Are you saying it's not possible to move the club out of a company and into another 1 without creating an entriely new club? Did Charlton Athletic become an entirely new club in 1984 then? How do you explain clubs who have underwent this process of moving all the assets out of 1 compny, and into another, yet are recognised universally as the same club opearting under a new company? Ricky072 (talk) 00:01, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It's the same club, just under different ownership. Whyte sold his shares to Green, and Green's 'newco' stumped up almost £6 million for the club and its assets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.133.11.5 (talk) 20:53, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Whyte sold his shares to Green" I'm going to need a citation for that. Failure to acquire the shares from Mr Whyte would be the death of Rangers FC (IA). This is rather crucial. Failure to acquire the shares from Whyte would signify the death of the club. Citation is really needed here. WeeJimmyFaeGorgie (talk) 23:33, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in Scottish task force's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:45, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:45, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - [6] states "Sevco Scotland, which now owns Rangers' assets after the old club headed for liquidation, needs SFA membership. ... The SPL, which rejected the new club's application to stay in the top flight ..." The key points are "the old club headed for liquidation" and "the new club's application". Crystal clear that they are different clubs. TerriersFan (talk) 01:53, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's only crystal clear if you accept this news agency's interpretation of events, and as we've seen through the dozens of stories cited, the media's interpretation is muddled at best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.45.215.177 (talk) 12:12, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

Club liquidated or Club/Company are the same[edit]

[7] "June 14 - Charles Green completes purchase of Rangers assets and business following the club's liquidation, hours after a consortium led by former manager Walter Smith makes a late bid."

[8] "Both Steven and I and our agent fought hard with administrators during negotiations to insert clauses that offered protection to staff and players at the club. I am extremely proud of the actions we took but I am disappointed and angry that Rangers Football Club no longer exists in its original form."

[9] "Green needs seven other clubs as well as the soon-to-be liquidated Rangers to vote in his favour at a meeting next Wednesday and, unless there is a U-turn from at least one chairman, there will be no top-flight football at Ibrox next season." says club is liquidated

[10]"The decision means the troubled club will now be liquidated with prospective owner Charles Green hoping to confirm his newco which will be known as 'The Rangers Football Club'."

[11]"Rangers duo Naismith and Whittaker reject contract transfer to new company Whittaker remarked that: We owe no loyalty to the new club, there is no history there for us."

[12] " The consortium led by Charles Green believe the players' contracts should transfer from the old, soon-to-be liquidated Rangers. "

[13] "Meanwhile, manager Ally McCoist says Andy Little and Salim Kerkar have been offered new contracts at Rangers.

Both players' deals to the old Rangers expired this summer and McCoist hopes the pair will sign on with the relaunched Ibrox club."

[14] "Green's Sevco consortium bought Rangers' assets after the club was consigned to liquidation with debts that could reach £135million, mostly to the taxpayer."

[15] "The clauses were inserted amid speculation over the Glasgow pair moving to England or into a European league but they have proved costly after Rangers went into liquidation last month."

[16] "Charles Green's Sevco consortium had their application to replace the old liquidated Rangers in the Scottish Premier League rejected last week."

[17] "The demise of Rangers hasn’t quite sunk in yet, not if the Scottish media is to be believed - apparently it is they who are still going strong and Scottish football that is on life support.

The Glasgow giant ceased to exist as an entity several weeks ago, yet reading the columns of several Scottish newspapers and listening to the multitude of pundits on the TV and radio, one could be forgiven for thinking that Rangers are still alive and breathing."

[18] "Rangers, who are being relaunched by a new company after the former incarnation could not be saved from liquidation, had their application to replace the old Ibrox club in the Scottish Premier League formally rejected on Wednesday."

[19] "The issue of where to place Rangers originated when the club could not be saved from liquidation and was relaunched by a new company."

[20] "However, the club's recent liquidation has complicated the process, with the newco club having not yet registered as a member of the SFA. "

[21] "We owe no loyalty to the new club. There is no history there for us."

[22] "The club, which dates back to 1872, will now be wound up by liquidators BDO after a thorough investigation into its financial affairs over the past few years."

[23] "The issue of where to place Rangers originated when the club could not be saved from liquidation and was relaunched by a new company."

[24] "THE SPL have issued placement money to each club for last season – with the exception of soon-to-be-liquidated Rangers."

[25] "The SPL have issued the placement money each club is entitled to for last season – with the exception of soon-to-be-liquidated Rangers."

[26] "The Ibrox side went into administration in February after Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs lodged a petition over the non-payment of about £9 million PAYE and VAT since Craig Whyte's 2011 takeover. It later emerged the club's liabilities could total as much as £135 million. A CVA with creditors was later turned down by HMRC - consigning the club to liquidation."

Club not liquidated[edit]

[27] "Season ticket income looks vital if he's to avoid pitching the club back into administration. So Charles Green now has control of the assets, but faces hostility from his customers."

[28]This is a video you have to watch it to see what iti says

[29] "the club's assets have been transferred to a new company while Rangers Football Club plc is liquidated. "

[30] "specifically the section that states; ISSUE ONE: THE CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING WHETHER TUPE APPLY 2. It is now clearly established that, in order to decide whether TUPE apply to a particular transaction, it is necessary to ask two questions: 2.1 does the function which is being transferred constitute an economic entity? 2.2 will that entity retain its identity after the transfer? As TUPE has already been established to apply in the case of Rangers then they must have satisfied the courts already that they are the same economic entity as before and they have therefore retained their economic identity."

[31] "Q. After the liquidation/death of Rangers FC PLC and the creation of a brand new legal entity, when can/does the new company become a new club? A. As of yesterday, the new company operates the club. Of course, it does not yet have membership of either the SPL or SFL, which is an essential rquirement for any professional football club."

[32] "the history of the club remains with the club, so the club moves from Rangers Plc into the new company and all of the titles and 140-year history will remain with the club."

[33] "Rangers' parent company is being liquidated, meaning the new owners need to win the approval of seven other clubs in the 12-team SPL if they are to maintain their status."

[34] "The Edinburgh club are still owed £800,000 from Rangers for the player."

[35] "The issue is complicated by uncertainty over Scottish Football Association action, with an appeal hearing due against Rangers before Green bought the club's assets and business.'There are sanctions that could withdraw the club's ability to play,' Green said. 'Part of my job is to work through the issues and make sure we're playing football and we're playing football at Ibrox for many years to come.'"

[36] " And it stresses that either way, the sale goes on and Rangers, the team, does too."

[37] " This is a petition for judicial review by the Rangers Football Club plc, a company presently in administration. That company presently operates Rangers Football Club (to whom I shall refer as "Rangers"). Rangers are members of the Scottish Football Association ("the SFA"), and are bound by the Articles of the SFA and by the Judicial Panel Protocol which sets out the disciplinary rules relating to the conduct of members of the SFA and the conduct of disciplinary proceedings to enforce such rules. "

[38] "We are acutely aware that events at our club, brought about by people who are no longer here, have triggered a crisis in Scottish football," he said. "Ally McCoist, the staff and players have nothing to apologise for

"But the club needs to make an apology. It is only right that someone expresses our sorrow and regret."' if it is a new club they wouldn't apologise for a club they dnt own and wouldn't talk about people who are no longer there, also " the old company was consigned to liquidation "

[39] "Meanwhile, manager Ally McCoist says Andy Little and Salim Kerkar have been offered new contracts at Rangers.

Both players' deals to the old Rangers expired this summer and McCoist hopes the pair will sign on with the relaunched Ibrox club."

[40] "Rangers FC plc entered administration in February owing up to £134m to unsecured creditors. The company will eventually be liquidated and has been replaced by a new company run by Charles Green."

[41] "Irrespective of what’s decided by the two league bodies in the coming week, the Tribunal, having been handed the case back by the Court of Session on appeal from Rangers, must find an alternative to their original sanction of a one-year transfer ban.
The options likely to be considered are suspension and termination of membership.
Suspension leaves no avenue within the Scottish game for appeal – the only option left for Green would be to lobby the Court of Arbitration in Sport.

But termination of membership would allow newco Rangers an appeal to the SFA Board – who could arrive at a different determination again from either the Judicial Panel or the Appellate Tribunal."

[42] "The re-formed Ibrox club will now apply to play in the Scottish Football League but it remains unclear which division they will enter.

The company will eventually be liquidated and has been replaced by a new company run by Charles Green."

[43] "John Fleck has become the ninth player to object to his contract switching to the new Rangers, with midfielder Jamie Ness also agreeing a move elsewhere – although Kyle Hutton has become the third player to announce he will stay on at the stricken club.

The new Rangers are facing the prospect of being refused entry to the SPL and could be playing in Division One - or even starting over again in the Third Division - should they be forced to apply to the Scottish Football League."

[44] "Charles Green's consortium has since started the process of relaunching the club under the banner of a new company with Rangers FC plc heading for liquidation."

[45] "Rangers FC plc entered administration in February owing up to £134m to unsecured creditors. The company will eventually be liquidated and has been replaced by a new company."

[46] "Many supporters questioned Green’s reasons for buying the stricken club for £5.5million and some have backed consortiums fronted by Walter Smith and John Brown. But a stockbroker is now due to arrive from London next week to help the club launch a share issue."

[47] "The transfer of the SFA membership from soon-to-be-liquidated Rangers to Green's newco could take place at the same time as a decision is made over which league the club will play in."

[48] "However, in this case, the issue is muddied by Rangers FC plc being consigned to liquidation and the newco Rangers having not yet become members of the SFA."

[49] "Meanwhile, Rangers chief executive Charles Green said the 140-year-old club was "deeply disappointed" with the result of the vote and will be applying to join the Scottish Football League - and he will be hoping Regan's plea that they be allowed to join Division One doesn't fall on deaf ears.

'If our application were to be accepted, Rangers will play in whichever division the SFL sees fit and we will move forward from there,' said Green, who purchased the club's assets in a 5.5 million pound deal after Rangers went bankrupt in February. ...

Failure to secure agreement with tax authorities led to Green launching a takeover and establishing a new company."

[50] "The old Rangers is currently in administration and will be liquidated shortly. Charles Green transferred the assets to his newco Gers after buying the club for £5.5million.
Di Stefano wrote: “I’m aware the assets of the company were sold to Charles Green, but I have spoken with the registrar at Companies House that confirms The Rangers Football Club Plc is a company still ‘only in administration’ and is capable of acquisition, transfer and/or assignment."

[51] "The Light Blues have been at loggerheads with the governing body since their judicial panel imposed a year-long transfer ban because of the way previous owner Craig Whyte ran the club. ...

New Rangers owner Charles Green, has already admitted the club made a mistake turning to the courts and he is keen to defuse the situation and for his club to move forward."

[52] "A sweetener of £1m has already been negotiated as the TV companies see an appeal in the novelty of covering Ally McCoist’s new-look squad in a lower league for the first time in their 140-year history."

[53] "And the Teesside supremo insists he was watching the same club on both occasions despite being the man forced to put Boro into liquidation to form a new company as part of his 1986 rescue package.

That’s why Gibson has told Rangers fans the club’s 140-year history will live on despite would-be owner Charles Green set to go down the dreaded newco when a CVA is officially rejected at today’s meeting of creditors at Ibrox."

[54] "Doncaster admits to being “baffled” that in this country such a distinction is drawn between Rangers exiting administration through a company voluntary arrangement [CVA], as prospective new owner Charles Green will attempt in the coming weeks, and doing so by moving the assets to a new company [newco] as the old one sinks because of debt, as he probably will be forced to do to effect a successful purchase.
Doncaster simply does not accept that morality and sporting integrity are served very differently by throwing yourself at the mercy of your creditors, as in a CVA, or simply walking away from them, as in the newco route. A newco, he says, could raise more money for creditors than a CVA. He could give no examples where this had ever occurred in football. However, the SPL chief executive did provide examples from England, with the cases of Luton, Bournemouth and Rotherham, where clubs have failed to obtain a CVA, set up a newco, and retained their same league status, but with a points penalty – as will be one of the new financial fair play proposals clubs will have a third go at voting on come 30 May.

..."Whenever I speak to people about the distinction between a CVA and a newco what I keep being told is that it’s simply wrong that any club should be able to create a newco and shed debt. As if a CVA doesn’t lead to the shedding of debt. Administration is the protection the court gives you when you can’t pay your debts. There are two ways out of that; one is a newco, one is a CVA. Of the six administrations which have happened down south in recent years two went with a CVA and a newco, Palace and Plymouth, and there were four where there was no CVA and a newco.
“The distinction between the two is relatively fine. To draw such a huge distinction is just wrong. When Livingston were relegated to Division Three did they cease to exist and start again? Of course they didn’t. Leeds are the same. Every single club which has had an insolvency event has either continued as a football club or has ceased to exist. I’m not aware of any club which sort of started again. Of course it’s not okay to waive £90 million of debt, of course it’s not. But it happens. In football as in business.”"

[55] "It says In an asset purchase, all of the good and valuable assets (records, marks, names, trophies, players, staff, history) are preserved and separated from the bad and harmful liabilities (tax bills, bad contracts, creditors), which have put the club into administration and which act to force the entirety into liquidation. By putting all of the assets into a different corporate structure, the assets are in fact rescued from liquidation. Such a transaction would be very similar to the one that occurred at Leeds United in 2007, which simultaneously rescued that club, maintained its proud history and allowed the club to shed its debt burdens so that it could have the opportunity for future success."

[56] "Duff and Phelps, appointed by the Court of Session on February 14, have broken down all the "asset realisations", the majority of which relate to their sale of the Ibrox club to Sevco Scotland Limited."

[57] "A FIFA spokesperson said: 'At the time of writing, FIFA does not appear to have been approached by any association with respect to the international clearance of any particular player currently registered with Rangers FC.'"

[58] "Duff and Phelps have broken down all the “asset realisations” of the deal — the majority of which relate to their sale of the Ibrox club to Sevco Scotland Limited."

[59] "Regan argued the 140-year-old Rangers, Scottish football's most successful club, should be dropped just one league to the First Division."

[60] "The Scottish Football Association will consider what, if any, punishments to impose on Rangers before granting membership to the new company."

Club liquidated, Club/Company the same and the club lives on[edit]

This section of sources are quite interesting because they refer to it being a new club and refer to it as just the company is liquidated
[61] "Rangers chief executive Charles Green says he will not challenge the vote by the Scottish Football League to place his new club in Division Three." "Green's Sevco consortium had been forced to apply for entry to the SFL after Scottish Premier League clubs voted against the new Rangers being admitted to the top flight with the old company destined for liquidation."

Charles Green bought the club from Craig Whyte[edit]

[62] "Mr Green completed his purchase of the 140-year-old club's assets with £5.5 million, which is believed to be in the form of a loan that the club repays, having paid just £2 for Craig Whyte's shares."

[63] "Green confirmed he had given Whyte £1 – the same value paid – for his 85% stake in Rangers, and said: 'I gave him a pound out of my own pocket too, so he has made a 100% profit.'"

[64] "Whyte has agreed to sell his 85 per cent shareholding in Rangers for £2 to Charles Green, who is leading the consortium in place to take control of the club."

[65] "Charles Green’s consortium bought the club’s assets for £5.5million two weeks ago, buying out Whyte for a nominal £2."

Other Sources[edit]

[66] Just a general sources that does not say one way or the other.

[67] Says Rangers Football Club in administration then says "The Company" and "The Club" it does not state whether the club and the company are the same or seperate. It also does not clarify the situation now that liquidation procures have begun.

Strong Keep Too soon since last AFD nom and nothing substantial has changed. Not on to just keep nominating an article because you don't like the previous decision. StuartDouglas (talk) 15:04, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice as per WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL and maybe WP:TOOSOON. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:16, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, renominated for deletion less than a month after the previous "Keep" outcome with a vague rationale (per the discussion at WP: AN? Which discussion?). Take it for a Procedural Keep' if you want. Cavarrone (talk) 09:57, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

these discussions Wikipedia:AN#The_Case_For_Rangers_F.C_to_Remain_Within_the_Same_Wikipedia_Article, does not matter it was less than a month ago consensus can change within a day if reliable sources report differently on the subject i dnt mean this subject any subject, it be like saying just because a nominated delete on a article regarding someone death was keep but the following day news broke that the information was false renominate for delete is fine--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 11:08, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing me the discussion, I think it should be included in the deletion rationale, just for make it minimally understandable. That said, as no new arguments for deletion were offered in this afd (for what I can see these are the same arguments of previous AfD), I'd suggest to close this discussion for keep (or no consensus) and open a more proper merge discussion (with Rangers F.C.) in the article talk page. Cavarrone (talk) 11:26, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

no problem, i was not the one that started it but i do know where the discussion is. this only happened because some people can not accept the fact the page is locked on this and the rangers fc article and want it to reflect there pov but i keep saying the the request for comment i have made is about ready to go live this is better suited because it is dispute and it is moving through the dispute resolution process.I do not know the reason for creating this again so soon but jsut pointing out that if something changes consensus can to--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 12:00, 19 July 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:36, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kuhoo Gupta[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:07, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. She hasn't released any albums/singles on any major label. The website ArtistAloud.com on which she claims to have released albums is "a digital distribution platform for unreleased music created by artistes" (much like iTunes and Bandcamp). None of her covers have received non-trivial media coverage. The only news article on her that I could find was this Times of India article which briefly mentions her name (the same news has also been reported on The Hindustan Times, Mumbai Mirror etc.). The (Wikipedia) article also mentions her performing in an "anthem" for the Indian team during the ICC World Cup. I couldn't find any reliable source which verifies this claim. Further this was just a fan-made song which I don't think has received enough coverage as such. Finally I see a possible COI seeing that the creator of the page has contributed only to this article (also the amount of personal information in the article that I am unable to find elsewhere). Propose to delete. — westeros91 (talk) 17:37, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of sources. No notability in mainstream media, although I could find some info about her in blogs. WP:TOOSOON -Anbu121 (talk me) 14:49, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant coverage in reliable sources. It seems to me this person if very early into the singing career and its far too early for an article. -- Whpq (talk) 16:51, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG, based on the current sources. If significant new sources are added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:19, 19 July 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:37, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ground based evidence for performance errors due to fatigue and work overload[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:05, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly a direct copy/paste from a NASA essay, per WP:NOTREPOSITORY, may be a better fit for Wikisource. Frood! ^Ohai _{What did I break now?} 16:54, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - We also appear to have Fatigue and sleep loss during spaceflight. I think the same document is used as just about the only source in that article, as well. We certainly have no need to 2 articles that are cut and paste recreations of the same research paper. -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:10, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Doesn't seem like a proper topic/title for an encyclopedic article. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 17:41, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep 10 out of 10 spaceflight editors think we need more cowbell Penyulap ☏ 15:54, 17 Jul 2012 (UTC)
Delete as per User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:21, 19 July 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:37, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Tea Party politicians[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:58, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:59, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:02, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Me again. Sorry, and also sorry in advance for the longer-than-average nomination. My case at the first AfD could probably have been phrased better, but the gist was as follows: that the idea of a "Tea Party politician" is incredibly broad, and a list of "Tea Party politicians" will be impossible to maintain. I think there was something of a misunderstanding at the first AfD as to the meaning of the term "Tea Party politician" and the nature of the Tea Party. By way of analogy, I think "keep" !voters may have mistaken the Tea Party for an institution resembling the Republican Party or the Democratic Party, when really it's closer in nature to, say, "progressivism" or "establishment conservatism". While, if the former two were smaller parties, we might have lists of members and/or supporters; we couldn't ever have a list of progressive politicians or a list of establishment conservatives. To repeat myself, a list of politicians identified in some way with the Tea Party would have thousands of entries, and any version of this article which sought to drive that number down by imposing its own definition of a "Tea Party politician" (this includes a definition like "a person who identifies as belonging to the Tea Party") would constitute original research. Finally, a few "keep" !voters argued that further discussion would solve the issues I identified; I think that the frankly quite disastrous recent RfC demonstrates that this probably isn't the case. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:54, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see a lot of hyperbolic assertions, none of which are self-evident and none of which do I see any actual evidence in support. Why would such a list be "impossible to maintain"? First of all, it should be limited only to notable politicians, i.e., those who have or should have articles, so the fear that thousands may qualify for inclusion is easy to address. Second, once someone qualifies for inclusion according to a reliable source, they don't get de-listed if they later decide to shift their political views, so there's no maintenance issue in keeping it "current" beyond adding new entries. Third, if we make an editorial decision to only list those who self-identify as Tea Party adherents, I don't see how that could possibly constitute original research if such self-identification is verifiable; in many instances, consensus throughout Wikipedia has been to limit many possibly contentious labels to instances where self-identification is verified under the interpretation that WP:BLP may compel it. Fourth, I don't see how the RFC linked to was "disastrous", it just didn't develop very far at all for whatever reason, and I see no cause yet for thinking any purported flaws with the list (assuming there are flaws) will never improve such that we need to urgently revisit the first AFD a mere two months after it was closed as "keep". WP:NOTCLEANUP, WP:DEADLINE, WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE, etc., etc., etc. postdlf (talk) 19:50, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Limiting it to self-identified Tea Party supporters would be original research because the article is entitled List of Tea Party politicians, not List of politicians who have expressed support for the Tea Party or similar. To make a list of Tea Party politicians into a list of self-identified Tea Party adherents is to define "Tea Party politician" as "self-identified Tea Party adherent", and there's no source for that definition. That we've done that in the past is troubling; could you cite a specific precedent? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:39, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But of course, a list of politicians who have expressed support for the Tea Party would be a separate topic. In fact, we identify all politicians by parties that they self-identify with—it's just that in US politics, it's usually one of the two major parties. The Tea Party works a little different since it's not a party per se, but the fact is plenty of politicians identify as both Republicans and Tea Party members. Where they have done so, there's no problem identifying them as a Tea Party member on Wikipedia. It would only be original research if we picked out politicians with views similar to Tea Party ones and tried to label them ourselves. In fact, the three criteria that we use as definitions on this article are readily verifiable and very responsible ways of identifying TP members. I would have absolutely no problem removing members who renounce Tea Party affiliation or support, or unsourced entries. But the article as it stands is a good compilation of a major political group. --BDD (talk) 21:13, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to be saying this a lot of late, but I think you've misunderstood my argument. I wasn't saying that self-identification is insufficient; rather, it's too narrow a definition. I absolutely agree that there's no problem with describing people who say "I belong to the Tea Party" as "Tea Party politicians". The problem comes when we say that's the only criterion, and exclude people who've been described as "Tea Party politicians" by reliable sources but who've never uttered the words themselves. To do that would be to enforce an original definition of "Tea Party politician". – Arms & Hearts (talk) 04:37, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to seem snippy, but in all candor I have to tell you that this is a silly argument. Belchfire (talk) 05:57, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I think everyone understands you; they just disagree and think you're not applying WP:OR correctly. I always wonder about AFDs where the nominator persists in thinking they are the one true voice of reason against unanimous opposition. postdlf (talk) 05:55, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse us, User:Arms & Hearts, but understanding your arguments (which we do) is very different from agreeing with your arguments (which we don't). --→gab 24dot grab← 14:23, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rereading your argument, I'm afraid I disagree even more. The Tea Party is much more like the Republican or Democratic Parties than it is like an ideology of progressivism or conservatism. This list is not restricted to self-identifiers; media identification and endorsement count too. But even if it were, erring on the side of exclusion by insisting on self-identification in reliable sources wouldn't be original research. --BDD (talk) 14:40, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep That the Tea Party is not "an institution" is irrelevant. The nomination smacks of WP:NOEFFORT; improvement is surely needed, but that's no reason to delete it, as recognized from the previous AFD. I'm informing WikiProject Conservatism, who may be interested in commenting here or working on the article. --BDD (talk) 21:30, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per WP:NEGLECT and WP:SPEEDYKEEP#1, "nominator...fails to advance an argument for deletion...and no one other than the nominator recommends that the page be deleted". --→gab 24dot grab← 21:41, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nomination is TL;DR, but by the time I got to the third sentence I could see he is grasping at straws. Belchfire (talk) 01:47, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is no doubt that there is a Tea Party movement in the US. There is also no doubt that there are politicians who have identified with the Team Party as documented in numerous news reports which represents reliable sources upon which to build such a list. As such, the list covers a notable topic, with reliable sourcing available for supporting the entries. Furthermore, I do not see any evidence in the first AFD to support the nominator's assertion that "there was something of a misunderstanding...(of) the nature of the Tea Party." -- Whpq (talk) 17:04, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my above comments, and given the lack of any cogent deletion rationale. postdlf (talk) 18:01, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ per WP:BLP and WP:IINFO. Firstly, this article is almost completely unsourced. Identifying someone as a member of the Tea Party is arguably controversial, so all these claims should be sourced, but very few of them are; that makes this article a BLP nightmare. Secondly, a large number of the people on this list are non-notable. Down near the bottom we have candidates for 'NC Agricultural Commissioner' and 'Texas Railroad Commissioner'. Those are highly non-notable people, who would never be able to sustain independent articles, so why should we have a list that includes every single trivial one of them? If this list is kept, it should (a) be properly sourced and (b) be restricted to those who have Wikipedia articles only. Robofish (talk) 14:46, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on a completely new draft of the page, and I agree with some of your concerns. Unsourced entries can be removed, though I should note that there's been some irresponsible tagging where just clicking on the person's name gives plenty of sourcing for their being Tea Party-affiliated. And while I wouldn't object to removing most of the redlinks, we should use discretion—some of these people are just finishing up primaries and are about to be major party candidates for office that may be deserving of their own pages. On an unrelated note, someone was either whitewashing or trying to make this only a list of currently active politicians, so there was no mention of, for example, Sharron Angle or Christine O'Donnell. I should finish this up today so you can see what I've cooked up. --BDD (talk) 14:58, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough - I don't actually think this article is such an urgent BLP problem that it needs to be deleted immediately, and I recognise that most of the bluelinks are described as Tea Party members/supporters in their articles. It's the ones who don't have articles that concern me. If someone's currently running for a notable position such as Representative, fair enough - they would become notable if they win. But those who fail to get elected are typically not notable, and those who lose their primaries certainly aren't, so in those circumstances they should be removed. Robofish (talk) 15:09, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, my rewrite is live. I've authorlinked all the names, so it's very easy to see who does and doesn't already have an article (and some people who do weren't wikilinked before). I've added a few references myself and replaced the byzantine formatting of the previous version. --BDD (talk) 16:03, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, on the premises that this article will eventually be referenced and that non-notable unsuccessful candidates will be removed, I'll switch to Keep. Robofish (talk) 18:27, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this was quite a notable event in U.S. history. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 14:57, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but require list entries to have a reliable reference saying that the politician is a member of the one tea party activist groups. That's member of, not supported or endorsed by. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:24, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as long as RS references confirm the affiliation. Ebikeguy (talk) 03:00, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: passes our policy regarding standalone lists. – Lionel ^(talk) 08:52, 20 July 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 - policy based arguments heavily outweigh arguments not based on either policy or special circumstances Wily D 09:23, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stella's House[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:57, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't any substantial coverage of these two entities; a Pentecostal magazine, a Scottish tabloid and a local paper from North Carolina don't do much in that direction. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:07, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Moldova-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Stella's House – This topic passes WP:GNG per:

Annie Brown, "Abandoned girls tell how their wretched lives have been transformed", Daily Record, Mar 31 2012
Mary Hutchinson. "A Home For Stella". Charisma Magazine. Retrieved February 3, 2011.
Lukas Johnson, "Cabarrus residents heed Stella's Voice", Charlotte Observer Nov. 30, 2011

— Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:02, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The general notability guideline has been met by the above sources. Neelix (talk) 15:01, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep per patent lack of WP:BEFORE. Easily sourcable, passes GNG. Cavarrone (talk) 16:16, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I don't need that kind of condescending remark from you. If you'd bothered to read my nomination statement, you would have found that I took aim at all three "sources" located by Northamerica1000, as they were already present in the article. -Biruitorul ^Talk 17:30, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, I confirm my remark. WP:BEFORE does not mean consider just references currently named in an article, but search for additional sources. Otherwise you would have found:

A cover story on Pittsburgh Post-Gazette [68]
Multiple articles on The Press and Journal [69], [70], [71]
An article on WAFF [72]
An article on Independent Tribune [73]
An article on Buchan Observer [74]... and so on. Cavarrone (talk) 19:41, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- More passing mentions inside local puffery:
This has three sentences on the subject in a far larger article, so hardly counts as "significant coverage".
This has half a sentence.
Local story, not something normally noticed by this encyclopedia.
Human interest story, barely mentions Stella's House.
A news story from a local TV station? That's pushing it in WP:RS terms. "Building safe housing from the ground up for young girls like Stella, to save these girls from the streets... Now, thanks to a miraculous offering from the Rock, Stella's house two is a reality." Obviously, that kind of writing is not quotable in an actual article.
More puffery/infomerical-type stuff: "The group of citizens behind this local effort is asking for tax-deductible donations, in addition to having a clothing drive. The gently-used clothing donations will be sold in a resale store and will then provide income for the ministry and the orphans."
And even more: "The Ambassador got a guided tour off [sic] the house and also heard the story of one young girl, Dasa Rosca, which moved both himself and his wife to tears."
- Still waiting on that "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" and that present the subject in neutral, objective, citable language. I can't stop you from chiding me for not doing BEFORE, but no matter how much BEFORE one does, it seems the most one can come up with is unusable local puffery. - Biruitorul ^Talk 20:31, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Naming all these articles puffery, local story, infomerical-type article or human interest story does not change the things. The subject received enough reliable secondary coverage to be considered notable. Also, looking at all your other AfDs, it seems you are looking to promote some kind of WP:POINT about all the sources usually accepted as reliable on WP. Cavarrone (talk) 21:20, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For one, I reject your insinuation about my conduct at AfD, which is strictly based on policy, but if you have a problem, I will be glad to defend my record at an RfC any day.
For another, I simply happen to believe in maintaining high standards for sourcing. Two lines of passing mention in a puff piece published in a local paper doesn't cut it from a WP:RS standpoint. Neither do a few paragraphs, for that matter. We don't stretch the limits of WP:GNG simply because we want to save an article at AfD. We don't normally accept strictly local coverage, infomercials, puffery and "journalism" of that sort, and that's pretty firm. We need significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, and what you have presented does not fit the bill. - Biruitorul ^Talk 21:54, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry,I would suggest you to read more carefully what "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" means. According WP:GNG "significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. It is more than a trivial mention but it "need not be the main topic of the source material." Per "reliable" see "WP:RELIABLE". "Sources" are meant to be secondary sources. "Independent" excludes self-publicity, advertising, self-published material, press releases. GNG does not say that a penthacostal magazine (it is not a dead link, see here) does not count nor than a local newspaper is excluded from count (despite I consider calling Pittsburgh Post-Gazette "local puffery" quite pointy). So you should list which of these sources are unreliable according WP:RELIABLE requirements, which of these sources is self-published material, which of these are just trivial mentions, which of these are primary sources. Your name-calling every article as "puff piece", "puffery" and so on, being a subjective assessment, does not count. Cavarrone (talk) 22:50, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Puffery is puffery, no matter how hard you're pushing to "rescue" this effort. A clutch of human-interest stories in some no-name local newspapers and a church magazine simply do not meet the requirements of WP:RS, in spite of your pretending otherwise. We would never normally pick up on this sort of thing, and the only reason we're doing so is because of this discussion. The intellectually sound position would be to admit you're stretching things just to keep this article, and abandon this futile quest. - Biruitorul ^Talk 04:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Naming a source "puffery" without any further explaination why this source should be considered unreliable is just lack of strong arguments. You're stretching things just to delete this article. Cavarrone (talk) 12:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Northamerica1000, this (aside from now being a dead link) is not a reliable source, since it's in a Pentecostal magazine. We tend not to use sources from explicitly religious publications, as they have an inherent bias toward their particular creed.
This is, for one, a puff piece, and for another, it appears in the Daily Record, a practitioner of tabloid journalism. A serious encyclopedia, which this purports to be, does not draw on tabloid material for its articles.
This is yet another informational/puff piece ("Clothes, linens and similar goods also are being accepted. At least a half-dozen churches are helping with the ongoing effort... The vision of Stella's Voice is to speak for all the orphans of Moldova and to give them a safe home and raise them in a Christian environment. In the past five years, the ministry has been an advocate for thousands of orphans"). It's also in a local paper, the sort of coverage we would never normally pick up.
So I ask again: where is the "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", as required by WP:GNG? - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:30, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing in our guidelines against using sources that are of a religious nature; all sources are biased, especially those that do not recognize themselves as such. There is also nothing in our guidelines against using local newspapers as sources. Neelix (talk) 14:22, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even accepting that "all sources are biased", it's meaningless to aver that "those that do not recognize themselves as such" are "especially" biased. This encyclopedia is based on "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Such sources do not tend to recognize their bias, yet they form the basis of most of the content here.

Casting aside common sense and granting that church magazines can be used as sources, what usable material, pray tell, is there in this article?

"he felt the Holy Spirit nudging him to visit a second [orphanage] in the city of Hincesti"?

"He was determined to show the love of a Father whose heart ached for them, and who wanted to shelter them at all costs"?

"God’s adoptive love has also healed them from deep wounds in ways no doctor, counselor or psychologist could"?

You're quite correct that local newspapers are also not outright prohibited. But it's quite a sure sign of non-notability if the only coverage that can be retrieved is some cloyingly sentimental fluff from a Pentecostal magazine and some small-town papers. There are countless such church projects in dozens of countries that rightly go unnoticed by this encyclopedia. The only reason we have this pair of articles is because some guy associated with the project decided to promote them here (and of course, that's the only work he did on Wikipedia)—but that really isn't reason to keep them around. - Biruitorul ^Talk 04:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is a widely accepted concept in critical theory that all authors who wish to be taken seriously must recognize their own biases. An author who is biased against a particular topic can productively contribute information to a discussion if he or she acknowledges openly in his or her writing that he or she opposes or dislikes that topic, but if he or she simply states as fact a series of negatively biased information, most of academia will dismiss the resulting article as pseudo-objectivity. The most reliable sources are those that take a stance. Consider the present example. Charisma is an explicitly Pentecostal magazine and states that Philip Cameron was led by the Holy Spirit to build Stella's House. If the magazine pretended it didn't have biases and simply made this statement, it could be dismissed as pseudo-objectivity. Because the magazine presents itself as portraying a Pentecostal worldview, we can use this statement to source a sentence in Wikipedia such as the following: "Philip Cameron is a Christian and believes that the Holy Spirit led him to found Stella's House." Furthermore, the three statements you present above as from the Charisma article are far from representative; there are plenty of statements in the article that could be transferred almost word-for-word onto Wikipedia if reliability were the only issue. Neelix (talk) 12:29, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on a lack of independent coverage. All of the US-based coverage of these houses appears to be fund-raising publicity material. There is no article which makes it clear that a newspaper staff member has been and seen the houses; there is no trace of investigative journalism and there is no evidence in any of these many interviews of interviewees being asked investigative questions. In short, none of it is independent, thus failing WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:36, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Our guidelines against independent coverage state that we must exclude "works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator". On Wikipedia, "independent coverage" does not mean independent observation, but rather independent publication. The sources presented are valid. Neelix (talk) 14:17, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ. They talk about editorial independence and editorial oversight. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:44, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where? I see no such mention in the relevant guideline. Neelix (talk) 12:29, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway I doubt all these regional newspapers have no editorial oversight and independence... Cavarrone (talk) 12:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted WP:CSD#G11 by Jimfbleak. (non-admin closure) KTC (talk) 08:39, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Amelkis[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:48, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No indication of notability. Of the original references, Gartner reference does not mention the company Finance Privee comes up with an untrusted warning in firefox, Bloomberg entry is a directory listing and the 01net article seems to be a rehashed press release. The recently added dicedeo reference is a press release. Article has been rejected at WT:articles for creation/Amelkis SAS. New editor pops up and creates this very shortly after previous editor warned over conflict of interest. Nothing I can find on google shows any sort of notability. noq (talk) 15:35, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 14 July 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. Majority of editors, arguing from policy. Wily D 09:27, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dunes Review[edit]

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

This article is about a literary magazine, Dunes Review (DR for short) from North Michigan. It has currently 16 references. I will go through each one of them, the numbers refer to the version at the moment of filing this AFD. 1/ Short radio item on a local station. DR is mentioned in-passing. 2/ In-passing mention of the magazine on poets.org. 3/ Short item on a poet on the website of the Michigan State University Libraries, mentioning that she has published in DR. 4/ Short biographical item on a poet including DR in a list of magazines where this person has published. 5/ A few lines in a local newspaper (Traverse City Record-Eagle) on a "Dunes Review launch party". 6/ Another item in another local newspaper, the Grand Traverse Insider. I cannot locate this online, but given its title, I don't think this provides in-depth coverage of DR. 7/ WorldCat entry for the magazine. WorldCat covers anything that has an ISSN or ISBN, so inclusion in it does not constitute any evidence of notability. WorldCat indicates that not a single library in Michigan (or even the whole of the United States) holds this journal. 8/ An item in the Glen Arbor Sun, a local freely-distributed magazine appearing 10 times per year, written by on of DR's editors (Holly Spaulding). 9/ DR itself. 10/ DR itself. 11/ Website of one of the sponsoring organisations. 12/ Website of the other sponsoring organization. 13/ Short item on a poet including DR in a list of magazines where this person has published. 14/ Short item on a poet who has published in DR, mentioning that this person won a National Endowment for the Arts grant. 15/ Another brief item in the Record Eagle on a "Dunes Review launch party". 16/ Another item in the Glen Arbor Sun. From the title and the snippet cited in the article, it does not appear to provide in-depth coverage of DR.

Summarizing the above: there are no sources that provide any in depth-coverage of the magazine (and certainly none that would be independent of it) or even anything more than an in-passing mention of it. There is no indication that WP:GNG (or any other guideline that might apply) has been met. In the absence of reliable sources establishing notability: Delete.

Note: the explanation for this unusually long and detailed nomination can be found on the talk page (and its history) of this article. Guillaume2303 (talk) 15:29, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:47, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A simple Google search would have shown that this subject is placed in multiple libraries:

20 copies in 3 local libraries.^[1]
19 copies in the district library.^[2]
2 copies at MSU.^[3]
4 copies accepted into the Library of Michigan.^[4]

--David Holmer (talk) 16:52, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

^ "searchcatalog". Libnet.org (IPAC - catalog database). Retrieved 2012-07-13.
^ "Evergreen titles". TADL.org (Traverse Area District Library). Retrieved 2012-07-13.
^ "MSU Libraries". MSU.edu (Michigan State University). Retrieved 2012-07-13.
^ "Michigan eLibrary". Mel.org (catalog for Library of Michigan). Retrieved 2012-07-13.

Strong keep: Notability(media), states, "Within Wikipedia, notability is an inclusion criterion based on the encyclopedic suitability of an article topic. The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice". This concept is distinct from "fame", "importance", or "popularity", although these may positively correlate with notability."

The subject has been noted and quoted in multiple magazines, radio, newspapers and University libraries in the sense of worth and notable literary magazine. I repeat again my concept of the subject and the cited sources to the content of the article,

" There are some more reliable sources,cited to the content of the article, but I give you few examples for that to understand easily. For just a pleasure, They married, is it necessary to state or write,what they will do next in the night??. Similarly, take a look at this passage,

"Last year, her essay about the demolition necessary for the construction of Detroit’s new Tiger Stadium was published in The Dunes Review."(R.3, Michigan State University Libraries.)

In that passage, the editorial board is not degrading the poet to mention a non-notable magazine, here they mean that notable poet geting coverage of her work in the notable magazine too. That is the description what I draw from that passage. Second,

"Michigan Writers, Inc. was launched in the summer of 2001 when more than two dozen area writers pooled talents and resources to form an organization dedicated to helping writers hone their craft and publish their work. Michigan Writers holds regular events, co-publishes the Dunes Review literary journal, and launched a Cooperative Press, which publishes outstanding chapbooks. Once a month it hosts Michigan Writers On the Air (IPR News Radio 91.5 FM), which features interviews with local and visiting writers." (R.2)

That passage has been written by the editorial board of " The Academy of American Poets", in which notability is visible.

In my view the subject passes the notability, and sources establish the notability too." Justice007 (talk) 17:55, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the source analysis by the nominator is enough to prove that a significant community sees it notable: mentions in local newspapers are no less valuable then mentions in larger communities. Also, that so many authors are pointing to the review and that it is published by a society and found in multiple regional libraries suggests notabilitiy, Sadads (talk) 18:40, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I take it you realize that all that "coverage" was about other subjects with only in-passing mentions of the magazine? Perhaps you'd like to have a look at the references yourself. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 18:47, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Wikipedia:Canvassing, and stop that behaviour and wait the result of WP:consensus.Thanks.Justice007 (talk) 19:19, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Justice007, this is not canvassing. What we are having here is a deletion discussion. It is perfectly normal and acceptable to post comments on what another editor has written. Canvassing would be going around to try to find editors that might agree with me and ask them to come here to participate in the debate in order to get an outcome favorable to my views. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 19:28, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This deletion request would not exist if this magazine were in a large city and had in-passing citations from, say, The New York Times. Notable literary magazines attract notable writers, and this review has attracted submissions from writers who have received national awards. Its mention on radio and citations in newspapers attest to this, as do the other viable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.61.177.198 (talk) 19:24, 13 July 2012 (UTC) — 120.61.177.198 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note to closing admin: please review the edit history of this IP and the history of boundary 2 and its talk page. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 19:28, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: please review the edit history of User talk:Guillaume2303, the history of boundary 2, its talk page, and the defamatory text that Guillaume2303 (his/her own defamatory text about me, incidentally) wants on the Dunes Review talk page; for reference, see this edit [[75]] and this one [[76]]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.61.177.198 (talk) 19:48, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I strongly support the IP's request. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 20:47, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I strongly support Guillaume2303's request.

Delete - While I agree with the nominator that the article has problems I have been neutral on this article because I think it could have potential with better sourcing. I would like to keep, but can't see how at the moment. First, I can't imagine why the comments above refer to library holdings. That's just not a reason to keep an article. Libraries store things; that's part of their job. Libraries near where it is published would, of course, carry these. I'm sure they have lots of books and magazines that do not have Wikipedia articles, so that is not a valid defense of the article. "Notability is not inherited" doesn't even really apply here because none of writers or organizations listed as publishing the journal are even notable enough to have their own wikiarticles. I think enough sources might exist for Michigan Writers to have their own article and would suggest a section on that article concerning the Dunes Review journal. That would probably be the best course of action. I would say at least give the editors the weekend to find better sourcing. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 19:38, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Libraries do not merely "store" things; due to space, political, social, and other concerns, most (if not all...) have a vetting process in order to decide what is "notable" enough to be included in the collections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.61.177.198 (talk) 19:54, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Library holdings are in reference to the nominators "not a single library in Michigan holds this journal" to which it has been further referenced to Worldcat, which in the very least clarifies the nominator's objection to the specific source without distracting the notability of this subject. It is NOT an argument for or against or vote on this subject, as I am still unclear on this notability concept with the exception of: having a wiki-article does NOT establish a writer's notability. Thank you. --David Holmer (talk) 20:13, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see why that was put in there now, but it is a rather specious argument for notability. After having worked at a library for over a decade, I understand the "vetting process". There are space and cost concerns, yes, but they do try to "store" most everything they can unless they are just specialized to certain fields. College and university libraries will often store more literary related items and libraries local to the area will, again, be more likely to have this in their holdings. Regardless, this is the first time I have seen anyone argue for notability based on library holdings. As far as the statement that not having a WP doesn't diminish a writer's notability: well, yes, it does to some extent. It definitely doesn't establish it. Those notable authors have not won major prizes. The only really possible notable prize was the NEA grant and do you know how many NEA grants are given each year? This was not a major NEA award, but merely a grant. The other prizes are not notable enough for WP articles either. The Academy of American Poets prize was one of their local university-sponsored prizes at the Univ. of Michigan, not a major national prize. See this PDF. Please stop trying to argue inherited notability without really, truly establishing notability. Besides, inherited notability is not a grounds for keeping anyway, so the point is really moot. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 20:31, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop trying to argue inherited notability without really, truly establishing notability. Notability is an abstract, rhetorical term; there are no "absolute" or "true" type of notability. It is not an entity like a tree or a rock. The register of each person is different and for that consensus is used to organize differing opinions. Per postmodern approaches, no opinion or idea may be categorized as "superior" to any other, which is where the democratic processes (like the concept of consensus) come in. This is an excellent explanation of value, truth and so on, from a postmodern stance, that is easily applied to slippery and plastic concepts like "notability" [[77]].120.61.140.224 (talk) 09:20, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, editors and administrators DO read this and you still have plenty of time to make a real argument. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 20:53, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As far as the irrelevant Nobel comparison, I don't know that you really do understand that concept, yet. I will have to answer: If someone won the Nobel Prize, that would make them more notable, even if they don't have WP articles, yes. That is true. But that doesn't mean that we automatically create articles for every single book or magazine they ever published simply because of that. Furthermore, the comparison is totally unwarranted because none of those contributors anywhere nearly approaches Nobel Prize winner status, anyway. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 20:53, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

David Holmer we have to wait for the result that is reached by consensus then so be it, perhaps you would be best placed to stay well away from the discussion.Thanks.Justice007 (talk) 22:43, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do realy not understand that what editors are discussing about libraries?.the sources, which have been cited that are not from libraries collections, but the sources based on news items,like thisand that, surely edited by University's academics.Please before discussing, go through all references, and section "about us" click and take a look at the editorial board, etc.Sources have been cited not for joke, those are news items, the reliable sources, notability is visible, I draw that according to my concept and understanding of the policies, we need here common sense.Justice007 (talk) 22:31, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As was discussed on the talk page, the "notability is not inherited" [[78]] is irrelevant and/or supports this magazine's notability. The text there claims that a notable tree (a magazine) does not necessarily have notable branches (contributors). It says nothing of the inverse -- that is, if notable branches (contributors) make the tree (magazine) notable. That does seem a logical conclusion. Moreover, the discussion there makes clear that such associations "may or may not" confer notability. So, yes, the links to the notable contributors may indeed be involved in the notability of the magazine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.61.140.224 (talk) 04:19, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Dunes Review is a notable literary journal. Furthermore, the statements in the article are verified by reliable sources. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 08:22, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And which of those verifiable reliable sources provides anything more than an in-passing mention showing notability? --Guillaume2303 (talk) 08:45, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: it is true that the sourcing could be improved. However there are quite a number of references containing decent mentions. Taken in their totality, in my estimation, these constitute just enough coverage for notability. – Lionel ^(talk) 00:10, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lionel, we go by quality, not quantity. Not a single reference provides coverage of the magazine beyond an in-passing mention. And some of them are just a notice in a local door-to-door flyer announcing that a (apparently quite small) group of people will come together: "Following the reading, attendees are invited to Brew for drinks and conversation." The one-line under "reviews" is not an excerpt from a review: it is the review. And so forth and so on. Did you actually look at these references? --Guillaume2303 (talk) 10:15, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As has been remarked many times here and on the talk page, when taken together, the references in print and other media, and the notes from renowned authors on their bio-statments about DR, establish its notability. Re-re-re-stating the same tired question again and again doesn't make the point a valid one.196.219.219.130 (talk) 14:41, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary: re-re-re stating that there are many sources, when they all amount to basically nothing, really doesn't establish notability, no matter how often repeated. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 14:50, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"re-re-re stating that there are many sources" -- uhh, how about you start by reading the comment right above yours? It's a combination of factors. For reference (this feels ridiculous but... ridiculous comments call for ridiculous responses...):"when taken together, the references in print and other media, and the notes from renowned authors on their bio-statments about DR, establish its notability"; so re-re-re-re-stating the same tired all amount to basically nothing, really doesn't achieve much, no matter how often repeated.196.219.219.130 (talk) 17:04, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which "notable authors"? As has been argued by JoannaSerah, none of the authors that published in DR seem to be notable themselves. Unless, of course, you'd like to argue that they are notable because they published in a notable magazine, DR. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 18:38, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

National prize winning authors, as stated before several times and no, it's not a tree-to-branches relationship of notability (as explained at length ALREADY here and on the talk page). How about you re-re-re-re-re-state something else, just for kicks. COme on, I know you've got another one ready...±±±± — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.125.164.114 (talk) 03:56, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Whiting Writers' Award isn't notable? --64.134.174.205 (talk) 20:26, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep While I agree with Guillaume that the quality of most sources are poor. I cannot agree with him that the sources do not equals notability. What changed my mind was the very first source: It is not in-passing. In fact, the entire broadcast is reading from the Dunes Review. DR is read on news radio, broadcasting from three different stations, three times a month each. All other sources are secondary, which establishes notability. --64.134.174.205 (talk) 19:41, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The radio item is about a poet, with DR only mentioned in passing. It is not about DR. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 10:27, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Closing Administrator[edit]

I am taking back my offer to work on this article if its deleted. Wikipedia's pages, policies, and environment has brought out the worst in me. And, I definitely do NOT like the person that I have become. It was been brought to my attention that what I have experienced over the past ten days is normal. Your editors refer to themselves as having elephant-skin and that the disputes I was experiencing was with the NICE Wikipedians. I have spent over 90 percent of my time in distracting, petty discussions about rules and policies. Your editors gripe about the poor citations, but then do not offer citations themselves or give me the time to input all the sources that I have here. Even your editors, who say that this article is not up to notability standards, agree that it has improved with the dozen or so citations that I was able to squeeze in while being constantly distracted by their quibbling. They bicker like children, asking why I haven't put in more citations then. To be quite honest, I have left them out because I have stopped contributing. I added back what was there and could be retrieved by your archives. But this place does not deserve these contributions. I apologize to Justice007, the sole other editor that has worked diligently on this article besides myself, for holding back. You know this article is notable and if the administrator sees what we see than it will be included. The potential is there like JoannaSerah said, and the sources are there as I have said. But, to me, this is nothing more than a bunch of people who sit on a computer and have to google everything to read or verify. Well, if that is the source verification process then this IS a search engine. If wikipedia does accept other sources then it needs to work on its policies and people so that it doesn't look a gift horse in the mouth. --David Holmer (talk) 17:58, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No kidding. The "discussion" about this magazine amounts to people using Dunes Review's page as a place to toot horns about how great their knowledge of WP is... at the cost of the people who support and work hard on this publication--not to mention the communities DR serves. All this banter about these topics (are lit mags with national figures notable? are newspapers and radio good sources?--come on) is nonsense and has no point. Yes, some people need to fill a quota of so-many-WP-entries-per-day to feel good about themselves. This whole matter is a case of that.196.219.219.130 (talk) 13:05, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What you experienced is not nice wikipedians. Most of us actually look into the sources, even if it takes a while to turn on our speakers and listen! --64.134.174.205 (talk) 09:32, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete none of the current references come close to the in-depth coverage needed. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:42, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not all the references are the best but the notability bar appears (less or more weakly) to be passed. And notable magazine contributors are not a bad thing, too. Cavarrone (talk) 08:56, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So which ones are "the best"? --Guillaume2303 (talk) 09:24, 19 July 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 - arguments that it meets WP:N carry a lot more weight than concerns that it could be spammy at some future date, and the argument that an article is intrinsically spammy just because it's about a company carries no weight at all. Wily D 10:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dreamstime[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:45, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY. Seems to be nothing more than Self-promotion and product placement, which wikipedia is WP:NOT Hu12 (talk) 14:27, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -The article is not self-promotive. No flowerey words or customer inticement. No positive adjectives. It is what a Wiki article should be.....INFORMATIVE. It should not be deleted. Improved, perhaps. But not deleted.```Buster Seven Talk 19:44, 17 July 2012 (UTC)....More.....The reference used is focussed on the $2Billion dollar stock photography industry. It is a qualified secondary source providing background for the reader. ```Buster Seven Talk 19:50, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That all well and good, however the references fail WP:CORPDEPTH and the subject fails WP:NOTABILITY.--Hu12 (talk) 17:51, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As stated..."...common sense and occasional exceptions may apply". I believe this is one of those occasions. ```Buster Seven Talk 17:58, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize that what your quoting is the the general wording in template {{subcat guideline}}, which applies to the guideline, not to the article in question. An article has to be notable to be included, which Dreamstime isn't.--Hu12 (talk) 01:56, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I do realize that. I mistakenly thought the mention of common sense and exceptions might do the trick. I guess I was wrong. ```Buster Seven Talk 16:29, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article has been edited and more references added. The style is neutral and the info added has been taken from third party resources and from the site itself. Hope the deletion will be reconsidered. Thank you. Carmenmaftei (talk) 09:06, 18 July 2012 (UTC)— Carmenmaftei (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Are you aware of WP:COI? Please disclose your relationship to this subject.--Hu12 (talk) 17:54, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, I was not aware of the COI. I am now, thank you for pointing that out. Even if I am in any way affiliated to Dreamstime and, I stand by what I said. The page is written in a neutral tone and it is does not sound like self-advertisement. I believe it should stay online because it offers generic info about a company that is among the first four in the microstock industry. Others may contribute to this page if they wish in the future as ther eis still a lot of info to add. To my knowledge, pages with incomplete info are still left online on Wikipedia so why not this? If in your opinion it is self-advertisment, then I am afraid I have nothing further to add. It is my own fault for not reading all the policies (esp the COI) but I cannot see how one can be more neutral than this. Carmenmaftei (talk) 09:22, 19 July 2012 (UTC)— Carmenmaftei (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    - So your choosing to hide your conflict of interest? Deception in order to advancing outside interests and promote Dreamstime by exploiting Wikipedia does not lend itself to being neutral.--Hu12 (talk) 12:24, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - What do you mean hide my conflict of interests? I am saying that this page offers some generic info about the company and the tone is neutral. I think I have the right to defend the edits I've made. All I tried was to give more info and make the page structure more similar to that of other microstock agencies. The company page was already there and I feel bad that my edits led to being marked for deletion. If there is anything I can do restore the page back to how it was, I will. Would that be ok or allowed? I am not exploiting Wikipedia to advertise for Dreamstime. I do not think the article does this. If any of my early edits were wrong, it was because I failed to read all policies. The page currently looks acceptable in my opinion but it is your right to disagree. Carmenmaftei (talk) 13:06, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Few people will edit tendentiously topics in which they have no connection. The bigger picture clearly shows someone who is using Wikipedia to promote their own interests.--Hu12 (talk) 13:35, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        So it is ok to create a fake ID, hide your name and then add info? If I did that, would that have been ok? Not to me. I believe whatever is written on the page should be taken into consideration. I have read other pages and seen shameless self promotion, really. I guess it is ok for others because they create fake IDs and hide behind a fake name. No conflict of interest there. Anyway I am not debating this, I understand your point of view and the policies. I asked whether restoring the old page would be ok. This is what I need to know. Just to let you know, I have now set my resume as confidential. It is not that I am hiding, I never said I was not affiliated to Dreamstime, it is just that I have a problem with my resume being posted online. It was active by mistake. This is rather sensitive info, at least for me. Hope you can understand and respect that. You can find any of my other profiles if you wish to make a point of who I am but no links to my resume. I have not really kept my name hidden, so you can find my other pages. Thank you. Carmenmaftei (talk) 13:58, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Wikipedia owes much of its success to its openness. However, that very openness sometimes attracts people who seek to exploit the site.--Hu12 (talk) 14:11, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I imagine there are people taking advantage and I am sure this is what the COI policy is for. I just think it is a bit unfair to apply the rule generally without considering the text itself. This is what stays on Wikipedia. I was not aware of the policy really but I do not make any excuses for that - my mistake for not reading the guidelines. My mistake for editing the article several times. My mistake for trying to add as much info as possible. As soon as I saw the notice, I edited and left the info as little and generic as possible. I am not trying to break the rules, ok? On the contrary. I do not wish to promote the company, I am just trying to make sure it has a page structure and info similar to other agencies. Moreover, I thought the other pages were self-ads and I tried to avoid that. If you look at the info that is now there for Dreamstime and you feel it should be deleted anyway because it is self-promotion, then perhaps some policies should not be applied blindly - speaking of openness. Carmenmaftei (talk) 14:35, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        The nature of Wikipedia means that you can't make a convincing argument based on what other articles do or don't exist; because there's nothing stopping anyone from creating any article. Plenty of articles exist that probably shouldn't (such as Dreamstime), conversly many articles don't exist that probably should. So just pointing out that other articles exists doesn't prove that Dreamstime should also exist. Policies are not applied blindly, infact Wikipedia policy for inclusion is quite specific, which unfortunatly Dreamstime does not meet. --Hu12 (talk) 15:30, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I think you misunderstood my arguments. I did not say that if other similar articles exist, so should Dreamstime. I said I tried to make the page structure more like theirs, thus justifying my edits. I think the Dreamstime page should exist because the company operates worldwide, it is a strong community with four million users and an important player in the microstock market. And other arguments can be added but I will refrain from doing this and I am sure you can understand why. Don't want to add further fuel for the COI thing. Carmenmaftei (talk) 16:01, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~It's a company doing the things a company does. Delete as per WP:ROUTINE. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:48, 19 July 2012 (UTC)~~[reply]

So. Our reader is denied information about a viable company because the most recent editor that chisseled the article down to its basics was not aware that self-identification of a conflict of interest was ~~required~~ suggested. Over reaction to the max. I hope this editor can move on to other areas and articles and become a contributing member of our community. ```Buster Seven Talk 15:23, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Weak keep and encourge better research by those wishing to expand the topic. I was invited to visit the article and discussion. I first visited the article, did some research, performed copyedit, and added a source,[79] and notified the 2009 author and a few other article contibutors before coming here. Sorry Buster7. Sorry Carmenmaftei. Its not that anyone wishes to deny information, but for inclusion within Wikipedia, that information must be in enough sources to show notability. In building any article, it is required that information in such articles be verifiable in reliable sources. THAT was why the article was timmed so deeply... too much unsourced information. We are in no means denying its existance, but as an entity it simply has not been the recpient of enough coverage to meet Wikipedia inclusion requirements. If either of you wish to work on improving this article outside of article space, please ask me and I will put it a workspace for you. And a major hint: A search for "Dreamstime" simply finds all the articles IN reliable sources that have made use of images from Dreamstime and have the word DReamstime under the image as copyright holder. If one modifies one's search parameter to search for sources for the founders "Serban Enache" and "Dragos Jianu" and the website "Dreamstime.com" itself, searches are far more successfull, revealing usable sources (many of which will require translating),[80][81][82] but non-English are fine.Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:32, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those google search URLs reveal zero hits for me. Is it a session-data issue? Stuartyeates (talk) 20:40, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Same ...Nothing here or here except trivial mentions which does not establish this topics notability.--Hu12 (talk) 23:23, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zero?? Very strange. How did your searches miss, nestled amongst the many press releases, the authored articles in wall-street.ro, (traslation) the rather lengthy article in Nashville Business Journal and the second one in Nashville Business Journal ? Still sticking with a Weak keep. At worst, let it be userfied to one of those above willing to improve it. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:08, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those are excellent examples of non-independent sources, all of them based on interviews. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:58, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, the second Nashville Business Journal link is simply a repackaged press releases of THIS authored by "Dreamstime.com PR Kat Atwood.... "... note at the top; "Reuters is not responsible for the content in this press release.". Regional and local publishers use the national news feeds, such as Reuters, AP ect, to fill up their websites with content and sometimes press releases slip through and are merely advertisements masquerading as news.... --Hu12 (talk) 02:55, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Schmidt and Buster7. The trimmed version by Schmidt works fine. Cavarrone (talk) 07:43, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've gone through the three sources being used and Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered.. For example...The money.cnn.com, would seem legit, however the only mention of Dreamstime is as follows;

".The other large independent player is Dreamstime, based in Brentwood, Tenn., which operates more like Fotolia and has been profitable since launch, according to COO Jeff Prescott. "

-money.cnn.com/magazines/business2/business2_archive/2007/04/01/8403372/index.htm?postversion=2007040409

Is non-independent (based on the COO Jeff Prescott statement), is also merely trivial coverage, such as: inclusion in lists of similar organizations - fails WP:CORPDEPTH

-microstockinsider.com/site_reviews/dreamstime

Is a personal blog post, on the author's (Steve Gibson) personal website - Fails WP:RS, WP:V and WP:GNG

-alexa.com/siteinfo/dreamstime.com

Isnt even a source, merely existing or having a website does not establish notability

Wikipedia is not a promotional medium. Self-promotion, paid material, and product placement are not valid routes to an encyclopedia article. Clearly Dreamstime Fails Notability.--Hu12 (talk) 12:38, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any article needs to be neutrally presented to avoid WP:ADVERT, and any extraodrinary claim needs proper citation... whether for Apple Computers, Burger King, or some lesser known Romanian company. This article has thus been so edited to address the issue of tone. And while focusing on weaknesses of some authored articles aparently inspired by those press releases, you still have not refuted the three-page article at Nashville Business Journal nor the Romanian-language one at wall-street.ro nor the fact that this Romanian company and its founders have sourcability in the Romanain language. So even if determinable as not very notable to the United States, a notability to Romania is just fine, and with the unrefuted sources we have a meeting of WP:WEB, WP:CORP and its subset WP:CORPDEPTH. Naturally, a Romanian-founded company and website will not have the English language United States coverage as might an entity like Warner Bros. and yes... the article will bear a close watch to ensure it does not again become full of unsurced puffery. And a last thought toward policy... Alexa rankings require the widely accepted verifiability to Alexa itself. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:26, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For me, the interesting source is this one from CNN Money, which says: "The other large independent player is Dreamstime, based in Brentwood, Tenn., which operates more like Fotolia and has been profitable since launch, according to COO Jeff Prescott." There are two ways to parse that sentence. Either it means "The other large, independent player is Dreamstime... according to COO Jeff Prescott", or else it means, "The other large independent player is Dreamstime... and [according to COO Jeff Prescott] has been profitable since launch". If you parse it the first way, then Dreamstime isn't notable. If you parse it the second way then realistically, it is, because CNN money's a reliable source.
In my considerable experience of Wikipedia AfDs, I've found that mentioning the Alexa rank usually gets you a link to WP:ATA. Please don't link that to me. I'm very well aware of what it says, and I'm disregarding that essay with all due forethought when I say: an Alexa rank in the top 1000 strongly suggests that this is the kind of topic Wikipedia ought to cover.
On the other hand, I'm also conscious that we've only got one decent source and it doesn't say very much. It's hard to construct a workable article on the basis of almost no reliably-sourced information. On balance I'm going to go with weak keep for the moment, but let's keep an eye on the amount of editor time that it takes to maintain it. If any promotional material gets reinserted, then I'll very rapidly start to take the view that this is more trouble than it's worth.—S Marshall T/C 22:44, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FYI...I created (via cut-n-paste) User:Carmenmaftei/Sandbox-Dreamstime to assist this new editor in her early efforts to acquaint herself with WP rules and regulations and implement them in editing this article. Let's all remember...its not easy being new.```Buster Seven Talk 16:07, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps your unaware, or just want to help companies exploit Wikipedia for advertising purposes, but this user is not here to Build or improve the encyclopedia, rather is a paid employee who is here for the sole or primary purpose of using Wikipedia in order to promote Dreamstime and their products in apparent violation of Conflict of interest and anti-spam guidelines. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia...Questions?.--Hu12 (talk) 00:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@ Hu12. You are way off base in your evaluation of how I feel about Paid Editors. Please see WP:Paid operatives, an essay of mine. I feel Paid Editing may be the ruin of what we know as Wikipedia. Granted, the essay's focus is political advocacy/operatives, but I feel no different about article editors that use Wikipedia to pay their mortgage. But...I think you are wrong about this editor. She may have a conflict of interest but that does not entitle us to throw her into the moat. She chopped the article down to it's basics which shows potential. I really don't give 2 shits if this article gets deleted or not. But, I do care that this speedy deletion process rakes new editors over the coals and forgets to assume good faith. I have absolutely no bond with this new editor except as a fellow Wikipedian. Unless you can provide verification of your jaded claim that the editor in question has come here to undermine the process, I'll continue to support her...(or him if Carmen is a guy). BTW, I support the idea of Merge. ```Buster Seven Talk 06:34, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bleh. I find that I sympathize with elements of both sides of the argument here. This article was the result of a publicity push, and we've seen that such articles can require an effort out of proportion to their importance to maintain in a neutral way. On the other hand, this company exists, and appears to be a successful player in a nascent internet industry that may well continue to grow. So, with Solomon's sword in hand, I'll opine: 1. the company lacks sufficient sourcing to justify an article at this time, 2. the company seems to have a level of success that normally brings such sourcing in time 3. we have an article about this new industry at Microstock photography that could comfortably house the reliably sourced content until there is better sourcing. So, in lieu of deletion, merge to Microstock photography keeping the edit history in the redirect in case it's needed. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 05:23, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Microstock photography as per User:Xymmax. Changed vote, see above. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:35, 23 July 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:55, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Rosen[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:41, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:42, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This had a PROD tag on it that was contested in 2007. Rationale then was "non-notable, borderline advert", and I don't see how that's changed. Since the first AfD, no sources have been added and nothing else significant has come to light. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 13:57, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Off The Grid is notable with reviews in Seattle Times[83], LA Times[84], Christian Science Monitor[85], Newsweek[86], and Kirkus[87], and New Scientist reviewed his earlier How to Live Off-Grid[88]. Rosen is therefore notable per WP:AUTHOR. Since these are not obscure publications and were not hard to find, I have to question how much WP:BEFORE was done by the proposer. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:22, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't think one-off newspaper reviews did much in the way of notability, that's all. Perhaps I'm just not up on things in this area; my usual areas of editing are rather far removed from this. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:25, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:AUTHOR#4: "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Rosen's multiple works have been the recipent of commentary and analysis in multiple sources. Even without their (yet) having articles on Wikipedia, they have established their notability, and thus his as their creator... even though he himself is "off the grid". The article needs work, yes... but not deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:44, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Colapeninsula and Schmidt - subject meets WP:AUTHOR given the above sources. Gongshow ^Talk 01:04, 17 July 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. G4'd. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:15, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MC Q-Bah[edit]

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

Granted, the article is somewhat wikified and formatted. It can even be well written BUT this orphan article fails WP:MUSBIO, WP:N and seems to be a self-promoting article. Main claims to notability is interviewing Xzibit and Akon. Past tags have been removed multiple times with no explanation. All references are unreliable (mostly youtube videos) and irrelevant. Though, granted, they are well formatted. Good formatting (as much as it seems) does not confer notability to an article. -- Loukinho (talk) 02:17, 29 June 2012 (UTC) Loukinho (talk) 02:17, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:04, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:04, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:04, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:04, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:04, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. Sources offered are either trivial, WP:PRIMARY or lack evidence of editorial review sufficient to make them WP:RS. Googling failed to turn up anything useful. Msnicki (talk) 16:41, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also worth to mention that Q-Bah which currently redirects to MC Q-Bah has been nominated for speedy deletion before (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Q-Bah and sneakily re-introduced as a legitimate article without any significant changes. Sneak was also the removal of the tags placed on the article multiple times before. -- Loukinho (talk) 20:54, 1 July 2012 (UTC).[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 12:46, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 13:47, 13 July 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:56, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wagner & Co.[edit]

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

No notability is established. Says it was nominated for some award but didn't win. not enough reliable sources for general notability guideline. Comatmebro ^{~Come at me~} 01:16, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Comatmebro ^{~Come at me~} 01:18, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom; doesn't seem to meet notability threshold. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 11:44, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"removed an obnoxious template that was placed here"--DBig Xray 21:47, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Original text of removed template: Substantial text was removed from this article prior to or during AfD. This notice is added to prevent misrepresentation of the potential of the article under discussion, compromise of the relevance of contributions to the discussion, and complication of the discussion's conduct and closure. This is not an official WP notice Anarchangel (talk) 00:17, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Indeed, it's not an official notice. It's nitwittery that puts assuming bad faith ahead of the actual project goals. The content removed was a copyright violation of copyrighted non-free content, that was a press release to boot. Uncle G (talk) 18:01, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this was the least appropriate use of the tag, because the material was arguably actionable under WP rules. However, I note that COI and COPYVIO are mutually exclusive; even in the case of a third party doing edits without authorization, the COI would become PoV. A press release added to WP by the releaser is a conflict of interest, but logically not a COPYVIO.

The template was very carefully worded, and does not violate AGF. With respect, you did. It does not assume that someone intended, for example, "misrepresentation of the potential of the article under discussion". Moreover, it addresses what has become a common problem; I urge you to reconsider what is the real problem, if not here, then in AfD as a whole. Anarchangel (talk) 19:14, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An example: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Material heresy. The first, second, and arguably third voter are commenting on one article; the rest of the AfD is commenting on another completely different one. Now I hurry to say, this is an example of the system working, because the alteration was arguably an improvement. But bear this in mind: refactoring other people's comments without good reason is not accepted across the board, because "doing so creates misrepresentations". The least we can do is require people who change article text during an AfD to say so at the AfD. Anarchangel (talk) 19:39, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anarchangel, thank you for working to improve Wikipedia. Unscintillating (talk) 01:40, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 12:46, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 13:45, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – This topic meets WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG per:

(in German) Kaufmann, Katharina (August 23, 2011). "With the sun towards the future". Oberhessische Presse. Retrieved July 15, 2012.
(in French) Hugué, Didier (July 1, 2009). "Wagner changes site in Saône-et-Loire". L'usine Nouvelle Magazine. Retrieved July 15, 2012.
"New Company will Provide Efficient Solar Thermal Systems for Domestic Hot water & Heating". Solar Thermal Magazine. Retrieved July 16, 2012.
Butler, Brandon (June 23, 2011). "Evergreen Customer Scales Back Order". Worcester Business Journal. Retrieved July 15, 2012.

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:29, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Note that sources have been added to the article, and the article is in the process of being expanded. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:44, 16 July 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:56, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sharon Kivland[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet the notability guideline for artists or for academics (contested prod) – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:18, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a section on one of the subject's publications (A Case of Hysteria) and included quotes from a review in the Journal of European Psychoanalysis to attempt to show the importance of the subject's work in this field. I'm currently trying to find more ways to meet the criteria for creative professionals, but I'm confused in some ways; for example, how is 'significant' supposed to be understood objectively? It's my opinion that much of the subject's work and academic pursuits are significant, but I'm not sure how I'm expected to prove or justify this - I could cite reviews and articles, but again I'm not sure where the 'significance' border line is. Thanks for your help. Badprussian (talk) 12:42, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- With regard to point #3 of WP:CREATIVE, I think the important part is that the work has to have "been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Citing reviews and articles would certainly help to demonstrate that that criterion is met. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:50, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:36, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 13:41, 13 July 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:56, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lior Brook-Ray[edit]

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

A 22-year old filmmaker. Only has done three short films. IMDb only lists two and completed a year early than what is shown in the article. Unable to find any reliable references. Fails WP:CREATIVE. Article has been around for over a year, so rather do an AfD instead of a Prod. Bgwhite (talk) 17:28, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 17:28, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I too was unable to find any significant coverage in reliable sources for this person; does not appear to meet WP:GNG, WP:CREATIVE, or WP:ENT. Gongshow ^Talk 19:54, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:30, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 13:41, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON. A few shorts films do not a notability create unless that are themselves the recipients of SIGCOV. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:17, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:50, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Schmidt and per nom. Cavarrone (talk) 10:10, 19 July 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:58, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sigma Omega Epsilon[edit]

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

This page has Zero references and is written in POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.249.47.196 (talk) 18:19, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The proceeding nomination was copied from Talk:Sigma Omega Epsilon. I have completed the nominating process on behalf of the above IP Editor who was unable to do so themselves, and will comment separately on the merits of the deletion nomination. Monty ₈₄₅ 20:48, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The sorority appears to exist, and has multiple chapters, but there is a dearth of independent reliable sources that provide coverage of the subject. What news articles I could find were relatively trivial and not enough to establish Notability. A regular google search turns up mostly self published material. Unless someone can find some reliable sources, it looks like delete to me. Monty ₈₄₅ 20:57, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:45, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient demonstration of notability.--GrapedApe (talk) 15:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:26, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 13:40, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking coverage in independent third party sources. Feel free to pin my talk page if such sources get added to the page. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:51, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, my searches found about zero. Cavarrone (talk) 09:15, 19 July 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 AnimeNation. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:59, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John Oppliger[edit]

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

This was nominated for deletion in 2005, and seems to have just been a keep. Since then, nothing of any real substance has been added to the article, and there are no sources at all. I couldn't find anything to demonstrate this person is at all notable. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 13:39, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I followed the link in the middle of the piece - it seemed to go to an abandoned blog post. Unless there is any evidence that this blog has achieved notability (or John Oppliger himself) it's a clear delete. Chriscook54321 (talk) 09:44, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I found an interview with him on Anime News Network, but other than that I failed to find enough significant coverage. Nevertheless, the ANN link could be a useful source should the article be kept. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:58, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to AnimeNation, if it lives, otherwise Delete. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:52, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to AnimeNation, since he is mentioned there. While Anime News Network has conducted a couple interviews with him, I think the coverage is more of AnimeNation than of him as an individual, and coverage of him from one source wouldn't be sufficient for a separate article anyway. Calathan (talk) 15:27, 19 July 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. Black Kite (talk) 09:44, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RDFaCE[edit]

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

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

Content editor written up by someone with a clear COI. No real evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:09, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 29 June 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, Sandstein 05:33, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:CSD § G11. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:08, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 13:39, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I moved any distinct content from RDFaCE-Lite into RDFaCE (there wasn't much). If anyone wants to keep RDFaCE, RDFaCE-Lite could be redirected. I also added a little bit to RDFa#Web-based_RDFa_editors such that both could be redirected there if anyone deems appropriate. Mike Linksvayer (talk) 19:40, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done.

weak keep I've converted one to a redirect and created an appropaite talk page for the other. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:57, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no significant RS coverage to establish notability - refs provided are to a wordpress version of the software and to pages directly associated with the project. Dialectric (talk) 13:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - insufficient coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. Trusilver 07:58, 22 July 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 Dan Goodwin. Consensus is we don't need a standalone article. Author has an article, so this could be a viable redirect. No merging as there are no reliable sources. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:00, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Skyscraperman[edit]

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

There seems to be no evidence that this is a notable book. I can't find any reviews, and it is pretty obvious that the article is partly a marketing effort. Drmies (talk) 03:05, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:52, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:52, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 13:38, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I also could find no reviews or any indication that there has been any arm's-length third-party source of expert opinion. To the best of my knowledge, this book was self-published and thus attracts no inherent notability. Ubelowme _U ^Me 14:58, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking independent coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:58, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merging and redirect to Dan Goodwin. Per common sense, I'd say. Cavarrone (talk) 09:13, 19 July 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:01, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Petal Awards[edit]

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

In-house awards function held by an Indian TV channel Colors for their own shows. Has no notability in the outside world. Fails WP:GNG. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 21:25, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:57, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:57, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete per nom. Though there is sufficient coverage, there is no use of having an article if the awards are purely commercial for their own company. Secret of success (talk) 13:11, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, quick Google search does come up with news articles on the subject. [89] - Mailer Diablo 01:48, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →B music ian 02:47, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 13:37, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete only routine coverage from an in-house awards ceremony. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:00, 19 July 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:02, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

David A. Collier[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:BIO. Accomplishments seem to be on par with any other non-notable professor in his position with his schooling. Dismas|^(talk) 22:09, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Person doesn't seem notable. Article is completely without wikilinks or proper structure. The (two) sources seem to be self-published. Personal information is included, which makes it look like more like a classified ad than a Wikipedia article. Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 23:51, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep - if there's a pony under all the ~~autobiographical~~ horseshit. What awards? Is this a named chair at a named school? Does he (minimally) meet WP:PROF? --Orange Mike | Talk 01:31, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:41, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - After a quick check through GScholar and discounting the publications quite clearly belonging to a quite different D.A. Collier, I seem to be coming up with an h-index of a bit above 20, the relevant publications being a mixture of single-authored and co-authored ones. Quite a few of these date back to the 1980s and some seem to be books. I'm not at all sure whether this is high enough to constitute notability in this field and will leave it to others to decide and/or dig deeper if they choose. PWilkinson (talk) 19:07, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The FGCU business school has about 7 named or distinguished professorships/chairs, so he holds a senior position but perhaps not the most senior. I could only find 2 reviews of his books via scholarly searches Interfaces[90]. Marketing News[91] but he's also cited by literature reviews such as[92][93][94]. He seems focused on academic publication rather than the more popular works that get coverage in the mainstream business press. It does need a rewrite, but keeping is a possibility. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:32, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
information This article was created by an s.p.a., User:Dcollierfgcu; the account has been blocked indefinitely because this username is apparently an impersonation of Collier, who has denied (in an e-mail to this admin from his official FGCU account) any connection with this account or article. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:58, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →B music ian 02:46, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 13:36, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's hard to tell whether or not this deserves to keep - the material may already be there, but it's written in a way which makes it hard to discern. Can someone who knows more about this person write it more clearly, to explain why he's notable?Chriscook54321 (talk) 09:38, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete claims of notability must rest on independent, reliable sources. There are simply none here. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:02, 19 July 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 to delete. Merging can be dealt with outside the deletion process. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 21:15, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of organizations with .INT domain names[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:34, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:35, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NOT, WP:EL/WP:ELNO and WP:SPAM: simply a list of links. mabdul 12:55, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to .INT. Not linkspam, but rather a list of examples that extends upon the parent article .INT. --Orlady (talk) 14:07, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIR. A few examples at .int should suffice. --BDD (talk) 21:38, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I'm WP:BOLDly moving this article to List of organizations with .INT domain names to conform with .int, the parent article. --BDD (talk) 21:40, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
merge to .int. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:08, 19 July 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:04, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hans Grande[edit]

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

Unable to find reliable, secondary sources which provide significant (or any) coverage of this musician/composer via WP:GNG, no claims of notability provided which would meet WP:MUSICBIO. There are other folks with the same name, such as the late Adobe product manager of the same name, so there's a bit of weeding through the results of the usual searches. (A previous version of this article was deleted via WP:BLPPROD, but this time we have a Twitter account listed, so we're here, even though he's not yet tweeted.) Additional reliable sources welcomed, as always. j⚛e decker ^talk 12:52, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was unable to find any reliable sources that meet either WP:MUSIC or WP:GNG. — sparklism ^hey! 13:52, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:09, 19 July 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:23, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nanci Filipelli[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:31, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Model / Actress of no particular note. Her "appearances" in major national films have not been credited, nor have her national television appearances. The citation to "Dan Post Boots" merely shows that she is the pretty face this company chooses to put on its website (without credit). WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:27, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I could not find any reliable sources, as per the nominator's efforts, to confirm any of the assertions that would confirm notability for the subject; no arm's-length third-party sources of expert opinion that document her expertise as compared to other models. Ubelowme _U ^Me 15:55, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: all the refs are youtube&facebook. looks like WP:A7. The Determinator p t c 12:06, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; the videos on youtube show her in the movie "Dukes of Hazard" where she has a line in the film. Sometimes mistakes are made. Steps are being taken to correct the record on IMDb and provide proper credit. Additionally, the video's clearly show her roles in nationally televised commercials and roles as a host on network TV. Maybe some people have a different appreciation for notable but in the case of Ms. Filipelli, she's clearly a notable model. Also, the article does not overstate her roles as with the case of the movie. It states "appeared" not leading actress. She has a large following and is an upcoming actress. There is no reason for her page to be deleted. If there are areas which you feel are overstated than explain but don't call the person a hoax. IMDb and others are not always correct and as mentioned, it's being addressed to have those credits added to her profile. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Writer4255 (talk • contribs) 08:41, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Having "a line" in a film is not notable. Having minor roles in several films (whether properly credited or not) is not notable. Appearing as a model in various advertisements is not notable per se. What makes a person notable is significant coverage in independent media. There is no evidence of such significant coverage anywhere. Writer4255 is urged to read WP:Notability (biographies). WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:14, 18 July 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:24, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fawaz Akhras[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:30, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not notable. FunkMonk (talk) 22:16, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: He satisfies notability guidelines including WP:BASIC criteria (substantial coverage by multiple, independent, third-party reliable sources). His name brings up 87 articles in google news with a very large number of national level newspapers. His name also brings up 15,400 total google hits. This shows the wide interest in this person. And he appears to be part of the Syrian president Bashar al-Assad ruling circle based on the leaked emails and embassy cables (US government suspects Akhras to be a key figure used by Assad to hide funds abroad; also he was advising the Syrian President during the crackdown of anti-regime protestors). He is a founding Director of the British Syrian Society and is involved with a number of Syrian causes. So being the father of the wife of Assad is only part of his notability. Tradedia (talk) 18:07, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — No WP:INHERITED notability in this case. The first lady, yes. In-laws no. There's actually very little to nothing in any reliable source as to basic biographical contents. His resume, a story in the Guardian, and mentions on Wikileaks don't satisfy WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO to support a stand-alone encyclopedic biography. Certainly, these sources might support content at his daughter or son-in-law's articles. JFHJr (㊟) 08:20, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Fawaz Akhraz is a person of influence in the Assad's inner circle as is noted in the pivotal study on the Assad government from 2006 (see page 381). The Wikileaks cables and the leaked emails further back up the claim of his influence in Assad's inner circle. It should be noted that the Syrian government is very much a family affair which is made clear in Shmuel Bar's 2006 report. I have added some more reliable sources to address the above posters concern about a lack of reliable sources for the individual's biographical background. It should also be noted that a google search of "Fawaz Akharas" shows prominently [95] in the sidebar the Wikipedia introduction, his biographical picture, and individual connections. It would be strange to delete this information from google's sidebar information. Guest2625 (talk) 23:18, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable for more than just being a relative, notable for more than just one event, already a public figure by virtue of the British Syrian Society (the Guardian describes him as "a political gatekeeper for Damascus in London" [96] -- Publico.es concurs: [97]), passes the letter of the notability guidelines by being the subject of coverage in multiple independent reliable third-party sources. -- The Anome (talk) 11:58, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Inner-circle members of the Assad regime are not going to have a huge amount of media coverage, but I think it's been demonstrated that this individual is an important player. aliceinlampyland (talk) 15:51, 14 July 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Keep. Aside from his aforementioned notability in his own right, his relationship to his daughter and her position within the Syrian establishment as the wife of the president, the Syrian crisis is also notable because of all the press coverage it has received as a current event. He is hardly a temporal figure, and even if he were only notable in his relation to his daughter and her high profile in the affairs of that country and its history, his former access along with its recent press coverage should remove any doubts. Wikipedia has articles on relatives of reasonably obscure thinkers from 2000 years ago, and this is someone who has been in the forefront of a controversial current affair. By keeping this article, it provides background that is seemingly necessary to understand the Syrian Conflict and its ensuing supporting granular details in a much fuller context and extent... If anything it should be augmented, not deleted...Stevenmitchell (talk) 13:44, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. The Anome (talk) 13:18, 13 July 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. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 21:23, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Onusemu Neemia[edit]

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

PROD contested by article creator. This player fails WP:GNG as well as WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:54, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:55, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

he has played international game for Tuvalu national futsal team. He satisfies to WP:NFOOTBALL. --Klant01 (talk) 12:19, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, GNG outweighs NFOOTBALL. Secondly, NFOOTBALL doesn't mention futsal, and his association football career is not enough to satisfy. Giant Snowman 12:24, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Where does it say GNG outweighs NFootball? WP:NFOOTBALL actually seems to take precedent as Wikipedia:Notability (sports) of which NFootball is but a part says that if notability cannot be confirmed following the guidlelines set out there that editors should then look to establish notability via WP:GNG. It is quite specific about this in the second paragraph, so I do not think your initial point is valid. Secondly, Nfootball does not exclude futsal, it merely mentions Players, managers and referees who have represented their country in any officially sanctioned senior international competition (including the Olympics) are notable as they have achieved the status of participating at the highest level of football. The article clearly references the fact that the player played in a continental tournament. This tournament was a qualifier for the futsal world cup and so must be fifa sanctioned. Therefore the player fulfills WP:Nfootball. Fenix down (talk) 18:21, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, it quite clearly says that "standalone articles are required to meet the General Notability Guideline." Secondly, football and futsal are not the same sports. Thirdly, if he appeared in a FIFA-sactioned match, he would appear on the FIFA website (a comprehensive database of all players from the past 100+ years to appear in FIFA matches) but he doesn't. Giant Snowman 16:01, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Change view to delete. Having looked at the sources more closely, they only appear to reference games where the player was a sub. There is no evidence that this player has actually played.
Note to Giant Snowman: Whilst I do now think that the article should be deleted on the grounds that there is no evidence in the sources that the player has been anything other than an unused sub, the original editor has created a large number of articles on Tuvaluan footballers and I think a couple of points need to be made to avoid potential issues in the future:

The problem with your comment however is that it quite clearly does not say what you quoted. In actual fact Wikipedia:Notability (sports) says, This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sports person or sports league/organization (amateur or professional) will meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia. As such if the criteria in WP:NFOOTBALL can be fulfilled, then GNG can almost certainly be deemed to be fulfilled. If you are getting your quote from somewhere else, please show from where. At the moment, your argument initially looks quite weak, you allude to Wikipedia:Notability (sports) (I presume) and then misquote. I will assume at the moment that you are either quoting another guideline (though I am not sure which one would trump GNG or Notability (Sports)), or have made an honest mistake, though you must see how this could be interpreted as a bad faith comment as it appears.
Secondly, football and futsal are different in the same way that rugby and rugby sevens are different. There are not separate wikiprojects or notability guidelines for different types of rugby and neither are there with football and futsal, see WP:NRU. I'm not saying there shouldn't be but as there aren't the 11-a-side guidelines are all we have and are what should be used. Fenix down (talk) 20:53, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- I'll be brief - I am quoting directly from Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Applicable policies and guidelines when I say GNG is required; and futsal is not covered by WP:NFOOTBALL. Where does it mention it? Nowhere. Giant Snowman 12:14, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Fenix down.. Nfitz (talk) 15:48, 15 July 2012 (UTC) Not enough information to comment. Nfitz (talk) 19:04, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as a footballer he hasn't played in a fully professional league or represented his country at senior level, which means that he fails WP:NFOOTBALL. As a futsal-player, he hasn't participated in "a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level such as the Olympics", which means that he fails WP:NSPORTS. Also fails WP:GNG. Mentoz86 (talk) 16:08, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep You can here see that he play a game for Tuvalu, at the beginning. http://futsal4all.com/2008/06/ofc-day-5-new-caledonia-score-first-win-of-tournament/ He also played in the other games, at Futsal are frequently changed. --Klant01 (talk) 17:07, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thats not true Mentoz86! He was with Tuvalu in 2007 present at the Pacific Games. He played then no game, but was at the tournament present. --Klant01 (talk) 17:12, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Again, being a futsal player is not notable - and WP:NFOOTBALL clearly says that you have to actually play! Giant Snowman 17:32, 17 July 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:26, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bugs & Daffy: The Wartime Cartoons[edit]

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

Article's subject doesn't seem noteworthy enough to merit an entire article. Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 08:20, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's not part of Wikipedia's mission to provide a detailed listing of every DVD ever released, and I see no evidence that this DVD is notable. If there were any reliable sources, it could be mentioned in another article, e.g. if there's a table of DVDs on the Bugs Bunny page. --Colapeninsula (talk) 08:55, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 28 June 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, — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 10:38, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Apparently an obvious "delete", but looking in depht it received enough coverage in RS to be considered notable. See reviews on The Lewiston Journal ([98]), The Inquirer ([99]), Deseret News ([100]), Herald-Journal ([101]), ToonZone ([102]), The Miami Herald ([103]), The Vindicator ([104]), Usa Today ([105]), and to a less extent Los Angeles Times ([106]), Fresno Bee ([107]), Times Daily ([108]), Dallas Morning News ([109]). Also multiple book sources: [110] Cavarrone (talk) 05:40, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources 1, 2, 3, 4, and 7 are all identical (though the Inquirer source seems more complete than the others). Sources 6, 8, 9, 10, and 12 all are pay-per-view, and those aren't advised unless a free version can be found (source 8 doesn't even mention Bugs & Daffy in the summary given, which means it definitely will need a free alternative). Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 11:48, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't noticed some sources are basically the same however this does not mean they does not count as a (single) valid reliable source. Other sources are also completely valid, verifiability in WP means that other people should be able to check that material in a Wikipedia article has been published by a reliable source, without any reference about ease of access to sources, that could be online or offline, with or without payment.

Read WP:V#WP:SOURCEACCESS Cavarrone (talk) 12:17, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair, but how would the average editor be able to cite those sources without being able to view them (at least, in their entirety)? Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 12:25, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These are different issues, a non-free access to a reliable source does not implies anything in relation to the evaluation of the notability of a topic. Despite having free online sources is obviously preferred, there are topics that are even wholly covered by offline sources... this does not mean they are unnotable. Notability does not require sources are free and online, just that they exist. Quoting literally WP:NOTABILITY: "Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation." Cavarrone (talk) 12:52, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I realize that, and those could be gladly included in the article, free or not, if we had some way of reading them in the first place. Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 13:02, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 11:28, 13 July 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. Opinions are divided about whether the media coverage referenced in the article (from the Los Angeles Times over multiple years) is sufficient coverage to avoid classification as WP:BLP1E. Sandstein 07:57, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disappearance of Robin Graham[edit]

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

As was noted in the AfD for Randy Leach see here, there's no notability save her disappearance. Unfortunate as her disappearance was, this article seems to meet all three conditions of WP:BLP1E Vertium (talk to me) 22:29, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. This article has multiple sources and is part of a series of strange disappearances, both in the US and UK. I think by the list of contributors there is plenty of interest to leave the page as it is. Regards to all, David J Johnson (talk) 23:25, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I was living in Los Angeles at the time and it got a lot of media attention. Robin Graham's is still cited as one of the more notable of the mysterious disappearance cases as no trace of her has ever been found to this day. A definite keep in my opinion.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:35, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not doubting that it got media attention, most any disapparance of this nature would. To me the question is... in and of itself, how is her disappearance notable? Was she notable prior to her disappearance? Thanks for taking the time to !vote. Vertium (talk to me) 14:12, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:28, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:28, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:28, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The disappearance is notable, or not, on the basis of whether it has gotten ongoing coverage. The article claims that this case has "often been included" in television programs about missing persons. I would like to see some evidence of that; if it is confirmed I will !vote to "keep," because it would fill the requirement for extended coverage over time. Absent such evidence, it should be deleted. As the article currently stands, all the references and links suggest that it was primarily of local and passing interest, except for occasional attempts by her parents and friends to re-call attention to the case. The assertions above, while heartfelt, offer no evidence of the required significant coverage by multiple independent reliable sources over time. BTW to user:vertium, she does not have to have been notable prior to her disappearance; the article title makes clear that the article is about her disappearance, not about her. --MelanieN (talk) 18:52, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have been unable to come up with any better sources, or to find any evidence that this case was on television shows or in any other ways had any lasting impact. In the absence of evidence of lasting impact - and without in any way questioning the "stated facts" - I must conclude that this is not a notable case. It's tragic but sadly routine. --MelanieN (talk) 03:11, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - pases WP:GNG. sources provides evidence of the stated facts.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:53, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The comment above egarding "local coverage2 is not correct. This case has been quoted in the UK press and is featured on various crime websites. Best regards, David David J Johnson (talk) 09:35, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I've been waiting to see. Can you provide links? --MelanieN (talk) 14:14, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MelanieN, Unfortunately, I did not keep a record of the press reports which were at the time of the disappearance of Robin Graham and occasionally since. However, the case is featured on the Doe Network and other crime websites. Also there have been possible links to other cases. I still feel that this article should be kept. With best regards, David. David J Johnson (talk) 15:50, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the event is notable; the references demonstrate that it received significant international coverage. The WP:ONEEVENT policy makes clear that an otherwise unknown individual involved in one notable event may not merit their own article, and consideration should be given to instead writing an article on the event. That is what has been done here - an excellent example of meeting the spirit and intentions of that policy.

Warofdreams talk 09:14, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Significant international coverage"? That may be true, but the article does not demonstrate it. All the references at the article are from the Los Angeles Times. --MelanieN (talk) 23:07, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm inclined to side with MelanieN on this. The article appears to fail various parts of WP:EVENT, including WP:EFFECT, WP:GEOSCOPE, WP:PERSISTENCE, and WP:DIVERSE. All the coverage seems to be from the Los Angeles Times, and I don't see any evidence of the international coverage that has been asserted. Still, the LA Times is a major paper and I can't help but think an event like this would get much more coverage in today's media. Location (talk) 15:40, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I note that unlike the case below, this case does not appear to be featured at the website of America's Most Wanted.[111] --MelanieN (talk) 23:04, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 11:22, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relist comment: While there are a lot of keep votes, a lot of those have been assertions that reliable sources exist somewhere. I've reslisted this to allow people to provide evidence of these sources, and then for a discussion about them to take place. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 11:24, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it has media attention and we have the roomLuciferWildCat (talk) 21:55, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A search of the online Reader's Guide to Periodical Literature for (robin graham), with dates from November 1970 through December 1975, yields zero hits. A search of Time magazine's archives for (robin graham), with the same date restrictions, yields four hits, none of which appear to concern the subject of this article. Searching Google News Archives for ("robin graham") yields a number of Los Angeles Times articles, but nothing indicative of wider media attention. I'm afraid that this fails WP:GEOSCOPE. Ammodramus (talk) 02:38, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am still of the opinion that this article is within the WP:GNG. I think users here are grasping for straws and have too high notability requirements. Obviously this article subject has recieved a fair amount of press. Being featured in America's Most Wanted or not is not a deal breaker.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:02, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not. But being covered by only a single source (the Los Angeles Times) may be. The guidelines require significant coverage from MULTIPLE independent reliable sources. --MelanieN (talk) 15:00, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand that a newspaper continously follows a case is a indication of not another run of the mill case. And also the LA Times isnt exactly a small local newspaper but a renowned publication with a huge reader-circle. Still strawman-arguments in my opinion from the ones wanting this article deleted, with way to high notability requirements a indication of wanting this article deleted at any cost as seen so many times on AfDs. sorry to say. I am still of a Keep opinion.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:08, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets requirements for continual coverage and has even been features on TV programming. Stedrick (talk) 15:03, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I tried to find online archives going back to 1970 for several major California papers: the San Diego papers, the San Francisco Examiner and Chronicle, and the Sacramento Bee. No luck with any of these.

A number of "Keep" !votes here have stated nothing more than "has received media attention" or "has been featured on TV". This is argument by assertion. Could some interested editors in major non-L.A. metro areas hit their local libraries and check their 1970-1975 newspapers for coverage of this? Negative evidence would be useful: lack of coverage in major metropolitan dailies would strengthen the presumption of non-notability. Ammodramus (talk) 20:44, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Her disappearance is the reason the California Highway Patrol procedure concerning stranded female motorists was changed. The CHP now has to remain with the stranded motorist until she gets proper assistance. Also this incident is documented on my website, http://www.TheZodiacMansonConnection.com/victim_graham.html and there are other sites mentioning this event also. TZMC (talk) 03:14, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Your website is not considered a reliable source per Wikipedia guidelines, however, I would be interested in seeing some evidence of the assertion that the CHP changed their procedures due to this case. Do you have source for this? Location (talk) 13:32, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

within the article the change is cited to ""WILL INCREASE AID TO WOMEN:CHP Alters Freeway Policy After Disappearance of Girl", Los Angeles Times (1886-Current File). Los Angeles, Calif.:Dec 12, 1970. p. a1 (2 pp.)" although I am not finding it. It would need to be verified that someone actually attributes the change to this incident and not just that the policy was changed. -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:19, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As I previously stated this case is notable and has possible connections to other cases. In the past it has had coverage in the UK, as well as the US - although I greatly regret not saving the references, but this was long before Wikipedia.

The article has multi references and I see no reason whatsoever for its deletion — Preceding unsigned comment added by David J Johnson (talk • contribs) 10:28, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This incident is also on my webpage http://www.TheZodiacMansonConnection.com/car_abductions.html that was first put online on February 17, 2004 and updated on June 3, 2008. TZMC (talk) 08:40, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- your website however does not meet our requirements of being a reliable source. -- The Red Pen of Doom 16:32, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
does anyone have access to verify what is in here Comité de México y Aztlán, 1974 - Social Science -- The Red Pen of Doom 16:32, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the byline includes "Times Staff Writer"; this and the casual reference to Riverside leads me to suspect that it ran in the Los Angeles Times. A Google search for ("robert kistler" "los angeles" times) indicates that a Robert Kistler was writing for the Times in 1970. Ammodramus (talk) 20:44, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E, WP:GEOSCOPE and WP:NOTNEWS, among other reasons. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate repository of anything which has been reported on ever, anywhere. Trusilver 19:25, 21 July 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 as blatant advertising. Islamicdayee/Br.Nizam.A.Khan (The advert itself gives both names.) has, so far, placed this advert for himself in four places in Wikipedia, and done nothing else since August 2011. Given that it gives a contact number and touts for professional engagements, this is blatant advertising by a complete non-contributor. I've therefore deleted the three out of the four that needed deleting. You already have your own WWW site, Nizam Ali Khan, and Wikipedia is not an advertising billboard. Uncle G (talk) 14:07, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Br Nizam A Khan[edit]

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

Unsourced biography of non-notable person, possible WP:COI and written like a resume jfd34 (talk) 10:37, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a spam or neither a fake page. I would request this page be as is, thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Br.Nizam.A.Khan (talk • contribs) 12:22, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: A7. Definite WP:COI. WP:GNG. WP:PROMOTION. Fail WP:BIO. WP:SPA. And everything else. Samar (Talk . Contributions) 12:37, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not notable, tried to find substantive sources but no. Then I saw the creator uses the same page for userpage, so definite resume article. Pim Rijkee (talk) 14:00, 13 July 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#G11 spam. JohnCD (talk) 11:02, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Badu religion[edit]

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

Not notable (seems to just be there to spam their site) Mesoderm (talk) 08:15, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. I finally got around to researching this. There are no reliable sources for this and I did wade through the sizable number of false positives that came up since there's a famous singer with the name of Badu. The only thing I found that actually mentioned this religion is the religion's own website. I'm speedying this, as this is just a promotional article that leads to the religion's website, which prompts you to pay them through paypal for various services rather than actually imparting anything about the religion that might help find sources or back up any claims.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:14, 13 July 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 This is a combination of a snow delete and a speedy deletion, as the author removed all meaningful content from the article and, in effect, requested deletion. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:41, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unicorn Jeep[edit]

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

Personal opinion essay about non-notable personalty; unverifiable content. Yes, even for this, almost self-proving, I attempted some searches (e.g. this), just to make sure there wasn't maybe some new coverage and found nothing.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 07:55, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This just isn't notable and is pretty much the epitome of Wikipedia's WP:NOT page. There are no reliable sources to show that this is notable. I had a hard time finding any big talk about this outside of the Wikipedia page, which says a lot considering that the article claims that the woman in question had gotten "many requests" to replicate the horn. You could almost delete this as being overly promotional in content, as the article seems to be mostly there to give back pats to the person who came up with this. Wikipedia is not a place to mention things that someone came up with one day, even if it is a cute looking unicorn jeep.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:43, 13 July 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 Bryan Bertino#This Man film. This was a well-conducted and civil debate that reached a thoughtful conclusion. Thanks to all involved. NAC—S Marshall T/C 22:53, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This Man[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:19, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently non-notable viral-marketing meme. Most of the content is self-published stuff from the website that launched the meme; all others are from random websites and it seems dubious to what extent they are independent of the original marketing campaign. No serious reliable coverage in any of the sources cited. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:46, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Hmm... from what I can find of this so far, I'm going to go along with your theory that this is pretty much something that was made up for a marketing gimmick. My first thought was that someone created this to make it more likely that their movie script would be sold (and if so, it worked). However, being unlikely doesn't make it automatically non-notable. I'll see if I can find anything. Offhand I'll say that if stuff is found, the article needs to be re-written because right now it looks like an advertisement for the site and is highly promotional in nature.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 13:47, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm cleaning out the nonsense from the article. "Folklore"? Hardly. It's best described as an internet meme, which is what I'm changing it to.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 13:52, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Got the worst out, so now if anyone looks in here, they'll be less likely to want to burn it with fire and start anew. I'm somewhat leaning towards potentially incubating this. My rationale behind this is that this all looks to have been an attempted media blitz/meme for a movie that was in development in order to make it more likely to be picked up. Since the advertising worked and a movie is in the works, if it gets made it's likely to be notable given the production house. But right now? I'm not entirely so sure that this meets GNG, but I've still got some searching to do. So far all I've found are a few half-hearted meme sites and lukewarm blog posts.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 14:15, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Viral-marketing memes can sometimes be found notable. See Elf Yourself. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:27, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

True, true, but this didn't really get as much coverage as Elf Yourself did. It did get a little coverage in some reliable sources, but most of the talk ended up being in places like forums on Snopes and the like. As far as memes and marketing stuff goes, it sort of got an indifferent shrug from the internet before moving on to stuff like Chocolate Rain. I do think this could make for an interesting article when the movie gets released, but right now it just doesn't seem to have gotten that much attention. I think it'd be good as an incubated article, but if all else fails I'd be willing to userfy a copy of it.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 22:36, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Incubate or ~~delete~~ merge/redirect to Bryan Bertino. This isn't a clear cut case of deletion, unfortunately. When it was popular-ish back around October of 2009, this got a small (and I emphasize small) flurry of attention from various news sites. Not really from anyone overwhelmingly notable, but enough to where it does come up with a search. However, the attention seemed to be extremely, extremely short lived and from what I can see, it didn't really get any attention from reliable sources until a few months later in May 2010, when GHP announced that they were making a movie about This Man. As far as memes go, it was just good enough that it got some attention but nowhere near enough to where it'd warrant an article to itself. As far as movies go (and I'm now positive that this was all one genius marketing gimmick for a movie), this film has yet to start production, so it fails WP:NFF. Since Raimi is one of the names behind the film company making the movie, I don't doubt that it'll get attention enough when/if the film is made. But right now? No. There's no notability and that there's no reliable coverage of this meme/myth/hoax apart from a short period of time in October 2009 shows that there's no depth of coverage. It fails all notability guidelines, but again- I'm relatively sure that if/when the movie is made, it'll be notable and this could work as something to keep in the Incubator.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 14:26, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Don't know where apparently non-notable viral-marketing meme came from. People go to the website daily. It has an Alexa rank of 300,000, which isn't amazing, but it means a few thousand visit the website daily. It's notable. We're not sure if it's viral-marketing. It's a speculation.--MrIndustry (talk) 22:42, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 16:01, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and then redirect to Bryan Bertino as a project-in-development. The Wayback Machine indicates the thisman.org website has been around since 2003.[112] It was part of an episode of Tosh.O in 2009.[113] The site seems to have generated a great deal of blog traffic,[114] and IS dicussed in reliable sources IO9 WTF News The Wire et al. However, and far more recently as a "film", This Man is currently "in-development"[115] by Ghost House Pictures which asa topic is getting far more coverage as a film-in-pre-production with Bryan Bertino set as director.[116][117][118][119] et al... enough so THAT this much can be written of in the Bertino article, nicely expanding it. The topic of the meme would later merit a mention at the article at This Man (film) when that film is made... with meme-as-inspiration examined in the film article's development section. Merging suitable information from the stub would not overburden the Bertino article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:04, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was around since 2003, but it looks like the website was originally for a musician/rapper and was unrelated to its current content.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 00:03, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh. Likely so. The earliest Wayback Machine screenshot showing its current version was in early 2010.[120] And the domain history[121][122] shows it more likely than not that the domain name was re-accquired and the site re-built in 2009-2010 using that domain name as a promotional device to hype an upcoming film. My reasons for a merge are thus strengthened. I suggest the redirect as it is a searchable term in relationship to the director, and it can be overwriten if or when a film is made. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:34, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan Bertino can be fired as the director/writer at any moment. I don't think we should redirect towards him. It should be redirected to Ghost House.--MrIndustry (talk) 04:03, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IF Bertino were to be fired from the project (and no sources even hint at this), we could easily change the redirect. And even IF it were to happen, we still have enough sources speaking about his part (so far) in the planned production that it is reasonable to send readers to where it makes sense to have such sourced discussion about Bertino and his part in the screenplay and pre-production.[123][124][125][126][127][128][129][130][131][132][133][134] And if you've noticed, we really do not have an article on Ghost House Pictures... as it is redirect itself to the Robert Tapert article... an article which does not iself actually contain anything about the history and background of the production studio. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:26, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, never even clicked on the Ghost House Pictures link. This would make sense then.--MrIndustry (talk) 16:40, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm changing my vote slightly to put merge/redirect as an option. Is it possible to do the merge/redirect and put a copy in the incubator or whatnot?Tokyogirl79 (talk) 22:28, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I can go ahead and place information in the proposed target, Bryan Bertino. A closer can incubate the article and then set a redirect. IN the incubator, the article needs to be then modified to be about the proposed film, as THAT has far more coverage than does the meme. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:38, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Redirect target now ready. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:32, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted (CSD G3) by Bearcat. NAC. Cliff Smith 17:15, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Kuhls Brothers[edit]

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

Yet another false contribution of a so-called "upcoming YouTube series premiering on Cartoon Network" by NickKuhls (talk · contribs), who has seen several of their articles deleted via the AfD process. Pretty blatant as their name is the series title this time, asking for both deletion of this and possibly a block for continued false contributions. Also, a terrible copy of The High Fructose Adventures of Annoying Orange television series. I am also nominating the following related page because it's a false "list of episodes" article for the above:

Consider this speedied as a G3 (blatant hoax). Bearcat (talk) 16:43, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep. The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn and no !votes for deletion from other users occurred. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:45, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just Do It (Niké)[edit]

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

Unnecessary duplication of content already in more detail at Nike, Inc.#Origins and history. Was CSD'd as A10, another editor converted it to redirect, original editor then reinstated it (losing the stub-sorting which had been done): not technically "removing the CSD tag by original editor", but having the same effect. Just do it! is a long-standing redirect to Nike, Inc., and there is a hatnote at Just Do It. PamD 06:53, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw, as nominator: more content has now been provided, and the slogan appears to have some notability. My nominations to CSD and AfD were perhaps partly inspired by sheer irritation at the creation, by an experienced editor, of a stub which made no serious attempt to link to the existing Nike, Inc. article (there was a link to the dab page at Niké), and no attempt to link this stub from the existing hatnote at Just Do It or the redirect at Just do it!, as well as initially having much less content about the slogan than was already provided in the Nike, Inc. article. I've now fixed all those links, and moved this stub to a title which takes account of the WP spelling used for the Nike, Inc. article. PamD 11:07, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as creator: A quick search on Google reveals a tonne of information. The history of the slogan. How it has been used in Nike advertising. Why it is one of the most easily recognized slogans of all time. ... even stuff like the psychological issues related to it like: does it drive people to do reckless behaviour.. there was an article in GoogleNews questioning whether it subliminsally made Tiger Woods do what he did. Fascinating stuff... and I think independently notable to Nike. (btw sorry about the "acute" on the "e"...)--Coin945 (talk) 08:58, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just Keep It There seems to be lots of scope for expansion - see Encyclopedia of Major Marketing Campaigns, for example. Deletion would be disruptive and contrary to our editing policy. Warden (talk) 09:48, 13 July 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. Black Kite (talk) 17:58, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Live Steam & Outdoor Railroading (magazine)[edit]

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

(Failed PROD) - Doesn't appear to be a notable publication, and no evidence of notability supplied. Oranjblud (talk) 00:21, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reasons: Article has been stable for a long time (years). WP:NOTPAPER. Notable publication within its genre (largest in the US, comparable to Model Engineer in the UK.) Janke | Talk 05:40, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non of those are valid reasons - can you provide some evidence of notability other than stating "it is notable". As for Model Engineer - WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - though I note that that magazine is far broader in coverage.Oranjblud (talk) 13:22, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article " being stable" is not a criterion for notability. LibStar (talk) 12:10, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:09, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:09, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:09, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above: The beauty of Wikipedia is that we do have niche and esoteric topics. That can complicate determining notability. But, I'm noticing that you're putting up every Railfan magazine to AFD or trying to PROD them. Sorry, but that smacks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Roodog2k (talk) 17:13, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you could assume good faith. In Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions - "I don't like it" and "I like it" are given as not being good reasons to keep or delete an article. I'm not putting up "every railfan magazine" up for deletion - I've nominated ones which don't appear to be notable. Railway Gazette, Railway Age have not been nomimated. Your time might be better spent showing notability or improving the article, than casting aspersions on my motives. We don't have articles on niche and esoteric subjects that are not notable. Railfanning is not and exception.Oranjblud (talk) 17:34, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am assuming good faith. I removed some of your PRODs, and that has seemed to offend you. All your AfDs appear to be "doesn't appear notable" with no further argument. Leaving snippy message on my talk page isn't good faith, however. Roodog2k (talk) 17:48, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - if you are going to remove PRODS I would like you could come up with more than "I think this obscure topic is notable" - that doesn't help the article, makes more work, and perpetuates any sentiment on wikiproject trains that train related cruft is a special case and does not need to conform to basic encyclopedic standards. Not good.Oranjblud (talk) 17:58, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if you feel that Railfandom isn't a notable topic, but a lot of people think it is. I'm not allowed to remove a PROD if I disagree with it? You're sort of proving my case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. THAT is not a valid reason for deletion. For the record, I think railfans are a little off their rockers, but if it makes them happy, so be it. Roodog2k (talk) 18:13, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:DEPROD you are not required to explain a de-PROD. The only required action is to remove the {{Proposed deletion/dated}} template. Turning that over: the original PROD had a blank edit summary, which was a failure to observe the nomination process. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:30, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:POINTy nomination. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:30, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Placing an AFD request on an unreferenced, and apparently non-notable article is not as far as I know and example of disruptive behaviour done to prove a point.Oranjblud (talk) 19:41, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the space of just under one hour you did a drive-by PROD on 42 articles (without following the proper process). Nine of these later had the PROD contested, and in eight such cases you then raised an AFD - sometimes within minutes of the PROD being contested. I assume that you've got something against transport-related periodicals, since I don't see any other articles PRODded by you on 4 July 2012. It's this "they've all got to go" attitude which is POINTy. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:59, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can assume all you want - the facts are these are all articles lacking any references excluding primary sources, with no indication of notability, and to be honest - in almost all cases (there are exceptions) - no chance of ever being notable, or being shown to be notable.

What is fascinating is that as a member of wikproject trains, and an admin - you let these non-notable crufty articles pile up with out doing a thing about it, but if anyone makes the slightest attempt to get rid of this trash - you ignore WP:AGF and claiming WP:POINT - Oranjblud (talk) 23:39, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot comment on this particular magazine as I am not familiar with it, but I completely agree with Redrose64's comments on the unacceptable nature of the general process that is going on here. -- Alarics (talk) 07:31, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for something that has existed this long, can't find any sources on gnews. [135]. LibStar (talk) 07:12, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GHITS - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:12, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:GOOGLE: "Google News can help assess whether something is newsworthy." He wasn't talking about Google itself but specifically the Google News search engine, which can definitely be used to find reliable sources for a topic. Till 03:04, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the implication that a lack of gNews hits = lack of notability is concerning. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:23, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

hardly concerning, why do you think gnews is offered in the AfD template?? It is one of the best ways to find third party sources. WP:GHITS applies to when people think lots of google hits (not google news) means notability. As an admin you should know this. LibStar (talk) 08:24, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:GHITS which says "Note further that searches using Google's specialty tools, such as Google Books, Google Scholar, and Google News are more likely to return reliable sources that can be useful in improving articles than the default Google web search." LibStar (talk) 12:09, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I know that. I also know, however, that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:20, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:30, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NME's provision for significant "niche" publications. GNews and GBooks do produce some decent hits using the search string <"Live Steam" magazine>, at least enough to persuade me that this is worth keeping. --Arxiloxos (talk) 06:13, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic seems to have adequate notability and our editing policy is to make something of this, not to delete it. Warden (talk) 10:14, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

this is a generic vote. In what way does it meet "adequate notability". The editing policy is irrelevant in terms of arguing for notability. You've used this over 100 times and sways no one. LibStar (talk) 08:21, 15 July 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:35, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OpenSAN[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet the notability guideline for organisations (which applies to products and thus, I think, software) or the general notability guideline (contested prod) – Arms & Hearts (talk) 02:14, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:20, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Project's history has neven been either included or written before. Now there is this piece of descriptive information and brief overview of project's borntime. Anyway it is hard to fully understand those notability rules.Stargravesm (talk) 10:27, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was unable to find reliable sources indicating that any arm's-length third-party expert thinks that this material is notable. Possibly the project's own website is the place for this overview; it's not for Wikipedia. Ubelowme _U ^Me 15:30, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Information Open SAN is used across a database server to control the inputs and outputs of connected networks. The program is free ware, so it's not a mainstream network system like Oracle, or Netsuite, or Microsoft Access. The best this product would do is for a company with no money because this program is free. Not worth keeping, but at this point I just wanted to share some thoughts on the program.Keystoner idin (speak) 19:17, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:29, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This entire article is a copy-paste from www.opensan.org, the sections in this article are the same from the sections on the website. Ziiike (talk) 01:57, 14 July 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:14, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Said Muhammad Husayn Qahtani[edit]

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

On a living Guantanamo prisoner with no independent coverage at all. Fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:BLP1E. The Citations used are primary sources (Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_84#Reliability_of_US_military_summary_reports). A list Saudi detainees at Guantanamo Bay already exists, giving the same info. DBig Xray 22:37, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:23, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:23, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:23, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:23, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:23, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I request a relisting -- Sources do exist. Updating the article will probably take about 6 hours. It took about six hours to update Assem Matruq Mohammad al Aasmi. We are all volunteers here, and when it takes a whole day to address the concerns in a single {{afd}}, and one finds mutliple {{afd}} being filed per day, it is simply not possible to keep up. Geo Swan (talk) 22:14, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You have had more than a year to do something about these articles since the end of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Geo Swan. You didn't. You complained then about the too high frequency of AfD's, but the reality is that hundreds of articles you created have been deleted yet, and many more are still lingering around; giving you the time to do something hasn't got much (if any) effect, so you are now again confronted with multiple AfDs. You have delayed things more than enough already. Fram (talk) 06:44, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 03:26, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting rationale: Insufficient discussion, BLP.

Delete - Primary sources, routine case details, does not satisfy WP:GNG. Sources simply do not exist for this or dozens of other worthless Gitmo stubs. Do not grant an extension of any sort, please. Tarc (talk) 23:42, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:27, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject clearly fails WP:GNG on its own. --Artene50 (talk) 07:39, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't meet WP:BLP1E. Nick-D (talk) 10:32, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable as the subject lacks "significant coverage" in reliable sources per WP:GNG. Anotherclown (talk) 05:09, 20 July 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:35, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Cotugno[edit]

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

Unable to find reliable, secondary sources which would evidence notability under WP:GNG, unable to verify possible claims to notability (in particular, the "3 emmys", although we're not told what those are for) under WP:ENT. j⚛e decker ^talk 05:26, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not seeing anything to back up those claims either, and therefore no indication that he meets WP:ENT. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:34, 17 July 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 Balochistan conflict. Redirect afterwards — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:36, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nazir Ahmed Marri[edit]

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

Apparantly, this is an article about a murder victim from an incident that took place yesterday. However, I cannot fine independent, reliable sources (i.e. only news sites that contain malware and an article on the website affiliated with the group that claims the victim was affiliated with their group). There is also a potential WP:BIO1E issue here as well. Singularity42 (talk) 01:12, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree to merge to Balochistan conflict/Fifth Conflict -- per BIO1E. That article might need to spin off a Fifth Conflict in Balochistan sub article. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 16:53, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:41, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 03:43, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete independent notability not established. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:21, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:26, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see independent notability confirmed by sources. Merge to Balochistan conflict.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:29, 13 July 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. Sandstein 08:02, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sameur Abdenour[edit]

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

On a living Guantanamo prisoner with no independent coverage at all. Fails WP:BLP1E, WP:GNG, WP:BIO. There are no secondary sources to claim notability of the subject and the citations used are primary sources (WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 84#Reliability of US military summary reports).DBig Xray 11:19, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because these articles are on the same topic and have the same issues as mentioned above.The cases of these subjects are already mentioned in Algerian detainees at Guantanamo Bay (Note: I have already followed WP:BEFORE for these articles and I am nominating them after being fully convinced) :

The consensus on recent similar AfDs [136],[137], [138],[139] was Delete DBig Xray 11:19, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:23, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:23, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:23, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:23, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all The only claim to these individuals being notable rests on the fact that they were held at Guantanamo Bay. As such, the articles should be deleted per WP:BLP1E Nick-D (talk) 07:08, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - per nom. Clearly fails WP:BLP1E, WP:BIO, WP:GNG. Also there is nothing WP:N about them. →TSU ^tp* 15:06, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 19k of content and sources was gutted from the main body of the article by IQuinn, but External links remain, which are fine resources for citations and content of the main article :
Abdenour Sameur: Allegations of Abuse The UCDavis Center for the Study of Human Rights in the Americas
Held in 'legal limbo' Harrow Times June 7, 2007
The three returned to Britain and those still in Guantanamo Times Online December 20, 2007
Anarchangel (talk) 21:54, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Anarchangel has provided external links.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:30, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the links provided do not establish notability, merely that WP:ITEXISTS. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:58, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:05, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As note din other Gitmo AfDs, even if a few sources are scraped up, we're still solidly in WP:BLP1E territory, and being detained, even indef, isn't a critical or monumental event to overcome 1E. The one keep and the one "per x" keep do not address this, so they are effectively invalidated. Tarc (talk) 12:51, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - per nomination. Like most similar articles their subjects lack "significant coverage" in reliable sources and are therefore not notable under the WP:GNG. Anotherclown (talk) 05:22, 20 July 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 much discussion, but not much to discuss Wily D 09:40, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John A. Gadola[edit]

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

Fails notability guidelines. Tagged since Aug 2010 for more info, no edits since then. Fbifriday (talk) 04:49, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Family court judge that fails WP:POLITICIAN. No evidence of being involved in any notable cases or trials. Location (talk) 00:28, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep and Rename to Big Bay Boom. IronGargoyle (talk) 14:54, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Big Bay Boom incident[edit]

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

Per WP:NOTNEWS. This is just a single event with no lasting impact. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 13:25, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Amounts to "San Diego had a lot of fireworks yesterday." --BDD (talk) 15:19, 5 July 2012 (UTC) (edit: with recent additions, this comment looks a bit off base, so consider this a "per nom" vote --BDD (talk) 16:58, 5 July 2012 (UTC))[reply]
Delete unless follow-up news reports tell us something of lasting importance. Borock (talk) 17:55, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:47, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:47, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:47, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ ~~(Changing to "redirect/merge", see below)~~ (Changing to Keep and rename to Big Bay Boom, see below) Hey, I was there and I saw it, and I will never forget it - but that does not make it into an incident of lasting significance to the world. News coverage was a one-day thing. --MelanieN (talk) 16:05, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. The coverage, though brief, was nationwide. I just rewrote the article for clarity and sourcing. It's probably going to be deleted, but in the meantime it might as well tell the story clearly. --MelanieN (talk) 17:03, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:GEOSCOPE (i.e. only affects/affected San Diego); no lasting effects WP:EFFECT, no persistence WP:PERSISTENCE. Roodog2k (talk) 17:01, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, subject falls under WP:1E, and at this point it does not appear, at this time, to pass WP:EFFECT. If there were an article regarding the company which was responsible for the show, Garden State Fireworks, than I would propose that verified content be merged there; however, as that is not the case, the only possible solution is deletion.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:14, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting idea, RCLC. I'd like to ask that this article not be snow-deleted; please leave it up for the full week, to give me time to see if I can create an appropriate target for a merge/redirect. I think the company may be notable enough for an article. BTW, the reference WP:1E refers to PEOPLE not being notable for a single event, not to the events themselves. Obviously we don't delete articles about events just for being about events; we have lots of such articles (see, for example, Category:Aviation accidents and incidents). We delete articles about events if they do not have lasting significance (i.e. WP:NOTNEWS), which is almost certainly going to be the case here. (But hey, it was AWESOME!) --MelanieN (talk) 20:53, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Due to the creation of the article Garden State Fireworks, I shall change my vote to Merge & Redirect, as the event (although it is getting more coverage) does not presently pass WP:EFFECT (even though if coverage continues at its present pace it may eventually pass EFFECT) it does not then reach criteria set forth in WP:EVENT. That being said, as Garden State Fireworks has been created, it can then be merged into that article, and a redirect be left in its place. If it can be later found that the subject does pass EFFECT than the content can always be spunout.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:05, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Garden State Fireworks. (Changing to keep and rename to Big Bay Boom, see below - sorry for all the changes of opinion!) The company turned out to be notable IMO so I created the article. Content about this incident is already merged into that article. Check it out! --MelanieN (talk) 01:21, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Move/Rename to Big Bay Boom and expand. Apparently, this event has been going on for more than a decade, not a new event. It should then be expanded so as not to give undue weight to the accident, which is one incident in a long history.--Auric (talk) 12:47, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm from San Diego and I watch the Big Bay Boom every year - but even I don't think it's notable enough for an article of its own. I'm willing to be persuaded by sources, but I suspect most of the sources you find will just be event announcements - "the Big Bay Boom will take place at 9 PM on July 4, here's where you can watch it from" - rather than in-depth coverage. --MelanieN (talk) 01:36, 9 July 2012 (UTC) Changing my mind, I think Big Bay Boom may deserve an article after all; see below. --MelanieN (talk) 04:23, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

neutral/preserve somehow Personally, I don't agree with a merge/redirect to Garden State Fireworks, but I would agree with a merge/redirect with Big bay boom or something related to San Diego... assuming it's notable. I have a weird reasoning with this, related to geoscope. This event is really more closely associated with San Diego, and I feel that this information should be preserved vis-a-vis in a San Diego-related article, not the firework company. I don't think this can stand on it's own as an article, but in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE, this information should be kept in an article about San Diego where someone could read about it who would otherwise not know about it. Roodog2k (talk) 14:42, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But is it Wikipedia's job to keep a record of every incident that ever happened? Borock (talk) 15:17, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I never said Wikipedia should keep a record of every incident that ever happened. Respectfully, you just used a logical fallacy. See also Straw man. Again, respectfully, looking past the rhetoric, and my lack of language skills to clearly communicate my feelings, I propose the following: It appears that a concensus is developing to keep this as a merge/redirect, which I disagree with. The implication is that it's a sufficiently notable event to record. I agree that it's notable enough to preserve the information someplace in Wikipedia, but without the merge/redirect. I would accept a redirect to Big bay boom if the event were deemed notable, but I do not deem that event notable myself, and that seems consistent with concensus. A sentence or two in some article someplace is fine. This is the reasoning behind my changed vote. Should the need arise, I shall be bold and fix it myself.Roodog2k (talk) 19:40, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This was a one time event that garnered some media attention immediately after, but would be very arguable to have any lasting signifigance outside of the standard "interesting news item of the day" type news stories. Per Wiki's policy on Wikipedia:Notability (events), events need to have lasting signifigance, which I don't see here. The relevent information has already been merged into the much more notable Garden State Fireworks article, so there is no need to include this as a separate page. Rorshacma (talk) 20:10, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename - After some research I have come to think Auric and Roodog are correct after all; the Big Bay Boom may be notable enough for its own article. The annual event is "one of the most logistically complex displays in the world," spanning 14 miles over five locations.[140] I am now inclined to say Keep this article and Rename it to "Big Bay Boom," and rewrite it to be about the annual event - with just a section about the incident. I will undertake the rewriting if it is kept. --MelanieN (talk) 04:23, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BTW I have updated the article with more recent information. The video of this incident was the most-viewed video on YouTube that week, seen by 4 million viewers. I know, that doesn't make it notable - but still it shows the impact. --MelanieN (talk) 04:26, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:44, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep totally notable.LuciferWildCat (talk) 21:49, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ITSNOTABLE. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:22, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a flash in the pan. Mangoe (talk) 13:05, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to closing administrator: if the result here is delete, please userfy it to me; I would like to rework it into an article about the event itself (the Big Bay Boom) and resubmit it. --MelanieN (talk) 14:54, 20 July 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 Wily D 10:45, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Emre Can[edit]

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

Contested prod. Non-notable footballer who has yet to play in a fully-professional league. J Mo 101 (talk) 12:34, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. J Mo 101 (talk) 12:36, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 12:50, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 13:34, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone else. Specs112 t c 17:21, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 19:36, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep Actually, does *not* fail WP:GNG. Did any of you look for sources? (removed 1) [141]; [142]; that's just a few minutes of searching. He may not pass WP:NFOOTBALL, but there are dozens of articles, in english and turkish and german, written *about* him. How is that not WP:GNG?? --KarlB (talk) 21:28, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Your first source refers to a different Emre. How many of those articles consist of significant coverage? All I've seen are a few name checks and routine hype about a youth player who's yet to actually achieve anything of note. This article should be re-created if and when the player makes his way into the first team. J Mo 101 (talk) 22:39, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, the first source was my mistake. But how do you define significant coverage? The two articles linked above are *about* him. Here's another one - fully *about* him [143]; here's another one [144]. How do you define significant coverage? I know WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, but look at the keep votes on this guy Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henry Oxley, who still doesn't have a single source even comparable to the easy sources we can find on Emre Can. So I guess I'm confused - what exactly about his coverage is not GNG?--KarlB (talk) 03:44, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - while the article fails NFOOTBALL, it is close to satisfying the GNG. My concern is that the coverage dedicated to this player is almost entirely about his potential and his future, and far less about his actual accomplishments (although there is discussion of his U17 national team and Bayern reserve performances). I don't think he's notable enough - just yet. Jogurney (talk) 21:15, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails both WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG.Simione001 (talk) 06:35, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks; can you tell me what about [145]; [146]; [147]; [148] is not considered "significant coverage in reliable sources" - these are all articles about him, in 3rd party sources. I think there's a serious double standard at work here; GNG is discarded when the player hasn't reached a high-enough level, then the same GNG is used to defend the most specious of sources on players that have played one game in a big league.--KarlB (talk) 12:30, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I grant he doesn't meet NFOOTBALL, but the first and last of Karl.brown's cites just above (mercafutbol, sportbild) seem to me to reach WP:GNG, with the other sources providing a bit of additional "margin". --j⚛e decker ^talk 04:58, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Per Decker and Brown. I think the sources presented suggest he meets notability standards under GNG and will likely have more very shortly. --LauraHale (talk) 05:19, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:31, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 July 5. Snotbot t • c » 20:13, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per j⚛e decker and there is coverage of him on the Internet so i say keep. Kante4 (talk) 16:13, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:32, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as noted above, meets WP:GNG. Last time I checked, it doesn't matter if it fails WP:FOOTY if it meets WP:GNG. Nfitz (talk) 15:14, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's irrelevant that he fails NFOOTY because he passes GNG – "significant coverage in independent reliable sources" – as shown by the the sources Karl has provided. Jenks24 (talk) 14:28, 17 July 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 to delete. While there is an argument to merge, it is currently sourced well-enough. After 18 days of debate, this AfD needs to be closed. Bearian (talk) 20:21, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Parkwood Entertainment[edit]

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

Delete - A non-notable company that has received no non-trivial coverage from multiple, verifiable, reliable or independent sources. A list of productions to which it has contributed, sourced by trivial mentions in sources, does not satisfy WP:CORP and fails WP:IINFO. SplashScreen (talk) 20:35, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:50, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:50, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have read the article and checked the reference and the topic is pretty notable. I don't clearly understand the nominator's rationale, since it has been covered by many reliable sources and seems (for a basic glance) to be important. Again, i must suggest the nominator to thoroughly read WP:BEFORE. —Hahc 21 01:17, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So WP:ITSNOTABLE? And which part of WP:BEFORE has been violated? SplashScreen (talk) 06:10, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you even bother to read what you are linking to? WP:ITSNOTABLE calls for a comment that is either "topic is notable" or "topic not notable", both in which were not in violation here. I suggest you take some time to actually read polices, with WP:BEFORE probably be the most important one. Cheers. Statυs (talk) 09:36, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Splash, I recommend you to read the entire WP:BEFORE, also, you might check WP:AADD. —Hahc 21 16:32, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What the nominator has said, sans puffery, is "the article seems to be pretty notable because it's important, so yeah". SplashScreen (talk) 18:39, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sufficient for General notability guideline. One in what can be seen as a series of poorly thought out nominations. --Fæ (talk) 21:24, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are going to have to explain why, rather than quoting WP:JUSTAPOLICY and slagging off the nominator as AfD is WP:NOTAVOTE. Maybe you should directly concern yourself with the arguments brought up in the opening post; WP:AFDFORMAT can help if you are struggling. SplashScreen (talk) 21:28, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice, I'll go by the normal consensus process. My opinion is based on the contents of the article, which anyone can read for themselves, so it seems fine to me. --Fæ (talk) 21:32, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Text of article explains why it is notable" is an exact quote from WP:ASSERTN. Spooky. SplashScreen (talk) 21:43, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As you have become abusive elsewhere, I'll not be bothering to engage with you further. Bye --Fæ (talk) 21:47, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Move to "Parkwood Pictures". Six references are currently included. 1 looks okay. 2, 3, 4 and 6 call the company "Parkwood Pictures". 5 does not support the text and should be deleted. Reference 4 is enough to justify notability. The other references only mention Parkwood in passing and don't really support notability. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:46, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The existence of one reference is not enough to justify notability. SplashScreen (talk) 10:21, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Beyoncé. The firm has no notability aside from being her production company, and that's all the coverage I could find - parenthetical mentions of it as her production company.[149] Same is true for Parkwood Pictures.[150] The same is true of the existing references in the article - a passing mention of the company, in connection with Beyoncé. --MelanieN (talk) 03:43, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:29, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at those references I tend to agree with MelanieN. This needs more discussion. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:30, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Beyoncé per MelanieN. --Arxiloxos (talk) 06:16, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Nominator is clearly unaware of his/her own reasoning for nominating this, and every other article he/she has nominated for deletion. The article contains a substantial amount of release, even if those releases seem to be dominantly by Knowles. The referencing is reliable, and the article is well written. The users above me have pretty much closed this discussion as Keep. WikiUhOh (talk) 03:46, 16 July 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Merge per MelanieN above. There is sourcing, but it addresses the singer, not the subject of the article. The exception is reference 4, which is a press release. Once I actually delved into the sourcing, there isn't much there that wouldn't be better served at the singer's article. I suggest we keep the edit history in the redirect in case better sourcing materializes in the future. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 04:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The company has legitimate sources attesting to its activity. The article is just. The Real One Returns (talk) 05:56, 23 July 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) Sarah (talk) 21:58, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tara Grinstead[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

As was noted in the AfD for Randy Leach see here, there's no notability save her disappearance. Unfortunate as her disappearance was, this article seems to meet all three conditions of WP:BLP1E Vertium (talk to me) 22:24, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:16, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:16, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:16, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Steady Keep - It was deleted in a previous AfD but work seems to have been done on it between then and now. Passes WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:30, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep and move. Not a terribly notable case, but it was reported on 48 Hours Mystery three years after the disappearance, so the case would seem to pass the test of time. I made that link into a reference (it had been an external link) and cleaned up the article some. However, I think the article title should be changed to Disappearance of Tara Grinstead per usual practice. It is the disappearance that is notable, not the young woman herself. --MelanieN (talk) 01:08, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:27, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are old references to her disappearance on NBC and CNN and this 2011 story. So, the media hasn't forgotten her case which gives her a degree of notability. I think wikipedia should keep an article on her. --Artene50 (talk) 07:50, 13 July 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:26, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sigma Alpha Kappa[edit]

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

Non-notable single chapter club. No third party sources to demonstrate notability. Fails WP:N and WP:ORG. Only sources are WP:SELFPUB GrapedApe (talk) 05:28, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 28 June 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, — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 10:28, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 02:42, 13 July 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:38, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arizona Theatre Company[edit]

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

This article relies on one source, the theatre website. It's notability is questionable, and the tone, despite numerous edits of spam added by the creator, is unremittingly promotional Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:27, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep. A 45-year-old professional theatre company with two thousand GNews hits and 794 at HighBeam; and while a lot of those are just listings, there seems likely to be enough substantive coverage to justify keeping this article (e.g. [151][152][153]) --Arxiloxos (talk) 06:11, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 01:04, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 01:04, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 01:04, 29 June 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, — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 10:28, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 02:41, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Most of the 76 members of the League of Resident Theatres have their own articles, usually somewhat promotional as these things are. The Arizona Theater Company just hasn't had a knowledgeable editor, while other theaters have. StarryGrandma (talk) 02:28, 14 July 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:38, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sigma Delta Phi[edit]

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

Single chapter club. No third party sources to establish notability. Fails WP:N and WP:ORG. Only sources are club blogs GrapedApe (talk) 05:24, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:59, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:59, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:59, 29 June 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, — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 10:26, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 02:40, 13 July 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:39, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksandr Salimov[edit]

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

Article is about a footballer who has only made 11 appearances in the third tier of Russian football for his entire career - which appears to have ended in 2009. The article is three years old and there is no sign of any coverage of Salimov in any reliable sources other than football statistics databases (I've searched English- and Russian-language sources). It is unclear whether the Russian third-tier is "fully-pro" and in any case, this article is not going to get any better so let's apply some common sense and remove it until the point that significant coverage in WP:RS is available. Jogurney (talk) 02:34, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Jogurney (talk) 02:39, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG, which outweighs WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:02, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this article technically meets WP:NSPORT, but let's apply some WP:COMMONSENSE. There is no indication whatsoever that this article meets WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 09:39, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Previous two commentators say delete but noted that it meets WP:NFOOTBALL and [[WP:NSPORT]. WP:GNG doesn't invalidate that ... Nfitz (talk) 15:46, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article technically pass WP:NFOOTBALL, but everything should pass WP:GNG. Deleting an article about a footballer that played a handful of matches at the third level in Russia doesn't hurt much, maybe it should be removed from WP:FPL too. Mentoz86 (talk) 16:01, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – WP:GNG prevails in such borderline cases and the footballer has received no significant coverage in reliable independent sources. 11 appearances in Russia's third level are not enough. – Kosm1 fent 06:43, 20 July 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. —SpacemanSpiff 13:14, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Elgin Hotels & Resorts[edit]

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

I removed some advertising from this article. But when I tried to check out the sources, none of them seemed to lead anywhere, and I wasn't able to verify that this business meets Wikipedia's notability criteria. Does anyone else have better luck? Or is this a subject the encyclopedia doesn't need an article about right now? FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:37, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't get anything to pull up either, so I have to go with delete. Drmies (talk) 14:20, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:56, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:56, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 02:34, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This doesn't appear notable. Careful too over confusion with hotels in the Elgin, IL area. I see plenty there, but that's not what this listing is about. Transmissionelement (talk) 15:45, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Google search does not throw up any evidence of third party references. --Anbu121 (talk me) 16:47, 15 July 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:39, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Glitz* (Germany)[edit]

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

No significant coverage, fails WP:CORP. The only coverage I could find (2 or 3 low-impact articles) mentioned the launch alone, and the targetting of women, neither of which is special or provides notability to the network beyond "it exists". MacMed^talk _stalk 15:58, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. WP:N is not established. --Artene50 (talk) 08:44, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Note that additional independent reliable third-party sources have been found. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:30, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:48, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:48, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 02:31, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It has enough news coverage to meet WP:GNG: [154][155][156][157][158][159][160] It's only just launched so unsurprisingly most coverage focuses on its launch. But those references also cover topics such as its ownership, which cable networks are carrying it, and programs shown, all of which may belong in a WP article. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:05, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – This topic passes WP:GNG per 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Thanks to User:Colapeninsula for locating some of the sources I have cited in my !vote here. After careful review regarding the reliability of the sources and level of coverage in the respective articles, this topic certainly passes Wikipedia's General notability guideline. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:16, 16 July 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:40, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redpine Signals[edit]

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

This article's only source is a company profile, and I wasn't able to find better sources with my own search. Does this company meet Wikipedia's notability criteria that anyone else can see? FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:30, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. My search revealed equally sparse results, and none reliable; corporate listings, social media, press releases. There is no assertion of notability and I found none. Ubelowme _U ^Me 21:01, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:02, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:02, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:02, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →Σ σ ς. 02:32, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only sources I could find at Google News Archive are press releases. Does not seem to have received any independent coverage as required. --MelanieN (talk) 14:41, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per duhLuciferWildCat (talk) 21:49, 14 July 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) Sarah (talk) 22:01, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Official Secrets Act (band)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBAND. 2 minor articles in The Guardian, 1 Press release like article at NME. 1 Album that has not charted. Hasteur (talk) 17:04, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:09, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:09, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets notability guideline easily. Judging notability solely by sources cited in an article is a very bad idea. Even a cursory scan of Google would have shown what a poor way that is of judging notability. --Michig (talk) 18:21, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not a valid reason for keeping. WP:GHITS explicitly discredits this. Hasteur (talk) 18:39, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not asking you to count the number of hits, but to look at the coverage that it brings back. You'd have to be bothered enough to do a Google search in the first place of course.--Michig (talk) 18:45, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The topic meets WP:GNG: [161], [162]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:37, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First Guardian article is for "New Band of the Day", so concieveably featuring 365 new bands every year and therfore not indiscriminate in it's coverage. Second Guardian Article is not the level of significant coverage that we expect for coverage. If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list. (From WP:GNG). All I have seen in my research has been non-significant coverage that does not elevate them to the level of coverage. In addition the Specific Notability Guideline is the one we're testing here. Hasteur (talk) 12:41, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We're testing either WP:NBAND or WP:GNG. You don't get to decide which notability criteria applies. And as for discounting the Guardian's New Band of the Day, it may not carry as much weight as a big cover feature, but it still contains material that can be used in a WP article. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:32, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 02:30, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As well as the 2 Guardian articles, musicOMH review, and NME article cited in the WP page, there's reviews[163][164][165] other articles[166][167] and more brief news[168][169]. If a band gets multiple stories in NME and The Guardian, and coverage by the BBC, Q, and Aesthetica, and reviews in listings guides from London to Scotland, then it's certainly got a reasonable amount of notability. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:30, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BEFORE failure. Cavarrone (talk) 09:05, 15 July 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:18, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Annalyn Cyrus[edit]

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

Non-notable actor. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:02, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with the nominator. A search revealed nothing in the way of reliable sources; plenty of unreliable social media, IMDB and a Facebook page wherein this pre-teen lists herself as an "actor and director" (facepalm). I found it significant that her roles appear to be pretty much background/day player, judging by the way her roles are described in the IMDB listings: "Kid", "Trick or treater", "Student". Of course she inherits no notability from her famous relatives. Perhaps at some future point, but not yet. Ubelowme _U ^Me 20:51, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:41, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:41, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 02:25, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't appear to be notable, doesn't meet WP:NACTOR criteria. CodeTheorist (talk) 06:48, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Likely does fails WP:NACTOR. The filmography references on IMDB is very minor. --Artene50 (talk) 07:44, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete because notability is not inherited and she is a ~~dumb~~ ~~little~~ big ~~twat~~.LuciferWildCat (talk) 21:50, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please redact that comment immediately. WP:BLP. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:24, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - By dumb I meant sophomoric and twat I meant unnotable, also public figures have no expectation to not be criticized. i.e. "Octomom is a big ho" is an unambiguous statement.LuciferWildCat (talk) 02:14, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Luciferwildcat, you pretty much destroy your own credibility with comments like these. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 20:28, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh really? Thanks for wasting your time with that. Makes me feel so hot inside.LuciferWildCat (talk) 21:01, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete per WP:NotJustYet. The whole Cyrus clan seems to be getting in entertainment... but for this young cousin, it's a wee bit too soon to even consider a separate article. 3 episodes of Doc as "Kid" (2001-2004), 1 episode of Hannah Montana as a "Trick-or-treater" (2006), and one video Mostly Ghostly: Who Let the Ghosts Out? as "Student" (2008) fails WP:ENT and lack of any sort of coverage fails WP:GNG. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:33, 19 July 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:41, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kappa Phi Epsilon[edit]

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

Non-notable single chapter club. No third party sources to demonstrate notability. Fails WP:N and WP:ORG requirements. Claiming "largest Christian social fraternity in the State of Florida" (a very narrow category) is not enough, without third party sources. GrapedApe (talk) 05:14, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:53, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:53, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:53, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:53, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Completely disagree. As a single chapter club, the University of Florida itself has them listed as a "registered student organization" at https://www.studentinvolvement.ufl.edu/StudentOrganizations/StudentOrganizationListing2011-2012.aspx their page can be accessed here: https://www.facebook.com/KappaPhiEpsilon and at www.kappaphiepsilon.org. Additionally, Kappa Phi Epsilon received first place in spirit points at Dance Marathon, while paired with the Panhellenic organization "Sigma Kappa" (a very notable involvement on the campus of the University of Florida), as well as winning 1st place in "Sigma Shootout" and 2nd place in Chi Omega's "Sandblast" philanthropy (commendations which demonstrate more notable involvement). Also, there are three Christian social fraternities in the State of Florida. Kappa Upsilon Chi, Beta Upsilon Chi, and Kappa Phi Epsilon. Among these, Kappa Phi Epsilon has boasted and currently boasts the largest membership according to chapter website member information for each organization. Also, it does not fail WP:N or WP:ORG, as references to Kappa Phi Epsilon from third-party organizations can be found on the UF Sigma Kappa website, in the Gainesville Sun, in the Odyssey newspaper, and most importantly, on the UF website itself. (Again: https://www.studentinvolvement.ufl.edu/StudentOrganizations/StudentOrganizationListing2011-2012.aspx)jonz1013 (talk) 12:10, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I appreciate your excitement about this organization, but within the context of Wikipedia, notability has a very specific meaning. Winning first place in spirit points at Dance Marathon and 2nd place in "Sandblast" is simply not enough to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia. That isn't passing judgment on the frat itself, it just is how Wikipedia works. The next time you participate in an AFD discussion, do not move the nominator's rationale to replace it with your own, as you did just now.--GrapedApe (talk) 12:04, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Apologies, I was unaware of the format for replacing comments within the context of this argument, the initial rationale's removal was unintentional. However, the argument for inclusion remains, as the organization has shown notable involvement and can be found at a third party source (UF Website). The only difference between this organization and two similar ones (Beta Upsilon Chi and Kappa Upsilon Chi) which both are found on Wikipedia, is that the organization has a single chapter as opposed to several chapters. Kappa Phi Epsilon has done as much to warrant inclusion as these organizations, as well as many other fraternities and sororities which have Wikipedia pages. The idea behind a dictionary is that it exists to provide information others may be curious about, which includes organizations which exist in one location.-Jonz1013 (talk) 02:17, 01 July 2012 (UTC)
(With some regret) Delete -- This is essentially a student club. The link with the Oxford Holy Club is merely one of inspiration: there will be no direct descent. If the orgaisation existed over a number of separate colleges, it might manage to be notabke. Peterkingiron (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:21, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 10:25, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 02:18, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good points by all so far. I'd vote keep but greatly reduce the length and scope of the article. Notability seems to be in the fact that this is the oldest christian fraternity in the state. However, the article reads like an advertisement and not like an encyclopedia entry. The lack of third party sources to verify these facts is troubling. Here is more specific feedback:

If claiming largest Christian fraternity in the state - find third party verification of Beta Upsilon Chi at UF and Kappa Upsilon Chi at FSU and UCF enrollment statistics.
Could claim the oldest Christian fraternity in the state based upon verification from Beta Upsilon Chi's national website and Kappa Upsilon Chi's national website.
Reduce self reported facts and opinions.
Remove pictures, they seem promotional
Remove history section without specific citations from the Oxford Holy Club of its authorization of the content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshczupryk (talk • contribs) 12:54, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability must be demonstrated by showing multiple sources, per WP:N.--GrapedApe (talk) 23:12, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No RS, no real notability fails WP:ORG. The Gainsville Sun is a Florida-based, local paper with a circulation of 29,583 copies [170]. The Odyssey Newspaper appears to be a highly focussed production with a very restricted client range and its online search proved negative [171]. The UF web-site hardly qualifies as an independent source for one of its own student organisations. Jpacobb (talk) 01:58, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement CSD G12 Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:33, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

JF Kennedy Memorial Cup[edit]

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

Non-notable cup. Could not find any third party sources for verifiability of information given, as well as notoriety. Tinton5 (talk) 02:17, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 08:02, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there appears to be no coverage of this competition whatsoever. Furthermore, this article is a direct copy of this page, so this could very well be Speedy Deleted as a copyvio. ★ Bald Zebra ★ ^talk 14:25, 13 July 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:42, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bizzle[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not appear to meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:53, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment First AfD was about a dicdef, not about a rapper, which is what this article is about. Roodog2k (talk) 15:15, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Does appear to fail WP:NMUSIC, but since he is in a niche sort of music (Christian Rap), I'm not sure if he could qualify in any subpart of WP:NMUSIC, based on the sources I found. Does he have extensive coverage within Christian Rap circles, given it's not mainstream music? Roodog2k (talk) 15:22, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support rewrite I literally stumbled across this article accidently on Google. I had actually done a Boi-1da search and saw a story about him collaborating with this artist. I looked up this artist, and saw that he was up for deletion here. So, a quick Google News search found a story in AllHipHop where Bizzle talks about his Jay-Z "dis" song, which he also talks about on Hip Hop Wired. Breathecast makes a brief mention, listing him a collaborator with Viktory. In light of these sources, I would suggest keeping the article, but with a rewrite. I'm sure more sources could be found, as the above are just from a very quick search.--¿3family6 _contribs 12:53, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:57, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 02:06, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. With the smattering of sources available and the controversy surrounding him and Jay-Z I think there's just enough notability here for a decent article if it's rewritten. -- œ ^™ 14:31, 15 July 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:43, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Bluford Series[edit]

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

A set of novels for teens. Despite the article being around for six years, no-one has managed to provide any evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 00:11, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:25, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have used this page when I needed a complete list of titles in the series. I surprised that this is being deleted. There are other bookswith wiki pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Idrivenhour2work (talk • contribs) 14:58, 10 July 2012‎

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 02:06, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'll see what I can do. This series isn't an entirely unknown entity, so I'll try and see what I can find. It might end up being that there's just enough coverage of the series to warrant a combined article with all the titles, but not anything for the individual novels. (I'll work on redirecting the individual titles to the series page.) For the above poster, I want to stress that "it's useful" is not a valid reason for keeping an article. You have to show that it is notable per wikipedia's guide to notability. I'll work on the article for now, as it is pretty bad off and full of unencyclopedic content, unverified claims, and stuff that shows zero notability and is unusable on the article. (such as the Goodreads claims)Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:38, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The individual novels might not meet notability guidelines for books, but as a whole the series is notable. I'm not completely through all of my sources and tricks, but I've found where the series has been covered by the New York Times and other reliable sources. (Not really counting the ALA nods in this, although they don't hurt.) I've cleaned up the article dramatically, although it still has a ways to go.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:49, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Probable keep Article now has a reasonable range of references to both publications aimed at libraries/literacy, and to regional newspapers. If Kirkus describes them as "ubiquitous" there's probably some notability going on[172]. Since the series has multiple authors, there's no obvious merge target, so keeping it as one article is the best solution. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:02, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per improvements to the article provided by Tokyogirl79 during AfD. Cavarrone (talk) 09:44, 19 July 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} 21:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Charles David Kelley[edit]

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

This one could go either way. I hesitated to AfD it at first, but I couldn't find enough independent coverage in reliable sources to meet the "significant coverage" criteria of the WP:GNG so I'm bringing it here for discussion. William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 03:29, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all: I posted this article about Chuck Kelley because I had read his book and then later met someone who collaborated with him at the Lausanne Congress, who was impressed with the recognition that he has in Latvia. He has been awarded the Order of the Three Stars there, which is the equivalent of knighthood, has collaborated with almost every head of state and just about every archbishop and bishop there. But this is my first wiki article, and all the red flags that came up seemed to be formatting issues, which I fixed, but did know whether I was allowed to actually delete the flags themselves. I just hope my poor formatting doesn't reflect poorly on this man and his revered work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Htgoody (talk • contribs) 03:44, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Formatting (or Wikifying as it's sometimes called here) isn't a reason to consider deleting an article. As this is an encyclopedia, we have guidelines for determining whether a subject is notable enough to warrant creating an article. Notability, under the General Notability Guidelines, requires "significant coverage" in "independent" secondary or tertiary reliable sources. There are also Subject Specific Notability guidelines. The discussion here will be whether or not the subject of this article meets the criteria for having a stand-alone article based on WP's guidelines.--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 04:09, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Receiving the Order of the Three Stars would make him notable. If there is not significant coverage in English language sources, there certainly will be in Latvian. I have added another citation to this statement, since the link on the other one wasn't working. St Anselm (talk) 22:14, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 03:45, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 02:02, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- I am unfamiliar with the issues, but think that in several different respects he comes near the limits of notability and adding these together pushes him above the border line. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:51, 14 July 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 Revision3. Merge, if wanted, can be done through the history — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:44, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Infected by Martin Sargent[edit]

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

Non-notable. Fails WP:WEB & WP:GNG. No sources found. Otterathome (talk) 19:10, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 July 5. Snotbot t • c » 19:31, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable secondary sources to make this podcast article notable --Breno ^talk 00:49, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:14, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One of at least six nominations by the same nominator for programming by Revision3 : Web Drifter AfD, Infected by Martin Sargent AfD, GeekBeat.TV AfD, Thebroken AfD, HD Nation AfD, IFanboy AfD. Anarchangel (talk) 21:31, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 01:50, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability, few if any secondary sources. CodeTheorist (talk) 07:08, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and copyedit into Revision3 - until independent RS can be found, to satisfy WP:GNG, primary sourcing is sufficient. --Lexein (talk) 11:24, 16 July 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 Tekzilla. Black Kite (talk) 17:59, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

HD Nation[edit]

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

Non-notable. Fails WP:WEB & WP:GNG. No sources found. Otterathome (talk) 19:10, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:55, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One of at least six nominations by the same nominator for programming by Revision3 : Web Drifter AfD, Infected by Martin Sargent AfD, GeekBeat.TV AfD, Thebroken AfD, HD Nation AfD, IFanboy AfD. Anarchangel (talk) 21:34, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IFanboy by the same nominator, another production on the Revision3 network, and therefore eligible for the same Time magazine citation. The sources are not so good in News as for Ifanboy, but it is not inconceivable that they are available. WP:DEL#REASON "Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources". Anarchangel (talk) 21:21, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot find anything in the Time's link you provided that mention this show. Although it does mention 'DiggNation'... If sources are available, add them, see WP:BURDEN. Just because Revision3 is notable, doesn't make all of it's productions automatically notable, see WP:NOTINHERITED.--Otterathome (talk) 18:46, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 01:50, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Tekzilla. It's now a segment of the larger show. DarkAudit (talk) 04:22, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam. Stedrick (talk) 14:50, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Tekzilla per DarkAudit. Nate • (chatter) 02:53, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Tekzilla per DarkAudit. I couldn't find any useful independent sources to prove notability (the Time Magazine source doesn't mention it), but I think it would be worth a mention in the Tekzilla article. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 13:27, 21 July 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. Clear consensus to keep following relisting. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:17, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rubina Dilaik[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Indian TV actress who acted in one TV show. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 14:16, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why does it get 45 hits on Google News Search, with most of them being reputed newspapers? Secret of success (talk) 15:10, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will list out few. Obviously the ones in my favour.

Nine TV stars talk of what they love abt Diwali, Zee TV's new logo came out & subject danced, Holi celebration shown in the show, Zee Rishtey Awards and subject was present, Season 2 is coming, season 2 is here, Season 2 is awesome, Gold Awards presented and subject was present, Aman Verma has negative role, Fire on the set, Television awards ceremony and subject was present, Zee's entertainment evening and subject danced, Cant summarize this, you have to read. My summery will be "TRIVIA"., Article on whats TV fashion, Benaf is coming on show, Aman is coming on show, Season 2 is here, season 2 is back with bang. Listed out 18 out of 25. & hey, i got only 25, not 45. But i dont consider any of them good enough. Good chunck of those are about the show, or subject's presence in some ceremony. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 18:24, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 28 June 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, Davewild (talk) 18:59, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 01:26, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I can see notability through these four articles exclusively about the actress: [173], [174], [175], [176] --Anbu121 (talk me) 17:00, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – This person passes WP:BASIC and WP:GNG:

All praises for Rubina Dilaik - Times Of India
Rubina and Avinash rubbish rumours of their marriage - | TV | MSN India Entertainment
Avinash and Rubina married! - Times Of India
Rubina Dilaik In Love With Mauritius [newKerala.com News # 49083]

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:39, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources found and offered showing a meeting of WP:GNG. Stub article could use improvement certainly, but AFD is not for WP:CLEANUP. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:22, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question (not just for Michael): Isn't this basically a biography? What are we gonna write in it about notability? That she acted in two seasons of a show, married her co-star & went on honeymoon to Mauritius? §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 05:16, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. Its "basically" a biography. We share what sources offer for us to share. Or do you mean that we should specificaly report IN the Wikipeidia article that she meets our notability criteria by being the recipient of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources for various aspects of her life? We report what the nedia has reported... presenting a neutral and sourced encyclopedic entry for her, based upon coverage in those reliable sources. HOW to present that information, even for someone famous for being famous, is a matter for regular editng... and such "difficulties" do not require deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:45, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did not mean that we should write that she meets our GNG criteria. But when a reader comes across this article and says, "Hmm! Lets see what this lady is notable for for being included in an encyclopedia"; what are we giving that reader? §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 09:23, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... one would think we would simply tone down what the press has written to neutralize it, and give our readers exactly what would be expected from a centralized place for information: That she was in Nachle Ve with Saroj Khan, was the lead character in Choti Bahu] and Choti Bahu 2, that she was both Miss Shimla and Miss North and, if verifiable, we also include elements of her personal life such as where she was born, where she was educated, and whom she married. We do not always have momentous things such as first man on the moon or inventor of polio vaccine as assertions of notability... and indeed have far more lesser but none-the-less acceptable "stub" or "start" or "c" articles than we do major when the GNG is met. That the media thinks she's a big enough deal is why she qualifies for inclusion. We share what we can verify. If her career were to stop tomorrow, we might discuss merging the article somewhere else... but it serves the project for now for this to remain and grow over time. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:05, 17 July 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 speedily deleted by Tom Morris (talk · contribs). See deletion log for rationale. Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:37, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Demoluca[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No notability currently shown. The EP was self-released, fails WP:NALBUMS. Note WP:NOTINHERITED, although the artist is notable, that doesn't make the EP notable. Albacore (talk) 01:18, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated this for speedy deletion since it appears to be the same content that was discussed at its first AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Demoluca. Albacore (talk) 01:22, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 13 July 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] "searchcatalog". Libnet.org (IPAC - catalog database). Retrieved 2012-07-13.

[2] "Evergreen titles". TADL.org (Traverse Area District Library). Retrieved 2012-07-13.

[3] "MSU Libraries". MSU.edu (Michigan State University). Retrieved 2012-07-13.

[4] "Michigan eLibrary". Mel.org (catalog for Library of Michigan). Retrieved 2012-07-13.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]