Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 July 24

Guide to deletion

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:07, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Christina Durinck

Christina Durinck (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

There is also a Danish article which I just proposed for deletion. The many redirs listed on Talk:Christina Durinck, and the fact that the Danish article links to a Linkedin profile make it possible it was made for career purposes. Vice presidents of minor trade unions are hardly notable without additional media coverage or similar. --Sasper (talk) 00:21, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

• Delete Per WP: GNG. Article is unsourced and there is are no reliable sources online about the subject. Electric Catfish 21:26, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

• Delete She does not seem to pass WP:BIO or WP:ACADEMIC at this time. For sure all of the 25 (!) redirects should be deleted. We don't need pages for every possible variant of her name and title. --MelanieN (talk) 15:02, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Purely numerically, there are 4 keep votes and 7 delete votes (I have not discounted any, as they all at lest allude to a relevant policy). I have ignored any arguments pertaining to the coincidence of the school that the murderer attended which, in any case, would fail WP:NOTINHERITED. The delete votes are compelling, with WP:GNG, WP:PERP, WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:BLP1E as the most relevant policies to support deletion. Some keep votes have asserted notability, or that the sources are sufficient; however, without reference to any specific source, these arguments were weak (especially considering accusations from delete votes that the sources were all either local coverage or only from the time of the event or trial). There is a weak consensus to delete; since this is a BLP, the result will be deletion. There may be scope to recreate the article at a later date, but only if the issues raised in this AfD are resolved (specifically, there would have to be long-lasting and/or non-local coverage in sources). ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 14:40, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Brian Rockwell Williams

Brian Rockwell Williams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Suspected perpetrator of a double murder with possible mental health issues. In any case Wikipedia is not news and the Brian Rockwell Williams is not notable in the sense of WP:PERP. Pichpich (talk) 23:43, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - I agree with the nominator. Until proven guilty, this subject is really no more notable than any other murder suspect.  -- WikHead (talk) 23:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• Keep - I disagree. This was a very notable murder, as the victims included a prominent San Diego detective, as well as a top student athlete. It's even more notable now, as another former student of Westview High School, James Eagan Holmes, has committed a mass shooting killing a dozen people. There are plenty of entries for murderers on Wikipedia in which the case has yet to conclude. For instance, Jared Loughner, was deemed mentally unfit to stand trial. I don't see what the difference is here. This entry is not made to look like news at all. It merely provides information on a notable incident. Please cite the provide the exact text of the policy in which you cite as the basis for this incident not being notable, and please provide an explanation detailing the way in which you believe this entry is made to look like news. Systematic1 (talk) 00:03, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - If the murder is indeed notable, the article should perhaps be about it, rather than a suspect who may or may not have been involved.  -- WikHead (talk) 00:15, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - Again, both are notable. The suspect for his relation to a high school that produced another well known murderer. The murder itself is notable because one of the victims was very notable (the mother was a prominent San Diego Police Detective).Systematic1 (talk) 00:22, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

• Delete. The individual fails WP:PERP; the murder fails WP:EVENT, as well as the subsections WP:EFFECT, WP:GEOSCOPE, WP:INDEPTH, WP:PERSISTENCE, and possibly WP:DIVERSE. The common link to a particular high school fails WP:NOTINHERITED and possibly WP:NOTNEWS; news factoids such as this are not sufficient for establishing notability. Location (talk) 02:36, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:24, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - Are you just citing policies without even reading them?

• You cited WP:PERP which says that, "A person who is notable only for being the victim of or committing a crime or crimes should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there are any existing articles that do or could incorporate the available encyclopaedic material relating to that person" There is NOT an existing article that could do or incorporate available encyclopaedic material relating to that person.

• Moving on "Where there are no appropriate existing articles, the criminal or victim in question should be the subject of a Wikipedia article only if one of the following applies:" The one that applies is "The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event. Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role" This murder has received much news coverage ranging from LA Times, HuffPost, NBC, etc. Additionally, the motivation and execution of the crime were unusual, being suspected of slitting his own mother and sisters throat in addition to being suspected of stabbing them each multiple times, and one of the victems being pushed or falling off a second story balcony is UNUSUAL. Finally, the fact that his mother (one of the victems) was a prominent San Diego detective also contributes to a sense of the crime being unusual.

• You also cited WP:EFFECT, I would argue that it has definitely had a lasting effect, as it is still being reported nationally many months after the murders occurred. Regardless, this section explicitly states "It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable." As it relates to this incident, his trial has been postponed due to the fact that he was initially deemed unfit to stand trial, but now that he has a court date for October, 18, 2012, and the charges have been reinstated, it is likely that this event will once again attract lasting national attention. Additionally, this event is even more significant now that it has been uncovered that the suspect attended the same high school as the suspect in the 2012 Aurora shootings. In fact, it was recently mentioned in connection with the Aurora shootings on within the past few days on HuffPost (a nationally syndicated news group).

• Additionally, WP:NPF says that "Wikipedia contains biographical material on people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability, focusing on high quality secondary sources." No explanation needed.

• You cited WP:GEOSCOPE, and again, this event has been widely reported on a national level indicating "Coverage of an event nationally or internationally makes notability more likely..." Regardless, this policy also states, "By contrast, events that have a demonstrable long-term impact on a significant region of the world or a significant widespread societal group are presumed to be notable enough for an article." This event has certainly had a long-term impact in San Diego, where one of the victims was a prominent detective, and where the news coverage has been long-term and significant.

• You cited WP:INDEPTH and WP:PERSISTENCE this entry contains multiple sources dated between July 2011 and July 2012, even at a time when there was little going on in the case itself. Clearly, that indicates in depth and persistent coverage.

• You cited WP:DIVERSE, the entry contains at least 6 separate and unique sources. How is that not diverse?!

• You cited WP:INHERITED, while I agree this link alone is not sufficient in establishing nobility, I am not claiming it does either (see above), I am simply stating that it is a contributing factor.

• You cited WP:NOTNEWS Please, tell me, in what way is this article written from a news prospective? It makes no emotional arguments, it doesn't take sides, it includes current and up to date information, it's not a first hand news report on a breaking story, and it's not written in news style.

• Instead of acting like delete happy robots and quoting irrelevant policies without actually making an attempt to point to something in the entry that policy violates, try to actually cite specific things in the entry that should be changed. I will make the appropriate changes myself.Systematic1 (talk) 03:53, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
• Keep - I'm gonna go with keep in this instance. My first gut feelings were to delete, but after reading the article and seeing the sources, its clear that WP:PERP now applies, although it may not have a week ago. The shooting in Colorado has made the relevance of this event more notable and news coverage has increased because of the school connection.--JOJ ^Hutton 14:34, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
• Comment I'm not sure how one can deny that the section "Double Murder" reads exactly like an AP wire story. But I really want to fight against the notion that this man is notable because he went to the same high school as another notable crazy person. While I'm sure News of the World would lead with a bold "Is this high school breeding murderers?" most sane observers would agree that this is a coincidence of so little significance that it doesn't even deserve to be mentioned in either the James Eagan Holmes article or the one on Rockwell. If someone is born on the same day as Charles Manson, should we mention it in an article? Of course not. Articles convey meaningful facts not trivia. Pichpich (talk) 22:31, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - What then would you propose as an acceptable title? Because in my opinion, an AP wire story would be much more sensationalized ex. "Man Slits Throats of Own Mother/Sister" The title simply describes the major noteworthy event for which this individual is primarily associated with, and it actually does it in a comparatively tasteful manor. Your Manson analogy is fallacious on two levels. First just because an individual was born on the same day as Manson does not indicate that they share any common traits or characteristics. However, in this case both individuals not only attended the same school, but they also are both alleged to be prolific murderers, and both will likely raise some type of insanity defense. Second, being born on the same day is nowhere near the equivalent of graduating from the same high school, which is restricted in scope geographically and intrinsically. Even then, as I wrote above, Brian Williams is notable for even more than just attending the same school as James Holmes, the circumstances surrounding his alleged crimes make him notable as well. So I would ask that anyone who continues to chime in here not just repeat this same overdone argument of the link between the schools being weak, but to comment on this entry as a whole.Systematic1 (talk) 23:29, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Suppose you're hiring someone and he tells you he attended Westview High School, will that give you pause? If your daughter says 'Dad I'm dating this guy from Westview High School', will you buy her a gun? No, of course not. This coincidence is just one of these fluky events that is bound to be noticed in a world where everything is a Google search away. You're assigning meaning and importance to superficial chance. Pichpich (talk) 00:47, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - This isn't a forum. Your arguments are irrelevant to the issue under discussion. We are here to talk about the inclusion of this individual on Wikipedia, not to answer unrelated hypotheticals. Alas, you continue to miss the point. I am not assigning meaning and importance, after all, the purpose of Wikipedia is not to assign significance, but to present source accompanied facts. That is what I am doing. I simply recognize, coincidence or not, that it is noteworthy that two prolific alleged murders have emerged from the same high school. Individuals will be free to infer their own meaning and significance as they please. However, as I've stated continuously, there is more about the circumstances surrounding Brian Rockwell Williams' alleged crimes that make him noteworthy. Not one person has commented on the fact that his mother (victim) was a prominent San Diego detective.Systematic1 (talk) 05:28, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
• Delete. This article was added purely to breed Westview High School's reputation for producing murderers. It does not satisfy WP:N. — PCB 06:14, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - Although Westview may indeed be developing that reputation, this entry was only created for the purpose of shedding light on a notable incident. Although it may be hard to swallow, please recognize that WP:NOTCENSORED, and thus merely contributing to a certain stigma surrounding Westview High School is not grounds for deletion. Also, since Williams' trial is now roughly two months away, please consider that the notability of this incident will certainly increase, and because of that we should adhere to WP:DONOTDEMOLISH, and give this entry a chance to develop properly; after all, it was flagged for deletion just minutes after its creation. I would further suggest that many weighing in here are more concerned with protecting the prestige and status of Westview High School than they are with presenting this information according to Wikipedia policy. Finally, I have added several additional legitimate sources to the original article including Fox, CBS, etc. Systematic1 (talk) 10:16, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
• Keep - passes WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:48, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. No real opinion on whether the article should be kept, although I do tend to think articles on murders are deleted too readily on Wikipedia. However, I will make two points. First, I fail to see why this individual should be notable because he went to the same school as another murder suspect. So what? We do not do notability by association (very tenous association in this case, since they weren't related and there doesn't appear to be any evidence they were even friends) on Wikipedia. Second, one of his victims may have been well-known within the SDPD, but she was not famous or notable outside it. She appears to have been a typical hard-working, low-ranking, veteran police officer just like many thousands of others worldwide. Admirable, but not notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:31, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
• Delete - Has only local coverage, wasn't considered notable enough for an article until it was discovered he attended the same high school as Holmes, not even convicted of the crime, does not appear to meet WP:BLPCRIME. 72Dino (talk) 15:47, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
• Delete: I am sure some other Westview graduates have committed crimes too.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:11, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
• Delete - I don't see this as notable. I searched Google news for double murder and this one is no different then thousands of others. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 20:18, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - Sorry, your Google search method fails WP:HITS, and thus provides no rational basis for inclusion or deletion. Systematic1 (talk) 21:00, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
• Keep Trial is still forthcoming, impossible to make an accurate assessment of notability until that point in time. 69.199.125.193 (talk) 17:15, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

There's no WP:WAITUNTILTHETRIAL guideline, that makes no difference.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:58, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

You are right, there is no WP:WAITUNTILTHETRIAL, but in his defense there is a WP:DONOTDEMOLISH, and it's pretty hard to argue that the trial will not have a significant impact on the notability of this entry. Furthermore, since it hasn't been mentioned yet, and since many people are making the claim that there is only "local coverage", WP:LOCALINT defines an entry as a local interest only if 100% of its sources are "local" sources. There are sources cited in this entry that are national in scope (ex. Huffington Post). Thus, according to wikipedia, it is not categorized as a local interest. Regardless, San Diego is a city of over 1 million people. So even significant "local coverage" is notable. There has also been much added to this article since it was AfD, and I suggest everyone review the additions.Systematic1 (talk) 21:55, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

You don't need to respond to every comment you know. I'm a strong inclusionist, if i thought it should be kept, I would make sure it was.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 02:32, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per CSD#A7. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:18, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Lamborghini boyz

Lamborghini boyz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Promotional stub. benjamil ^talk/_edits 23:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:GNG
• Delete, only claim to notability seems to be a YouTube video. ∫e^b²+1_(talk) 23:27, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:13, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Milo's Astro Lanes

Milo's Astro Lanes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Contested prod. Prod nomination based on failure to adhere to WP:N, specifically lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Prod remover countered that the game was reviewed in the magazines of the day and on gaming websites. These reviews are, however, primary sources, and WP:N specifically requires significant coverage in secondary sources. Indrian (talk) 22:13, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I was the prod remover, FWIW. The reviews in question are IGN and GameSpot. I don't see how these are primary sources, being external to the game's publishers and reviewing the game in a once removed fashion described by WP:SECONDARY. Could you be more specific as to how these are primary as opposed to secondary sources please Indrian. Someoneanother 22:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I believe you are confused as to the difference between an objective source and a primary source. A primary source is any source documenting something close to the time that thing occurred. This includes not just journals, diaries, interviews, business documents, etc., but also newspaper articles and other sources that report on an event or experience as it happens. See this page for some common definitions http://www.library.unt.edu/digitalprojects/metadata/elements/primary-sources-definition. A game review published at the time of a game's release is an account of the nature of a game at the time it first appeared, making it a primary source. It is not one-step removed from the event as you say, because the event is the release of the game and the review appears within a short time of that release and is directly tied to the author's experience of that event. Even later reviews would most likely still be primary sources since they are the result of a direct interaction with the game just as a WWII veteran's memoir is drawn from direct experiences in the war. Secondary sources are works of synthesis based on such sources that interpret these experiences. In this case, a secondary source would be a research article that attempts to quantify the good and bad points of this game by researching reviews of the game and synthesizing points from several of them to create a complete picture. Indrian (talk) 23:05, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

. A primary source is any source documenting something close to the time that thing occurred. No. Not hardly. And I put that in bold because it is absolutely necessary to emphasise just how completely wrong that assessment of a primary source is. Please see WP:PRIMARY. A primary source is a source that is connected with the subject of the article. I.E. Nintendo for a Super Mario Bros. game, General Motors for the Chevrolet Camaro, Taco Bell on Chalupas, etc. It has absolutely nothing to do with how far "removed in time from the event" the source is. At all. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:31, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

• Speedy close/keep. Nomination based on a misunderstanding of WP:PRIMARY. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:32, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I am sorry, but you have absolutely no idea what a primary source is and your frequent use of bold only highlights your ignorance. I provided a few definitions at the link above from reputable publications which you obviously did not bother to read. Here are a few more though, if you actually want to learn a thing or two http://grammar.about.com/od/pq/g/primaryterm.htm. Primary sources are contemporary in time. That is their fundamental state of being. This is known by scholars and researchers all over the world, so you unfortunately betray yourself as a layman unsuited to this particular debate. Incidentally, WP:PRIMARY states the same thing as all these other sources and does not agree with you at all. And I quote: "are often accounts written by people who are directly involved." Notice the word often, so no, WP:PRIMARY does not say that a priamry source has to be from an individual actually affiliated with a company as in the examples you give above. Newspaper articles reporting on events, for instance, are always considered primary sources even though the reporter is frequently not connected to the organization or event he may be reporting on. Therefore, your contribution in this debate is unhelpful at best and harmfully misleading at worst. You should not really bandy about votes like "speedy close" when you are completely clueless as to the arguments and terms being bandied about. Now, reviews can be considered secondary sources it is true with the original work of art being the primary source, so there is some room for debate here, just not in the way you frame it. In the scholarly world, a book review of another person's research, for example, would be a secondary source. I am honestly not sure if this applies to an opinion piece on a game, however, since they usually just report on the reviewer's experience playing. It is possible they do count, but its a slightly different track. Indrian (talk) 02:25, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
    • On Wikipedia, primary sources do not work that way. Wikipedia's definition of a "primary source" is a "source connected with the subject", it has nothing to do with time. It does not matter what About.com (which, by the way, is not a reliable source) or even what the University of North Texas says; the only thing that matters here is what Wikipedia's definition of the term is. Wikipedia does not treat "newspaper articles...reporting on events" as primary sources, those are secondary sources. I'm sorry you have such a misunderstanding of how Wikipedia's definition of primary sources work, but it's clear from your comments that you do. A review by IGN, even if it's released before the game even hits the street, is not a primary source; it is a secondary source. Now, not all secondary sources are reliable sources, but that's a completely different thing from primary vs. secondary. Which is, for 'primary source', through the useage of the term in phrasing and practice, by everyone on Wikipedia but you, is "a source directly connected with the subject", while for secondary source it is "a source not directly connected with the subject", with time-from-event being utterly irrelevant. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:48, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
      • • Looking at the relevant section for primary sources it says Primary sources are very close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on. An account of a traffic accident written by a witness is a primary source of information about the accident; similarly, a scientific paper documenting a new experiment is a primary source on the outcome of that experiment. Historical documents such as diaries are primary sources. The nominator is free to disagree with this but this is currently how Wikipedia defines primary sources and an IGN review does not meet the criteria for a primary source. If the nominator wants to try to change the defination Wikipedia uses they are free to do so but that will need a larger venue than a single AFD.--70.49.81.140 (talk) 03:03, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

• Keep. IGN and Gamespot reviews are secondary sources, and sufficient to establish notability. DoctorKubla (talk) 06:14, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
• Keep - The notion that somehow reviews from some of the biggest, most mainstream video game websites don't count as sources that satisfy the WP:GNG is absolutely ridiculous. Then there's the fact that I know this game was covered in print magazines in the 90's as well, it's not like this is some sort of non-notable flash game or something like that. At the very least Gamepro provided coverage on it. Easily meets the GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 13:06, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - Coverage from AllGame as well. Sergecross73 msg me 13:11, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
• Keep - the NOM appears to be misconstruing the meaning of primary, somehow transposing an example and policy. Take a further look at WP:OR and its footnotes and the included links. Review articles are cited as being a very typical secondary source. - Sangrolu (talk) 13:15, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep/Close per rationales already given. Again, the sources are not primary. --Teancum (talk) 16:04, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree that this should be closed however the reviews should be added into a reception section (the IGN and GameSpot reviews at least, and possibly the Game Pro one if someone has access to old issues). I would do so myself for the online reviews but I am not very good at formatting references so I would feel more comfortable if someone else did so.--70.49.81.140 (talk) 17:22, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

• Keep - Major console video games are routinely considered notable. Not to mention a quick Google Search shows a lot of reasonable, reliable sources. CyanGardevoir ^{(used EDIT!)} 09:09, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. While strong arguments have been advanced for deletion, the arguments for keeping are defensible based on past practice, and consequently we have no consensus to delete the article.  Sandstein  06:23, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Unusual eBay listings

Unusual eBay listings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Amusing, but it seems to me like list of mostly random information, trivia even. "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" comes to mind. Who determines what's "unusual", anyway? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:10, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:38, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:39, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:39, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• Delete unless evidence of notability for the concept underlying this list can be provided. I'm no kneejerk deleter of weird lists; in fact, I've been an outspoken defender of several weird lists here. In order to defend such a list, it is necessary to show reliable sourced coverage for the concept underlying the list -- ideally mainstream reliably source coverage. The article does not show evidence that the concept has obtained such coverage, and my Google searches find only non-RS interest in this topic. Additionally, there's no indication yet of a defensible set of inclusion criteria (tickling somebody's funnybone doesn't qualify). --Orlady (talk) 23:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
• Keep The fact that the vast majority, if not all, of these items are covered in reliable secondary sources makes this a valid list spinout of eBay. GNG is met. Prose and ordering could be cleaned up a bit, but for such a wide-open list (like, you know, the actual variety of eBay auctions...) this is actually pretty coherent and well sourced. WP:IINFO does not cover auction listings, and no policy-based rationale for deletion has yet been advanced. Jclemens (talk) 00:19, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the individual items are covered by reliable sources, but where is the reliably sourced coverage indicating that the concept of unusual listings on eBay -- or even better the assembling of lists of such items -- is notable? I can create any number of lists of related items found in reliable sources (for example, people with weirdly dyed hair, to name one in the current news), but the fact that the individual items were documented in reliable sources doesn't make the compilation notable. --Orlady (talk) 00:41, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree strongly. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:09, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

...You've got it backwards. If there are a series of reliable sources documenting a discrete topic, that topic is notable. The coverage of the list items is the notability of the list. Jclemens (talk) 04:40, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

And yet, "Notability of lists is based on the group. A list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". That each entry in the list has been verified doesn't change the fact that the topic "unusual ebay listings" in itself has to have received coverage. Coverage focusing on the event (the ebay sale itself) does not discuss the overall topic. There must be some sources acknowledging first the concept of an "unusual" ebay listing, then asserting that several instance of it exist ("listings"). I'm not denying that this coverage exist, just that your contention that lists are made notable by individual coverage on entries is incorrect.Folken de Fanel (talk) 12:50, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

• Keep – The article is actually well-sourced with reliable sources. The criteria for things being included on the list can be improved through basic copy editing. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:25, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

• Uh, I think your understanding of "Basic copy editing" is quite different from mine. Do tell how would you do it? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:09, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

• Keep per Jclemens, as a legitimate spinoff of the eBay article, properly sourced material about notable listings that is too long to fit in the main article. --Arxiloxos (talk) 04:58, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Jclemens' claim that individual coverage on entries make the overall topic notable is in direct opposition with the established consensus on stand-alone lists.Folken de Fanel (talk) 12:50, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
• Comment The topic of the weirdest things being sold on ebay (considered as a group or category) is obviously notable, with many publications producing lists[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14]. There are numerous websites devoted solely or principally to the topic.[15][16][17][18][19][20] If this is the only issue surrounding the article, you have to keep it, but just because something's written about doesn't necessarily mean there has to be an article. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:59, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
• Keep per notability as a group clearly established by Colapeninsula's comment, along with references for the individual entries within the article itself. KTC (talk) 17:48, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
• Keep Nominator offers no policy based rationale for deletion. Lugnuts (talk) 17:50, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

• I clearly said that "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". Which makes your only argument clearly false, thus you offer no policy (or any other) rationale for your vote having any merit. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:40, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

• Keep, fascinating, noteworthy, good coverage in secondary sources. — Cirt (talk) 02:25, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

So you like it. How does that establish the meaning of "unusual"? Carrite (talk) 17:54, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

• Delete I'm a sucker for these type of lists as WP:ILIKEIT, but non policy, personal opinion aside, this clearly fails our guidelines for an article. What contributes to be "unusual" in this case? As far as it stands this fails WP:NOR and WP:NPOV as unusual is as vague of a term as it can get. Someone random news website thinking that an ebay auction is "unusual" doesn't mean it is as in almost all of these cases, the auctions are created by people trying to make a quick buck by attracting attention to themselves, which WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS applies for this. News sources love covering that stuff, but that doesn't mean it's encyclopedic, and thinking something is unusual is original research at it's finest. If anything using that term makes the list unmaintainable as well. The secondary sources argument is badly misapplied here, and the rest is I like it/interesting comments. Secret ^account 08:32, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
• Keep per Colapeninsula. Though "unusual" is a subjective term that could do with clarification there are certainly sufficient valid external sources that have such lists. This article was obviously made to reduce such content in the main eBay article and does a good job while still being valid in and of itself. Each entry is sourced and gives sufficient indication of it being unusual (out of the billions that happen the few sales that are reported in the media automatically introduce them as being unusual). violet/riga _^[talk] 09:58, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
• Delete - Sourcing and entertainment value does not make an encyclopedic topic. There is no way to define "unusual" as it means different things to different people. What we are left with is a junk drawer full of entertaining oddities and WP:ILIKEIT ain't enough... List of funny things printed in the New York Times and List of unusual clothing wouldn't be encyclopedic either, for the same reasons. Carrite (talk) 17:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
• Selectively merge to ebay. A standalone article isn't appropriate but we should mention a few of these on the ebay article to demonstrate the site's wide scope of listings. The hindrance to a standalone article is the subjective criterion of "unusual" and the indiscriminate nature of such an openended list. Creating a list of "unusual" subjects is nearly impossible to do without using original research, especially with this particular topic. ThemFromSpace 04:12, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOTDIR. A list of "stuff that is unusual on eBay" clearly falls under Non-encyclopedic cross-categorization. WP:ILIKEIT and it's WP:INTERESTING, but also WP:ROUTINE and WP:SENSATIONAL and thus not encyclopedic. If it is to be kept someone should try to wikify it using Colapeninsula's comment to generate a psuedo-notable list ala List of songs considered the best or List of films considered the worst. (But please don't. I like going to cracked.com for dumb lists and Auction Humor gives a more complete list of weird stuff on ebay). --Joshuaism (talk) 16:30, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:20, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

La Chasse aux papillons

La Chasse aux papillons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

This article is little more than a subsection of its credits. No commentary about why the film may be interesting or notable. A fragrance called La Chasse aux papillons, from "a niche French perfume company", dominates English and French Google searches — Fly by Night (talk) 20:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• Delete Non notable film as no notable actors were in it Seasider91 (talk) 20:46, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:32, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:32, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• Keep per WP:GNG and WP:NFILM point 3. There is significant coverage about this film in this article in Télérama, and also coverage in Fiant, Antony (2002). (Et) le cinéma d'Otar Iosseliani (fut). ISBN 2825116955. this The New York Times piece verifies that Otar Iosseliani received the Pasinetti Award for Best Direction for the film (which is an award of the Venice Film Festival). We shouldn't be hasty in judging notability from coverage in a google search when the topic is from 1992, before reliable sources widely published online content. Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 22:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• SOLID Keep even a little research shows this 1992 film won a Confédération Internationale des Cinemas d'Art et d 'Essai (C.I.C.A.E.) Award at Venice Film Festival, won the Pasinetti Award for 'Best Film' at Venice Film Festival, received a European Film Award nomination for 'Best Achievement' from the European Film Academy, won the Andrei Tarkovsky Award at Moscow International Film Festival, and received a Nika award nomination for 'Best Film' from Russian Academy of Cinema Arts and Sciences. Further, we LOOK at its multiple multiple international releases 1992 through 1995, and it screening more than five years later at the Thessaloniki International Film Festival in 2003. Its original French release title is La Chasse aux papillons, but it is also known as A Caça às Borboletas in Portugal, as Caccia alle farfalle in Italy, Jagd auf Schmetterlinge in Germany, as Kelebek avi in Turkey, as Lepkevadászat in Hungary, as Peplebze nadiroba in Georgia, as Polowanie na motyle in Poland, and as To kynigi tis petaloudas in Greece. In English it was released as The Butterfly Hunt, Hunting Butterflies, and Chasing Butterflies. WP:NF is soundly met for this 1992 French film. It matters not one iota that the actors and actresses might be unknown in the United States, as notable elsewhere is perfectly fine with en.Wikipedia. What we do with notable stubs that can benefit from improvment is work to improve them... not delete them. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:24, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
• Keep, an award-winning film, critical response available and cited in the article; Ioseliani is arguably the most notable Georgian film producer.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:29, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
  • The nominator also missed the full-length 1993 review in The New York Times.[21] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:35, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
• Upon reading WP:NF I have determined this film does meet the criteria easily, there are 2 reviews 5 years after release, there are multiple awards so Keep 86.160.21.44 (talk) 08:16, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Tumor necrosis factors. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:46, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Tumor necrosis factor

Tumor necrosis factor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

This page is redundant to Tumor necrosis factors, and should not exist as a disambiguation page, since all notable uses are WP:DABCONCEPT for the page at the plural title. The album is apparently non-notable, and even if it was notable, the primary meaning would be the existing article at the plural title. bd2412 T 19:26, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• Redirect to Tumor necrosis factors, simple enough. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:40, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

  I agree, but I want it clearly decided that no disambiguation page is needed, and that the content of this page should not be moved or replicated elsewhere in the project. bd2412 T 20:06, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:27, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• Redirect to Tumor necrosis factors which details TNF info anyways. The album can be linked with a hatnote when it is created--Lenticel ^(talk) 01:24, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep This is not a deletion discussion. The redirect should be to tumor necrosis factor-alpha, if anywhere, as this is what's usually meant by the term. Warden (talk) 11:35, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
  • The fact that a redirect will result from the discussion doesn't diminish the fact that an existing disambiguation page should be deleted. Your !vote is, after all, for the removal of the current content of the page, is it not? Unless you are advocating keeping the disambiguation page as is "speedy keep" is an incorrect statement of your intentions, and could be read as "keep the disambig". bd2412 T 14:50, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
    • The title of the article should be retained per WP:SINGULAR and WP:COMMONNAME. It's all a matter of ordinary editing not deletion. This discussion is a waste of time as no-one else has edited the article for months. Warden (talk) 15:44, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
      • If you think the solution is that clear cut, I certainly won't object if you implement it. Cheers! bd2412 T 23:11, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 sources provided will need to be integrated into the article by Greek/Danish/German speakers. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 15:47, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Sasse (musician)

Sasse (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Fails WP:MUSBIO – Lionel ^(talk) 07:06, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 15:18, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

---

• Delete unreferenced and no suitable merge / redirect targets within sight. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:32, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - Per WP:NRVE, topic notability for Wikipedia articles is about the availability of significant coverage in reliable sources, and not based upon whether or not sources are present in articles. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:37, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

• Keep per [22], [23], [24], [25]; Resident Advisor has a brief biography of this producer: [26]. Appears being notable in his genre, and passing, less or more weakly, GNG. Cavarrone (talk) 19:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm happy to withdraw my vote if/when those are integrated into article. I can't do it since none of the independent ones are in languages I speak. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:41, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

---

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

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

The result was delete. The argument that a variety of sources that don't indicate notability add up to one source that does is a novel interpretation, but not one I believe is supported by the community as it is not reflected anywhere but in this discussion. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:43, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

David A. Schwedel

David A. Schwedel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Promotional biography of a non-notable businessman; lacks significant coverage by independent sources. The only news items I found are brief quotes in connection with somebody else. MelanieN (talk) 16:46, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

• Keep - There are numerous sources within the article, some significant and some trivial. In accordance with Wikipedia guidelines on notability, the Basic Guidelines allow for the combining of trivial sources in order to establish notability. That aside, there is plenty of independent significant coverage both in the article, and also not in the article (General notability guidelines state - "the absence of citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that the subject is not notable."). This means that although the article does not source all of the available sources on the subject, they are still available and NOT citing them all within the article should not be cause to consider the article non-notable. Now, regarding notability, this person founded numerous businesses (which citations support), one of which became a huge business before it went defunct after being bought out (it was also traded on the NASDAQ). He is also the main investor for three very large companies which are also cited in the article. Further in the article, you will see that he was also named as a defendant in a lawsuit against UBS and numerous others based on the conduct of Brad Birkenfeld in the UBS scandal. Not sure how the article promotes him as it is unbiased, cites reliable and independent sources, and from what I believe (of course that is why we are hear - everyone else is welcome to chime in) meets Wikipedia guidelines. Here are some additional sources for the article: Business Wire (press release - not really reliable), [27], Businessweek, Testimonial - Not really reliable but I thought I would mention it since I mentioned one of the many PRs, LA Times, Miami Museum Trustee List, Blue Trade - Insider Trading List, Leagle, S&P report for Synthesis Energy, SEC Ownership Information, Not sure what this is, it may be a mere mention, but wanted to list it as well. Shows a copy of the UBS lawsuit, PR - but independent of subject (released by a company he invested in), Financial News, High Beam (I don't have a subscription yet so not sure if there is more on High Beam), Businessweek, Medical News. Sorry for the long list - Just trying to state my case. --Morning277 (talk) 17:46, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for this extensive list of sources. My opinion remains that most of these are not independent reliable sources, and those that are are not significantly about him; they are quoting him in connection with the legal problems of his friend and associate Bradley Birkenfeld. Notability is not inherited, and simply being quoted in an article about somebody else is not significant coverage. That is my interpretation, others may differ. --MelanieN (talk) 18:14, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MelanieN (talk) 16:53, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

• Keep - User Morning277 makes a very good job of showing notability trough additional sources. Good work.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:52, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
• Delete. None of the sources linked above meet the requirements of independence, reliability and significance of coverage of the subject, and I can find no others that do so. Press releases and passing mentions don't cut it. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:16, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
• Keep - I googled David's name and found a ton of stuff on him. I wouldn't call Bloomberg Businessweek, Yahoo Finance, or Forbes just any old run of the mill news source, thats top notch material. This is a very good article, and shouldn't even be here (AfD). Something worth deleting is stuff like this. Now thats a waste of space. --‎Jetijonez ^Fire! 22:41, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

• Which sources from Bloomberg Businessweek, Yahoo Finance or Forbes contain significant coverage of Schwedel? Phil Bridger (talk) 23:04, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:36, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

---

• Delete With possibly one or two exceptions, everything in Morning277's list is trivial or non-mentions of the subject; the exceptions are the next level up from trivial i.e. superficial. Those recommending Keep above have no understanding of what notability means. EEng (talk) 19:07, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - Morning277's list is a mixture of press releases, directory entries and passing mentions. None of them are useful for the purposes of establishing notability. I have a Highbeam account and can confirm that the paywalled article is the same as this one on Morning277's list. -- Whpq (talk) 21:11, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

• Keep - Everyone makes a good point. Morning gives plenty of sources; however, there are some that are trivial. There are some notable sources; however, I think it is best to focus on basic notability guidelines and "combine the trivial mentions" and consider them notable. Combined with the other sources that are notable, this article would meet the notability guidelines. Unless there is something that I am missing from the "basic criteria" of Wikipedia:Notability (people). --SimonKnowsAll (talk) 02:56, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - Could you point out which of those sources specifically contribute to notability? -- Whpq (talk) 03:03, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
• Keep as per SimonKnowsAll's points. While I'm not in favor of the Energizer Bunny's deletion, I'm pretty sure that as Jetijonez remarked, Bloomberg Businessweek, Yahoo Finance, and Forbes are all good sources. StereotypicalApps (talk) 12:56, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

• Once again, which specific sources from Bloomberg Businessweek, Yahoo Finance, and Forbes have significant coverage of Schwedel? Phil Bridger (talk) 13:36, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Everyone keeps saying: Bloomberg Businessweek, Yahoo Finance, and Forbes. If you are talking about the sources cited in the article from those sources, here's what they are. Bloomberg Businessweek is an "executive profile"; such profiles are typically supplied by the company and thus are not independent. Yahoo Finance is a directory-type listing for one of his businesses and simply mentions him as CEO. The Forbes article merely lists him as one of 30 co-defendants in a lawsuit; the article is about someone else. Come on, folks, please take a LOOK at the links rather than being snowed by an impressive sounding source. This is not significant coverage by anyone's definition. --MelanieN (talk) 18:56, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

That is the point of RfD. Everyone here has their own interpretation of the notability guidelines. That is why RfD hopes to reach a consensus. Regardless of the 3 sources that you say are non-significant, there are plenty of other sources about him and his company that I feel are. Again, I want to point out (and it looks like there is only one other comment on this page about it) that numerous sources can be combined to be considered a reliable source. That is my contention. I still feel that there are reliable sources (or I would not have put them in the article) and that anything you (not I) would consider non-significant coverage can be looked at as a whole to establish notability. Again, I am not trying to argue with you, I am simply making a point that it is my contention that there are enough reliable (and "non-significant") sources to establish his notability. I guess the question that I would ask is "would you consider him notable based on the content in the article if there were sources that are considered significant according to what you feel is significant?"--Morning277 (talk) 20:02, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

In the absence of significant coverage, one can establish notability with an abundance of lesser coverage. However, what we have been shown so far is coverage that does not even rise to the level of lesser coverage. You now claim there are plenty of other sources that are significant. I'll happily change my mind if you or anybody can present them here. I've looked and didn't find anything significant. -- Whpq (talk) 20:32, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

What Whpq said. There is not even enough coverage to count as minor coverage. There is 1) non-independent coverage (which specifically does NOT count toward notability), 2) coverage that does no more than mention his name, and 3) coverage about another person in which he is quoted for a sentence or two. --MelanieN (talk) 20:40, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

• Keep. My general feeling is that there is enough of a story on the subject to be of interest to Wikipedia readers. In the past, I have done other writing projects on the people involved in the early days of e-commerce and getting ideal references was difficult. Media coverage on the subject was sparse until it really caught on. Nevertheless, in this case I have found one more reference that supports the noteworthiness of David A. Schwedel. The book, "The Business of Software: What Every Manager, Programmer, and Entrepreneur Must Know to Thrive and Survive in Good Times and Bad" by Michael A. Cusumano has a detailed case study of Marex Inc. and highlights Mr. Schwedel's contributions to the business. Mr. Schwedel came up for the idea for the business in 1992 and was one of the early e-commerce pioneers as a result. The case study presented in that book also describes surviving the internet bust and more. This information is further supported by the above references, such Marex Inc. being named as part of the "Best of the Web" by Forbes.com. A google preview of the book is available here: [28]. Wolfrock (talk) 07:08, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Please follow up the above 150 words with 150 words outlining what this source says about Schwedel himself (not about Marex) because that's all that matters. EEng (talk) 12:40, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Here is a link to some of the coverage in that book about Schwedel. It can probably be counted as significant coverage. That's one. Now for the "multiple" part? Nothing else evident at Google Books - and IMO Google News Archive has already come up empty. (I wondered if Marex Inc. might qualify for an article instead, if this article is deleted - but again this book was about the only thing I found, aside from a NASA program named MAREX.) --MelanieN (talk) 14:48, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

The idea that this is significant coverage is laughable. EEng (talk) 21:58, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Wow. I have to admit that I completely missed the reference that Wolfrock brings up. I will include it in the article. MelanieN, thank you for the comment I think you make a good point about MAREX maybe qualifying for its own article. However, the issue that I initially ran across with creating an article for Marex is that I do not know their current status. When you find press about Marex, it is linked to the time when David Schwedel was with them. The last reference that I could locate about them was when Brown Simpson Asset Management retained the Trippoak Group to restructure the company. There are no other sources that I can find that shows what happened to them or what name to search to find press about what they are now (I am speculating but knowing how these companies work the name was probably changed a couple of times and now it is just the proprietary rights to the software programs that are owned - and unknown by whom). I just got my HighBeam account but have not received an activation code yet. Hopefully I will be able to locate more references when I do receive it to show others coverage that they feel is more significant. --Morning277 (talk) 17:18, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Good luck. I wondered because many of the references currently in the article, or being suggested above, are actually more about Marex than they are about Mr. Schwedel. So it's possible you could make a better case for the company being notable, rather than the individual. --MelanieN (talk) 20:36, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

• Delete per MelanieN, Whpq, EEng, Phil Bridger, and WP:GNG. I don't see significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, either in the article itself or in the references listed in comments above. "There is not even enough coverage to count as minor coverage" is close to the mark. Logical Cowboy (talk) 00:16, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment GNG = Guidelines not rules, this article has as much right to be in here as any other one does (based on the references provided by morning), cause God knows we need stuff like this, and this, thats what makes Wiki an encyclopedia --‎Jetijonez ^Fire! 21:38, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. It's time to close this. EEng (talk) 21:58, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

It was relisted on July 24 so it probably isn't due for closure until July 31. --MelanieN (talk) 23:08, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

No, relisting does not extend the minimum discussion period. EEng (talk) 00:08, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Not to mention WP:ONLYGUIDELINE. Logical Cowboy (talk) 22:52, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

• Delete Despite a long lsit of sources, not many are notable, and few are independent and reliable enough to substantiate notability of this guy. Fails WP:GNG. Jimsteele9999 (talk) 01:39, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
• Delete Sources presented do not satisfy the GNG, per Phil Bridger and Jimsteel9999. ThemFromSpace 03:57, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:28, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Alois Hitler

Alois Hitler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 19:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

"Being related to a notable person in itself confers no degree of notability upon that person." And as far as I can tell, other than being a father of a certain Adolf, Mr. Alois did nothing that would make him notable... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 18:05, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• Keep While being related to a notable person does not automatically grant a person notability, it often can. In cases where a person is discussed in a large number of independent reliable sources, and the discussion is more then just a passing mention of their name as the relation of the notable person, they are notable. We don't try to read in to why the reliable source decided to cover the subject. As a practical matter, the close familiar relations of extremely notable individuals are very likely to meet the notability criteria because of the relation, all that the quote is saying is we don't assume they are notable just because of the relation. Monty₈₄₅ 18:17, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
• Judging from the number of sources the subject is indeed notable in it's own. // Liftarn (talk) 18:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• Keep. Plenty of sources, and how would deleting this article improve the encyclopedia? --Arxiloxos (talk) 05:10, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
• Keep, I agree with Monty, that the nom is confused about WP:NOTINHERITED, which means only that we don't automatically give people articles just because they are related to or associated with notable people. It does not mean that we deny articles to notable people just because that relationship is why they satisfy WP:GNG as the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Obviously there have been many people who are indisputably notable but only because they were someone's brother, someone's wife, or someone's child, regardless of how we feel about the merits of their own accomplishments or lack thereof. This deletion nomination is particularly daft given that Adolf Hitler has to be one of the most biographied individuals ever in human history, and there is undoubtedly significant insight and information that biographies of his immediate family provide to the central question of how and why Hitler became what he was. To rulemonger in the face of that is an unfortunate attitude, even apart from the fact that the nominator didn't even get the rule right. postdlf (talk) 16:32, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
• Keep per Monty and Postdlf. This man has been portrayed in numerous books and motion pictures, and the sourcing in this article is as good as it gets. See also past precedent, such as John Adams, Sr.. Bearian (talk) 20:54, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
• Keep. Rules are tools, to be applied on the basis of good editorial judgment. They aren't supposed to be bombs that go off indiscriminately and do widespread collateral damage. Use WP:NOTINHERITED for its intended purpose, please.—S Marshall T/C 21:23, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:32, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Like Pollution

Like Pollution (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 19:13, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, this is a neologism, probably made up by the article creator. I can find no sources for either Like Pollution or Gratuitous Liking, a related probable neologism which I am specifically including in this AfD. LadyofShalott 17:24, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 17:29, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• Delete both asap. No google hits, pointless articles. We should allocate a new speedy criteria to such neologisms.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:33, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• Delete both - no sources seem to exist, both are pure WP:NEO / WP:MADEUP. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:54, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NOTNEO... also, agreed, Dr. Blofield- that would really let us not have to waste time going through the AFD process to get rid of obvious neologisms. Ducknish (talk) 19:07, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I've made a proposal at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals).♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:25, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• Merge a stubbified version of both to Like button, with an {{unreferenced section}} tag. It is highly unlikely that this is just a made-up hoax. The basic information seems sound, although I don't know what folks in the industry call this and therefore what terms to use when searching for sources. There is more to this subject than just the name, and NOTNEO doesn't authorize deletion of solid information merely because it happened to get posted under a poor article title. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:58, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• Delete if no (or only very few) notable sources using the terms are found. ∫e^b²+1_(talk) 22:24, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• Delete both. Like Pollution is an essay, not reflective of any notable concept outside of Wikipedia. Gratutious Liking was created by the same user a few hours later, covering essentially the same topic. I agree that the general concept is not a hoax; it is a criticism of social networking behaviour that at least one person dislikes. But neither is that notable or, as far as I can tell, discussed in published sources outside of these articles. Cnilep (talk) 03:34, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

• Delete both I can't find proper sources for either. Silverseren^C 06:42, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

• Delete twain per WP:NOTNEO and Dr. Blofeld. Thanks! ⇒TAP 08:20, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
• Delete both. I'm not citing any policies because this is an obvious no brainer. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:38, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
• Comment The AFD tag that links here is placed on Gratuitous Liking and not Like Pollution. Although for what it's worth, both articles should probably be deleted, or maybe redirected to the social networking article. WTF? (talk) 20:07, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

• Look again; it is on both. (The redlink doesn't mean that it doesn't link here; it has something to do with template caching that I don't understand, but if you click on it, you will come to this page). LadyofShalott 00:53, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Weird. Well, delete both pages anyways! WTF? (talk) 03:32, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I changed the red link to blue by adding ?action=purge to the URL while viewing the article. Johnuniq (talk) 11:50, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

• Delete both No sources exist, pure WP:OR. Johnuniq (talk) 11:50, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
• While anyone who uses Facebook has certainly seen this, no sources=no article. This is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia. If we can't verify it we shouldn't have an article on it. delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:05, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:48, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Baylor Barbee

Baylor Barbee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 19:00, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

No indications of notability. Claim of "top 5 ranking in several Amazon and Kindle categories" cannot be verified, and wouldn't really qualify for WP:AUTHOR anyway. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:40, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Apologies, though it can be proven, i removed the sentence in question.

L1feLessonsLearned (talk) 17:00, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• Delete. As near as I can tell, the book is self-published by the author's own company and therefore attracts no inherent notability -- I can find no evidence that an arm's-length third-party expert source has reviewed the book. After a search, I can't find any way in which this individual meets the general notability guideline. Ubelowme _U ^Me 17:16, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 21:15, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:04, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

---

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:33, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

B1438 road

Advanced search for:  "B1438"
In books/documents  Google Books  · Questia Internet Archive  · WorldCat
In the news  Google News: recent  · archives Questia  · New York Times Los Angeles Times Wall Street Journal · Washington Post Financial Times · BBC News The Age · The Hindu News Limited · Fairfax Media
In academic/legal journals  and reference works  Google Scholar: academic  · legal Microsoft Academic: new  · original Oxford Reference  · JSTOR PUBMED Central  · Questia HighBeam  · Internet Archive
World Wide Web pages  Google Web Search  · Advanced Search Searx 1  · 2  · 3  · 4 Bing  · DuckDuckGo  · Startpage Yahoo · Yandex · Gigablast
Images (free)  Google  · Flickr
More  Wikipedia Free English newspaper sources The Wikipedia Library

Yes, Virginia, the B1438 exists in Suffolk, England

B1438 road (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:58, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

This is not a significant road. The reference to SABRE here fails WP:RS as anyone can edit the page at any time. A news search suggests the road is in fact in East Lothian, Scotland, not in Suffolk as claimed. Ritchie333 (talk) 15:42, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• Delete Google maps places it in Suffolk and anyone interested in what a fairly typical road in East Anglia is like could do worse than look at it in Streetview. But WP is not a roads catalogue, and I found no evidence of notability. --AJHingston (talk) 16:26, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
• Delete - This road is frequently mistaken for a section of the B1438 on satellite navigation systems and others.  Adam Mugliston  Talk  16:59, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
• What you need is a map. Try looking at 52.1227°N 1.3380°E / 52.1227; 1.3380 on your favourite one. Yes, I followed the hyperlink on Ufford, Suffolk. And yes, the road number has been wrong in this article's title and contents right from the start. It's wrong in your Google search, too. Help is now at hand ⇗ for that latter, however. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 17:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
• Yes, the B1348 is in fact in East Lothian. The small section of road, about which this article is written is a section of the B1438. So, we should either delete this article or rewrite it for the correct road.  Adam Mugliston  Talk  17:06, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Or we could rename the article to the correct road number. Will you look at that! Someone seems to have done exactly that. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 17:22, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Improbable. The article is probably about B7438 with a misprint — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterkingiron (talk • contribs) 2012-07-28 17:54:26
      • No. The article really is about the B1438. The kind someone did fix this for you all a week ago, so that you wouldn't be all confused as to what the subject of the article even was and get lost discussing the wrong things. Uncle G (talk) 13:17, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
• Redirect to B roads in Zone 1 of the Great Britain numbering scheme - I believe that most B-roads are considered to be insufficently notable for stand-alone articles, but a redirect to the list is appropriate. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
• Delete ‐ Road is not significant, if you want road details visit OpenStreetMap -- johndrinkwater (talk) 19:40, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• Redirect to B roads in Zone 1 of the Great Britain numbering scheme, which is the normal solution for any road where the only thing to say about it is where it goes to. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 06:59, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
• Delete Previous discussions have shown us B roads are not notable and this is too small. Wilbysuffolk (Talk to me!) 13:24, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
• Merge The entry in B1438 in the B-roads list article says that it is at Woodbridge, Suffolk and "Was the A12 before bypassing". This appears to be correct. Accoring to the road-numbering system in use in GB, English and Welsh roads start with the digits 1-6 and Scottish roads with 7-9. The newspapaer citation is accordingly probably a misprint for B7438. A Google maps suggests that B1438 is called Ipswich Road and then Melton Road; after Melton, it becomes Yarmouth Road. As an old line of the A12 road (England) it will be appropriate for the subject to be covered under that article. I think I have covered roads downgraded when a bypass has been built in articles such as A38 road. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:51, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I was wrong Gmaps shows that there is a B1438 going past Cockenzie Power Station in Scotland. If kept this article needs to be renamed B1438 road (England), with the resultant redirect being converted to a dabpage with B1438 road (Scotland). However, we may be better without either. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:01, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
  • At User talk:Uncle G#UK Road Sources I pointed out to the nominator here that there's a whole load of 1970s stuff missing from Wikipedia, in particular the construction of the 11.5km "Ufford and Wickham Market Bypass", whatever that is. As I said there, I leave this hole in the encyclopaedia for road article writers such as you and Ritchie333 to fill. Uncle G (talk) 13:17, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Yeah, it would be nice to get some road articles up to GA status, and filling out these details is one way of progressing towards that. Reason I haven't done anything yet is a combination of a) not having much post-1961 research at my disposal (maps are still in copyright after this) b) it's not somewhere I've been often and c) I'm taking a general break from editing road articles and doing other stuff on WP having banged my head against the wall at the endless bickering in things like this. (Sorry!) --Ritchie333 (talk) 13:58, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
• Redirect to B roads in Zone 1 of the Great Britain numbering scheme - Road may not be important enough for its own article but can always be covered in a list. Dough4872 00:50, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Soft delete due to minimal discussion. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 15:59, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Doubochinski's Microphysics Quantum Effect (DMQE)

Doubochinski's Microphysics Quantum Effect (DMQE) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:56, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

A non-notable effect. Whereas what is written in the article is probably correct, it is not shown that the effect was mentioned by anybody but the proposed and his group. None of the cited papers was published in a high-profile journal. Ref. 2, which claims to describe the effect in detail, does not seem to mention Doubochinsky or Doubochinsky at all. The related paper on Doubochinski's pendulum seems to have similar problems. Both look like a promotion for the unnotable phenomenon. Ymblanter (talk) 15:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• Delete. Topic has yet to receive significant attention in the scientific community or anywhere. GS cites for Doubochinski hinself are tiny. Doubochinski's pendulum is also ripe for deletion. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:16, 25 July 2012 (UTC).

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:04, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

---

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:49, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

---

I added 2 good references that prove interest to this effect from scientific society and acknowledgment the fact, that Doubochinski's pendulum is the specific class of pendulum and it is known to the specialists in the this area (physics of oscillations). Please, let me to add more references in 3 weeks when I will return from vacation. Please, do not delete this article before I will present more references.--RomanPr (talk) 00:29, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. And then redirect to Homophobia#"Heterophobia".  Sandstein  06:54, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Heterophobia

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Heterophobia
• Articles for deletion/Heterophobia/2005-06-18
• Articles for deletion/Heterophobia (3rd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Heterophobia (4th nomination)

Heterophobia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:51, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

In looking for reliable sources to include content on this subject in the homophobia article I ran into some issues which give me cause that this article is not much more than a neologism that simply hasn't caught on. Of the reliable sources I found the term itself was used sparingly and in several different contexts that did not seem to agree on any notable definition. Looking outside reliable sources to what's used on the Internet, it seems that religious conservatives often define homosexuality by behavior; others often define homosexuality by sexual orientation; the use of 'heterophobia' follows that pattern, mainly confined to a narrow defining of 'homophobia' and then comparing 'heterophobia' to that corollary. Thus, I think this article might fail all four guidelines and policies that inform deletion discussions: notability (WP:N), verifiability (WP:V), reliable sources (WP:RS), and what Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT). Insomesia (talk) 15:16, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• I second all of your statements. --CJ Withers (talk) 15:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I also left out that I did look at all the links on the talk page, mostly blogs proving that the word was used. If this article is deleted, I think a redirect link should point to homophobia where we try to document notable uses of this word only in relation as a corrolary to 'homophobia'. Insomesia (talk) 15:38, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
• Keep - Don't make the mistake of expecting anything like equivalent currency for the concepts homophobia and heterophobia. The former is a "big topic" of sociology, the latter is a "small topic." Still, when one runs a simple Google search and come up with 1.4 million hits for "heterophobia," one knows that there is a big enough iceberg to carve off a few reliable sources snowcones. See, for example, Daphne Patai's book, Heterophobia: Sexual Harassment and the Future of Feminism. (HERE'S A REVIEW). And THIS PIECE, a 1999 conference presentation by Dr. Raymond J. Noonan of the Fashion Institute of Technology (SUNY) and Director, SexQuest/The Sex Institute, NYC, which indicates that the term "heterophobia" was then about 2 decades old, as opposed to "its more familiar [linguistic] sibling," homophobia, which scholars date to 1958. In short, if there are objections to the content here, fix it through the normal editing process, not through attempted annihilation at AfD. This is an encyclopedic concept. Carrite (talk) 16:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 16:30, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I only expect reliable source that go to building an actual article. I concede that there are a few books that use the term but the same likely could be said for many words that simply haven't taken off. And 1.4 million hits in comparison to only a handful of reliable sources is an indication that it's use is limited to blogs which I also saw. I'm not looking to annihilate, the first thing I did was try to verify what the article stated, it was all over the place and was lacking in sources, primary or otherwise. And didn't use the ones it had accurately. If one definition has been in use for 20 years and still hasn't caught on then perhaps that's a sign? When I did a Google News search I found no reliable sources. Google Scholar brings up a few books/documents using the word but with different meanings. This matches the dilemma I faced months ago when I fist started looking into this. I think even comparing the two sources you cite you'll have two differing definitions. In short we have several books, some by the same authors, all using the term very sparingly - like only once in the title - and a workshop at a conference by one of those same authors. What is salvageable can be summed up at the homophobia article which is what I was trying to do in the first place and simply found little to really support the term. Insomesia (talk) 16:42, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
    • I could find you 12 greatly differing and at least partially contradictory definitions of "socialism" or "democracy" or "freedom" with little effort. That does not invalidate any of these as an encyclopedic subject. So, too, here. When there's a published monograph on a topic AND the topic, in a somewhat different context, has been used for decades in academia, there's more than enough justification (and more than enough available sourcing) to support a freestanding piece. Carrite (talk) 16:58, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
      • Differing definitions for "socialism" or "democracy" or "freedom" would be compared with due weight to what has actually been written on the subjects themselves. But this term has been used very little in any academia and there seems to be no one definition that has become notable. It's use in reliable sources is limited and with different definitions. And this is after it's been around a while, so I think it remains a neologism that has been largely ignored by academia. Possibly because it has no clear definition. Insomesia (talk) 17:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

There do seem to be clear dictionary definitions for the term, from my prowl of the internets. (1) Irrational fear of the opposite sex. (2) Irrational fear of heterosexuals. WP is not a dictionary and this is neither here nor there. The main use of the term in daily life seems as a polemical construct of the political and religious right to counterpose to "homophobia" — which is itself a highly politicized construct that has more to do with economic and social discrimination against a group rather than the dictionary definition of fear. There are other concrete uses of the term "heterophobia," to be sure. I find the article deficient for not concentrating upon its use as a polemical construct. That is an editing matter, not a notability matter. Owing to the politicization of the topic, there is a huge IDONTLIKEIT factor here which must be guarded against. The phrase is enormously prominent in public discourse and I find the piece as it stands sufficiently well sourced to pass GNG, regardless of its imperfections in terms of content. Carrite (talk) 18:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• • • • • Just want to clear things up, "heterophobia" is not a small topic but a NON-topics as there are no studies or reports on it. It simply doesn't exist and is posited otherwise by unreliable sources. --CJ Withers (talk) 18:21, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - Here's AN AUSTRALIAN MP using "heterophobia" as a right wing attack phrase in the Brisbane Times. Carrite (talk) 17:05, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Commentary from Huffington Post UK challenging the Right's use of "heterophobia" as a polemical counterpoint to "homophobia." Carrite (talk) 17:07, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
    • While it doesn't count towards GNG, this blog post is indicative that the question of "heterophobia" is a matter of some interest in the gay community. Carrite (talk) 17:11, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
      • The well-established right wing mag Human Events used the term in 2007 as a polemical opposite of "homophobia." A big majority of the 1.4 million hits seem to use the concept in this manner. Carrite (talk) 17:18, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
        • These all seem like examples of the word being used rather than reliable sources about the concept. No one disputes the word has been used. Insomesia (talk) 17:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Do any of those sources explain what the concept is? If not, what relevance do they have to Wikipedia:Deletion policy? Uncle G (talk) 17:42, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
• I considered recommending a very selective merge to homophobia to explain the use of the neologism by anti-gay activists, but after further examining available sources, I must go for delete. The term is used to mean a wide variety of things, none of which really have a significant amount of coverage and none of which are a distinct phenomenon (eg. Taguieff and Memmi use it to mean fear of the other, Noonan and Patai to mean sex-negativity, a lot of unreliable sources like Reisman etc. use it when complaining about equality for gay people - also, many in this last group use it in passing, failing "significant"). We can't make one title a redirect to multiple articles, but in no case is the use of the term sufficiently common to make a disambiguation page (which is more or less what the article is) appropriate. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:05, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I completed that very merge several months ago, so I invite everyone to read that section of homophobia. --CJ Withers (talk) 18:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - Nothing to do with the notability test here, but the first line of the entry at RationalWiki isn't too bad: "Heterophobia is a neologism used as a snarl word to delegitimize the gay rights movement's campaign for equal treatment and an end to anti-gay bigotry." If I were working on this topic, which I'm not, that's the angle I would take towards sourcing it out. The piece as it stands clears GNG, in my estimation, but it deficient in that it ignores the real use of the concept. Carrite (talk) 18:13, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The POV phrasing would need to be toned down, obviously. Carrite (talk) 18:16, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• • We need reliable sources to make the case, If you think this is a reliable source could you provide the link? If not then we have to wait until a reliable source publishes it. Insomesia (talk) 18:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, no. The discussion at Homophobia#.22Heterophobia.22 is fully adequate in this regard and would make an okay redirect target. Carrite (talk) 18:37, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• In addition to the several years of decisions to do so, I put forward an unquestionable delete given that there are no studies whatsoever on "heterophobia" as actual discrimination or anything else. What's more, there are NO references on its existence. The onus is on those who vote to keep the article to prove that a reliable, unbiased study has been conducted. --CJ Withers (talk) 18:17, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• Redirect - Having reviewed C.J. Withers' subsection of homophobia mentioned above, I find that superior to and replicating all essentials of this freestanding piece. So a redirect towards Homophobia#.22Heterophobia.22 now strikes me as a better option than a keep here. Keep recommendation stricken. Carrite (talk) 18:41, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• Redirect - strip out the useful and reliably sourced stuff for the homophobia article, while keeping WP:WEIGHT in mind and then redirect this page to it. Blogs are not an excuse for reliable citations and this concept was clearly created to satirize or rival Homophobia. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 14:13, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I mistook the "footnotes" section for citations so i have changed my original opinion to Delete ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 14:16, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Living the secret

Living the secret (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:49, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Non-notable book which fails the general notability guideline and the notability guideline for books. Googling with the search term "living the secret" "Mohit Tahiliani" retrieves nothing on Google News or News archives. The search term retrieves only four hits on Google Books, one of which is the book itself and the other three of which are false positives, as they predate the book by several years. The author of the article is also the author of the book and may have a conflict of interest. CtP (t • c) 15:10, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• Delete. I did a search for this book, but was unable to find any reliable sources at all to show notability. The book that inspired the author to write LtS might be notable, but that notability is not extended to anything that might have been based off of it. This is ultimately a non-notable book per Wikipedia's guidelines.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 16:32, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
• Delete. As per above, which duplicates the results of my own search. This is also not worth redirecting to the more notable book/author, and I cannot imagine that redirecting to the author's name would be useful; I found nothing that would make me think the author was notable where the book is not.. Ubelowme _U ^Me 17:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
• Delete I would say redirect to the author's article if there were one, but there is not and I see no reason why there should be through WP:GNG. Ducknish (talk) 19:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
• Delete I agree that the article should be deleted. Neither the book nor the author is noteworthy. A google search for the author or the book throws up no notable result. The article conveys no information at all, about the book or otherwise; and also lacks basic structure of a wiki article. I did an amazon search for the book with the author name. The amazon best sellers ranking for the book is in millions (which is bad) and there are no verified purchases, which makes one believe the book and the author are not doing well at all. I see no reason why this article should not be deleted. Alastor Moody (talk) 06:45, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and Salt. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:42, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Analyte Health, Inc.

Analyte Health, Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:48, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Non-notable company. Only one source to be found indicating any type of in-depth coverage, and that from a local newspaper. Aster Award claim has to be discounted, based on the number of such awards handed out each year (30 in the category "Websites" alone, which is one of 79 possible categories). WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:08, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• Consider A7ing, and if not that, just Delete. This article was deleted twice (by me) yesterday as Analyte Health for being promotional. The author then took it to AfC...and then apparently changed their mind and put it back in mainspace, under another title to get around the SALTing I had put in place. The content of this version of the article is, indeed, an improvement on the previous versions, but it neglects to establish any apparent notability or, really, importance of the company. I'm turning up nothing of any use in news and google searching, and I suspect that's because the notability is just not there, period. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:20, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:17, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Can you advise me on how to improve the article so there is notability? --DIM302 (talk) 14:28, 25 July 2012 (UTC) — DIM302 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

This is the wrong place to ask, but I'll answer: look at WP:CORP, WP:NPOV and the Business FAQ. -- Alexf^(talk) 11:59, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

• Delete Non-notable as Fluffernutter says. I don't see it as belonging in the project at this point, unless more [[WP:RS|sourcess] can be supplied to assert notability. As it stands it has circular references and a mention in Bloomberg that ascertains the company exists, not that it is notable. -- Alexf^(talk) 11:59, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable, and salt per the inexcusable history described by Fluffernutter. Consider also some kind of sanction against the author who persists in creating these spam articles. --MelanieN (talk) 20:13, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

  To be fair, MelanieN, I suspect this is more a case of a new user going "Wait, my article is gone? What happened? Let me try again..." than "Mwahaha I shall deliberately continue re-creating something that I understand should not be created!" That said though, at some point he's going to have to either notice the problems with his article or get a stronger indication that he has to stop. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, that is a very kind interpretation - considering that you were the one who warned them about disruptive editing - and considering that they have now created at least three articles about this company (deliberately changing the name to avoid the block) as well as at least one article for the related company SexualHealth. (The user is an SPA, but denies conflict of interest.) --MelanieN (talk) 01:18, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:44, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Joe Ironside

Joe Ironside (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

It looks like this youth player hasn't yet played any matches in a fully professional league, although he may do so when the new season starts. Unfortunately, for now, he doesn't pass WP:NFOOTY, and I can't find any significant coverage of him to prove he passes WP:GNG. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 14:53, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:42, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:43, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• Delete fails WP:NFOOTY Seasider91 (talk) 21:23, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 08:32, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 08:33, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
• Delete - he has not received significant coverage and he has not played in a fully pro league, so he fails both WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 09:49, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
• Delete - fails both WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Mentoz86 (talk) 08:03, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:46, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Honeypot and forEnsic Analysis Tool

Honeypot and forEnsic Analysis Tool (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:29, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Can't find any significant coverage of this product other than links based on the Wikipedia article. EricEnfermero ^Howdy! 10:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 03:55, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
• Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. Unrelated to the AFD, but I just have to say it. What a horribly forced acronym. -- Whpq (talk) 21:20, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
• Delete - as above, no significant RS coverage; created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 01:02, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:50, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Good ol' boy network

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Good ol' boy network

Good ol' boy network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Not verified as even a real topic, unreferenced stub tagged for years. Aside from any NPOV issues inherent to the proposed topic, whatever information it might contain appears to already be more than adequately covered under the umbrella of Good ol' boy, among others, making this article redundant. Merging seems pointless as the article is only three sentences and five links. OldManNeptune ⚓ 10:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• Delete Seems a bit of a muddle, conflating the concepts of the old boy network and good ol' boy. Warden (talk) 10:56, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --BDD (talk) 14:56, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
• Delete per the Colonel above. Perhaps a redirect to old boy network would be appropriate. There needs to be an American section added to that piece, for what it's worth... Carrite (talk) 17:32, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Appears to meet GNG and has reliable sources. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter (Gimme a message) @ 13:18, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Milo Yiannopoulos

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Milo Yiannopoulos
• Articles for deletion/Milo Yiannopoulos (2nd nomination)

Milo Yiannopoulos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:26, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Lack of notability. Are we to include all minor journalists? Setting up a minor tech blog - one of thousands - surely doesn't class as notable. FunkyCanute (talk) 09:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment o.0 Its WP:DYK at the moment. Do we really need this ugly banner when its experiencing the most article traffic? There's no rule for this but it might be a good idea to temporarily postpone this until the DYK period is over. CyanGardevoir ^{(used EDIT!)} 09:54, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:BIO, just trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources (ordinary positions and activities). The article was apparently deleted in the first nomination, but has now popped again. Brandmeister^talk 10:00, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
• Comment I would say it's a very borderline case but of interest, the nominator for the first AfD (which was successful) is a contributor to this second-launching version. I would be interested in what he has to say on this. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 10:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
• Speedy keep under criteria 5 (article linked from the Main Page at the time the nomination was submitted). --Allen3 ^talk 12:48, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
• Speedy keep per Allen3. Ryan Vesey Review me! 13:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC) Struck as the rationale no longer applies, new rationale below

• Speedy keep Easily passes WP: GNG with many reliable sources. Electric Catfish 14:04, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
• Response It was the link on the homepage under DYK that drew my attention to the article. Fundamentally the article says: the subject is a journalist of no particular merit; and he has a blog, which itself lacks notability. For those reasons I urge Delete, although I take note of the speedy keep argument.
• Speedy keep, small portion of trout and chips to the nominator. (Disclosure: I am the author of the article, and am aquainted with the subject.) The subject was covered in depth by The Guardian. A feature in a national mainstream publication completely satisfies the general notability guideline. WilliamH (talk) 16:24, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
• Keep per WilliamH. GNG requires significant coverage in a major source or less significant coverage in many major sources. This qualifies for the former and appears to meet the latter as well. Let's take a moment to consider the purpose of the notability guideline. Wikipedia should not be the first place that a subject is mentioned in an in depth manner. We require that another reliable source has determined the subject to be notable. That way, we don't have to. It is clear that Yiannopoulos has been determined to be notable by The Guardian. Ryan Vesey Review me! 16:29, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
• keep per WilliamH. I nominated him first time round but he's been profiled in the Guardian since then, which strikes me as a good definition of primary coverage in a notable news source.Soupy sautoy (talk) 20:12, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
• Keep topic meets the WP:GNG with sufficient coverage by independent sources. I have checked enough sources to verify this. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
• Keep per The Guardian and other related sources. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:15, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:08, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Muhammed al-Darbi

Muhammed al-Darbi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:25, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

On a living prisoners (some from Guantanamo ) with no independent coverage at all. Fails WP:BLP1E, WP:NOTINHERITED. There are no secondary sources to claim notability of the subject and the citations used are WP:PRIMARY sources (WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 84#Reliability of US military summary reports).DBigXray 08:08, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

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

Muhammad Assad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Abd Al Rahman Al Zahri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Saleh Mohamed Al Zuba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Fahmi Salem Said Al Sani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Salah 'Ali Qaru (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The consensus on recent similar AfDs [29][30][31] [32] [33] was Delete DBigXray 08:08, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:55, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:55, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:56, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:56, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• Delete all - the subjects of the articles are not notable as they lack "sigificant coverage" in reliable sources per WP:GNG. As such, invididual articles for each of them cannot be justified and aren't necessary. What little information that does exist is included elsewhere and is sufficient. Anotherclown (talk) 21:55, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
• Comment There are certain obligations on a contributor who nominates an article for deletion, or who weighs in on an Afd discussion. The nominator really should read the article carefully enough that their nomination is not misleading. When they make a group nomination they should really make sure all the articles they list trigger the same concern.

  This nomination, however, asserts all the individuals were former Guantanamo captives. Actually Muhammed al-Darbi, Muhammad Assad and Salah 'Ali Qaru were never held in Guantanamo. They all spent years in the CIA's secret torture camps. I suggest this shows that the nominator lapsed in their obligation to read the article(s) in question clearly enough not to leave a misleading nomination.

  Similarly, I suggest the closing administrator discount the "delete all" vote above as they seem to have taken the nomination's description at face value, and not bothered to actually look at the articles for themselves. Geo Swan (talk) 12:16, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

• Keep Muhammed al-Darbi , Muhammad Assad and Salah 'Ali Qaru. We don't cover routine events, non-notable people. There are apologists for the CIA's use of torture camps, who like to represent their operation as mundane, routine, run of the mill -- and thus not worth mentioning. This meme is entirely in contrast to the opinion of reliable legal scholars, experts in military law, and human rights workers. How many individuals did the CIA hold in their secret torture camps? We don't know, and they never published a list. If all we knew about these individuals was that they had been in the CIA's torture camps, then they should be listed in an article on the inmates of those camps. But these individuals have multiple references supplying details about them. Some might argue that these two men are examples of BLP1E -- which however, allows for exceptions for events of sufficient impact. Innocent men, held for years in torture camps, by a country that tries to present itself as a world leader in the respect for human rights, would be, I suggest a "one event" of sufficient impact to qualify for the exceptions BLP1e allows for impactful events. Geo Swan (talk) 12:30, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
• Keep Saleh Mohamed Al Zuba -- an elderly captive, who needed heart by-pass surgery, who faced the ridiculous allegation that he was a drill instructor at a terrorist training camp in Afghanistan -- even though there was no evidence he had ever been to Afghanistan. Al Zuba was sought out by multiple western press reporters, for interviews, who pointed out how the allegations used to justify his detention simply weren't credible. Geo Swan (talk) 12:42, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
• Keep Fahmi Salem Said Al Sani -- recently profiled as an individual cleared for release in 2007 -- who nevertheless remains in detention five years later. Benjamin Wittes, a senior legal scholar at the Brookings Institute, found Al Sani's decision to abandon his habeas appeal remarkable. Geo Swan (talk) 12:45, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
• Keep Abd Al Rahman Al Zahri -- The Washington Post profiled Al Zahri's case as one of four captives' cases where the allegations against them were inconsistent. Peter Finn quoted Al Zahri make the very unusual statement, at his 2004 CSR Tribunal "I do pose a threat to the United States and its allies. I admit to you it's my honor to be an enemy of the United States. I am a Muslim jihadist, and I'm defending my family and my honor." Finn then casts doubt on elements of the allegations against Al Zahri. Finn quotes Benjamin Wittes, a senior legal scholar at the Brookings Institute: "His statement that he is a jihadist and wants to stand against America -- exactly what law does that violate? ... I cannot be confident that these facts -- even if proven -- would amount to a prosecutable case." Geo Swan (talk) 13:08, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

• @ Creator GeoSwan none of your above comments prove WP:NOTABILITY please read Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Notability is inherited--DBigXray 13:14, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I am sorry, I don't intend to be mean about this, but I am afraid you misunderstand key wikipedia policies. When reliable sources write about an individual, that helps establish their notability.

    In your comments, in other discussions, you have rejected that official DoD documents establish notability, you have claimed it is biased -- which reflects current consensus.

    But you have also claimed that third party reporting that is based, in part, on official DoD documents is also biased, and you incorrectly reject that this third party reporting establishes notability. When your nominations are based on this fundamental misunderstanding of policy your nominations should be challenged over this misunderstanding.

    You have asserted that Guantanamo captives don't "deserve" coverage. Coverage is neither a reward or a penalty. These captives merit coverage because there is sufficient coverage of them in reliable sources. Geo Swan (talk) 15:09, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

• Do not misquote me I have never made any general statement that Guantanamo captives dont deserve coverage. What I have said is prisoners with no independent third party coverage do not satisfy WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Guantanamo is notable, agreed, but that does not mean anyone imprisoned there becomes defacto notable, read WP:NOTINHERITED . This is in accordance with policies for BLP articles. --DBigXray 16:38, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

• Redirect all to the appropriate 'Fooian detainees at Guantanamo Bay' lists. As BigXRay states, the arguments for notability for these people are based on inherited notability and from passing references in articles that do not rise to the level of establishing notability, and also fail WP:BLP1E. Also Geo Swan's statment about "apologists" is a serious failure of good faith. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:13, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - These recent terrorism related AfD's all appear to be for articles that are reasonably sourced and have histories dating back years. At first glance these guys appear to be WP:BLP1E's, but many have garnered WP:INDEPTH write-ups and WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE beyond just the initial event. The AfD seems to suggest that there is a historical precedent set for deleting these articles, but while the articles are old, the AfD's all started in just the past two weeks. Nearly all have a recommended merge or redirect target, yet they all end up deleted. And then in some cases, someone recreates the recently deleted page as a redirect to the specified target, but only after the page is deleted. This selective deletion removes any potentially useful page history for the redirect, violating WP:PRESERVE and WP:R#KEEP. Moreover, these group nominations appear to have been done half-assardly because they don't all conform to a specific template or category (aside from being enemies of the US). I want to assume good faith, but these issues seem really fishy. --Joshuaism (talk) 07:31, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
  • "and have histories dating back years." - WP:LONGTIME. Note that of these deletions, while they have "continued coverage", that continued coverage is just like the original coverage in nearly all cases - passing mentions. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:43, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge All as individually do not seem notable beyond BLP1E. --Nouniquenames (talk) 18:02, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:50, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Hakan Aksoy

Hakan Aksoy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Non-notable fighter - basically three fights with 2 losses. Only source is a web-site which itself says no fights.Peter Rehse (talk) 05:22, 24 July 2012 (UTC) Peter Rehse (talk) 05:22, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 05:22, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• Delete No fights for a top tier organization, nothing in the article or in a Google search to indicate notability.CaSJer (talk) 14:26, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
• Delete subject of the article fails WP:GNG and does not seem to be a notable fighter. Ducknish (talk) 19:46, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:36, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

---

• Delete This article has no independent sources and the subject doesn't meet any notability criteria. Jakejr (talk) 21:19, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• Delete Fails GNG as the source is unreliable. Electric Catfish 00:37, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:50, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Lawrence Ajayi

Lawrence Ajayi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

The author removed the proposed deletion template so here we are at AfD. I haven't found any third-party reliable sources to confirm this individual's notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:40, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• Delete. Promotional article of a non-notable subject. There doesn't seem to be any third party reliable sources covering the person.--SGCM (talk) 04:56, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• Delete The only sources available are social media sites, the subject's own website and a self-published book. Nothing that would pass the bar for "reliable", hence nothing that would pass the basic notability criteria. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:51, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:53, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• Delete A promotional article of a subject with no independent reliable sources. --Artene50 (talk) 04:59, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. As this debate is only partially focused on the actual subject, the rest being attacks on editors, I have forgone the option of relisting. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:54, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Nik Richie

Nik Richie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

This article should be speedily deleted. Founding a website that barely cracks the top 3,000 most-visited in the U.S. and outside the top 10,000 worldwide (source: Alexa.com internet rankings) does not automatically make one notable. Despite being reasonably well-written, the article exists purely to promote the subject's website, thedirty.com, as evidenced by the embedded links to thedirty.com contained within. Even if these were removed and sourced in a more Wikipedia-appropriate format, that would not change the subject's lack of notability or the article's promotional purpose. Finally, for what it is worth, thedirty.com is a destructive cyberbullying portal. "Nik Richie" has made himself semi-wealthy at the expense of tens of thousands of ordinary, non-celebrity Americans and others. Wikipedia should absolutely not be allowed to serve as free advertising for this sort of filth. I strongly urge Wikipedia administrators to delete this article swiftly and prevent (re-)creation of an article on either "Nik Richie" or thedirty.com. Damon Killian (talk) 01:53, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. I'll look into researching to see if there's anything salvagable, but I do want to state that having low rankings does not automatically show a lack of notability. We also don't delete articles because the subject is a jerk or might encourage bad activities. If that was the case, the article on Encyclopedia Dramatica would've been deleted long ago. There's definitely an issue on the article with an overabundance of primary sources, but there's also enough to where I don't think it could be speedied for lack of notability or that it's so promotional it could be speedied under that. This will have to just go through a week long AfD process. In any case, this guy does seem to be borderline notable but I'll have to go do some hoofwork before making any big decision.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 03:06, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:43, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• Keep as a notable public personality. @nominator, please see WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 07:51, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
• Delete The nominators reasons are very poor WP:IDONTLIKEIT but I've picked through the most reliable sources (NY Times and BBC News) and while they substantiate the events being referenced in the article, they do not directly refer to Richie, so fail significant coverage in reliable sources. There are a handful of local news references that do seem to substantiate the website thedirty.com or its predecessors, but again they don't cover Richie as a person. To be honest, the easiest way to salvage this would be to start a thedirty.com article from scratch using whatever reliable sources pass muster. --Ritchie333 (talk) 09:06, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
• Delete As above, nomination could be better explained without the attacks, but I don't see how Richie is notable. Sources provided are about his website; make an article about that if you wish. Slow Graffiti (talk) 16:18, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
• Keep The fact he and his website are essentially the same thing and has regularly been reported in the media means its information people may reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.244.120.121 (talk) 16:29, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
• Delete Possibly consider keeping only the section on legal action and merge it into the existing article on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. The remainder of this article is littered with borderline ridiculous non-notable items such as the subject's tweets or the presence of a 21-signature petition against the subject's website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.73.10.210 (talk) 17:07, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - Horrible article that needs to be pruned with a machete. That's off my chest. Carrite (talk)
• Keep - Clearly a public figure. Nearly a quarter million Google hits make a big enough iceberg for a few reliable sources showcones. See, for example, THIS PIECE from Forbes magazine, "The Dirty Business: How Gossipmonger Nik Richie of The Dirty Stays Afloat." Carrite (talk) 17:42, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

More evidence of Richie's publicfigureness is THIS PIECE from the LA Times. Carrite (talk) 17:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

While the video is now down, ANDERSON COOPER was interviewing Richie about his website. All these from the first two pages of a simple Google search. This is pretty clearly a bad faith nomination per WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Carrite (talk) 17:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment The article was created by user 'DS Cable', whose Wikipedia contributions consist of revisions to page Shayne Lamas (Nik Richie's wife), Mission Viejo High School (inserting and re-inserting Nik Richie under Notable Alumni), and Jones vs. Dirty World LLC (a court case involving Nik and thedirty.com). The only non-Nik Richie-related page 'DS Cable' frequently edits is Ripoff Report, which is on the extreme periphery of Nik Richie/thedirty.com-related matters as it involves the Communications Decency Act. Between his/her list of pages contributed to and the positive treatment he gives the subject in this Nik Richie article (mentioning a plaintiff's unrelated legal problems post-lawsuit vs. Richie, referencing an anti-Richie petition with a paltry 21 signatures, quoting Richie's tweets), I suspect 'DS Cable' is a Nik Richie/thedirty.com fanboy, possibly a member of the site's official paying fan club known as "The Dirty Army," and not a good-faith contributor to Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.73.10.210 (talk) 18:53, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - There are two themes quickly developing here -- one is about the value of the page, and the other is about the value of the person discussed in the page. The first point is legitimate fodder for debate here; the second is not. Some have expressed concern about the primary sources used for some references; those are legitimate points which should be addressed and are currently being addressed. Many of the primary links have been removed and replaced with more appropriate references, except where necessary for context (i.e., a direct quote from the subject). As for other complaints as to substance, please note this is a FIRST EDITION page which, like all such pages, will require revision/updating to improve its suitability. In closing, please note that mere dislike for the subject of a page is NOT a sufficient reason to conceal the discussion from public view. DS Cable (talk) 20:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - One other thing, name calling is unhelpful here, but it's worth noting that this AFD was initiated by user Damon Killian who has been vandalizing many Richie-related pages for a while now; i.e., by removing "notable alumni" reference from Nik Richie's high school page (Mission Viejo High School) and by including false and offensive Non-WP:Neutral point of view commentary/advocacy in other Richie-related pages such as Jones v. Dirty World Entertainment Recordings LLC. This conduct suggests a personal agenda, not a good faith concern. DS Cable (talk) 20:41, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
• Keep: subject seems to be notable enough for an article, though most of the arguments supporting that position have used poor sources. WP:BASIC calls for multiple, published secondary sources with substantial depth of coverage. The subject has clearly received substantial coverage, but a week after AfD nomination I still don't see anyone making a solid argument for notability. I looked for myself and the article still has poor sources: I see primary sources (e.g. interviews), secondary sources that offer non-substantial coverage (e.g. they are about his wife), a source that is not independent of the subject (i.e. his website), and secondary sources that are unreliable or dubiously reliable (e.g. gossip sites). Those are fine for supporting certain claims, but not for establishing notability. However, I found enough to satisfy my own evaluation of the subject with respect to WP:BIO. I would say the best sources I saw for establishing notability are these: [34], [35], [36], [37]. They are secondary sources (with the exception of the interview by Vegas Seven, but it does have a couple paragraphs of analysis that could be considered a secondary source), they are independent from the subject and each other, they all have Nik Richie himself as the focus, and at a glance they seem to be reliable to me. BigNate37_(T) 18:06, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
• Keep. Televised interviews with 20/20 and Anderson Cooper, and articles on Phoenix NewTimes and Arizona Central meet Wikipedia:Notability. --GRuban (talk) 13:48, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:49, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Kimberley Curtis

Kimberley Curtis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Sources 1 and 2 are her own works. Source 3 is a letter to which she is a signatory. Sources 4 and 5 mention her, but not in detail. Her primary "fame" comes from her association with the Duke lacrosse case, though she did not play a major role in the scandal (being but one of 88 signatories to the Group of 88 letter). She was related to a lawsuit, but that suit was settled out of court, was against the university not her, and received no lasting coverage. There is no indication that she meets WP:PROF, nor could I find any. While she might barely scrape by on WP:GNG, in this case, coverage on her falls under WP:BLP1E. Since she has no demonstrated lasting notability per our crtieria, and since BLP policy says we specifically need to not have articles on people with fleeting fame for only a single event, this article should be deleted. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:39, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:40, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Delete. Fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:BK. Qworty (talk) 08:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• Keep. First of all, thanks Qwyrxian for a thorough BLP analysis. Having said that, I believe that the subject meets WP:PROF criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed). The subject at least one book, Our sense of the real: Aesthetic experience and Arendtian politic, published by Cornell University Press, currently in more than 300 major libraries worldwide according to WorldCat.--Eric Yurken (talk) 15:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
• Delete. If the only case that can be made for WP:PROF is that she turned her Ph.D. dissertation into a published book, that's not good enough — it's true of almost all academics in the humanities, so does nothing useful to distinguish the notable from non-notable ones. The book is reasonably well cited, but Google scholar only shows one other publication with a nontrivial citation record, not strong enough to convince me of a case of WP:PROF#C1, and what else is there? —David Eppstein (talk) 19:12, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
• Delete. I concur that Curtis' academic record of basically a single book having reasonable holdings is remarkably average. (Others having comparable records have been deleted in recent AfDs, e.g. here.) NAU lists her as an "instructor" (checkable in the directory here), so she seems no longer to be a tenure(track) academic. Her notoriety does seem to stem from secondary events in the wake of the Duke lacrosse case, but all I can readily find are some angry blog posts, e.g. here and here. The picture I ultimately come away with is of an average academic who had some fleeting WP:BLP1E notoriety. Agricola44 (talk) 13:52, 25 July 2012 (UTC).
• Comment. Valid points above by David Eppstein and Agricola44. Assessment of notability based on books is not always easy, and is contingent on the area and topic – an issue that we have discussed before in other AfDs. Still, I don’t think it is very common for a book derived from a doctoral dissertation in the humanities (assuming that this is the case here) to be published by a major university press. It is certainly not “true of almost all academics in the humanities”, as David Eppstein said, but perhaps true for many WP-notable academics in the humanities. Also, the previous AfD linked by Agricola44 as a precedent, for Christine Mallinson, has one key difference – quoting from DGG in the previous discussion: “The book is a significant positive factor for notability since it's by a very good publisher and is found in over 300 libraries. But its joint authored …”--Eric Yurken (talk) 14:14, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. Professor Curtis clearly seems to be engaged in high profile activities at NAU, as we can see here.--Eric Yurken (talk) 14:33, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

That appears to be a run-of-the-mill speech that lots of professors give. Do you have any evidence that anyone other than the promoters themselves consider that speech to be notable? Qwyrxian (talk) 21:41, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

The talk was sponsored by the New York Times. But the point of this comment is not to present the talk as an indication of notability. The point of this comment is to bring forth an activity that is not typically carried out by instructors.--Eric Yurken (talk) 14:13, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

• Redirect to Group of 88. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:41, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Iurii Botnari

Iurii Botnari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

(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)

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

Rationale: Appears to be a vanity article with link to a website, the creator [38] has only used account to make this page and edit it; completely unsourced. 109.176.240.233 (talk) 08:21, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

This is a nomination made on behalf of an IP editor; I have no opinion either way. Reyk _YO! 11:12, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  Gongshow ^Talk 01:35, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions.  Gongshow ^Talk 01:35, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:27, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

---

• delete lacks reliable sources. LibStar (talk) 09:56, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:17, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

---

• Delete. There's little third party coverage of the subject by reliable sources, outside of a few trivial mentions, thus the article fails to meet Wikipedia:Notability (music) criteria.--SGCM (talk) 03:36, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
• Delete. Perhaps it's unsourced because the author's only source was the site he copied it from? How's this ([] indicate version as it appears on http://botnari.com/biography.php; unbracketed is article text):

Yuri[i] Botnari was born in Chisinau, Moldova (former Republic of the USSR, now an independent state). He studied violin at the National Music School for Gifted Children. At the age 16 Yuri[i] Botnari won his first music award as an instrumentalist. After his[] graduation from the Chisinau[Kishinev] Conservatory he worked with different orchestras as a performer, arranger and composer. In 1982 he became a winner of the regional Young Composers Competition, and made his conducting debut. Later that year he was invited to Leningrad State Orchestra as an arranger and conductor. .... At the same time, he continued advanced studies in conducting with Professor Ilia Musin at the Leningrad Conservatory .... In 1985, Yuri[i] Botnari took a position of Artistic Director and Chief Conductor at the National Musical Theatre of Moldova. .... From 1987 to 1992, he was perfecting the art of conducting at the Moscow State Conservatory under Professor Yuri Simonov. He often conducted the orchestra on tours across Russia. .... From 1998 to 2002, Yuri Botnari worked as an assistant to Gennady Rozhdestvensky, a world-renowned Russian conductor.

And there's a September 2011 copyvio deletion of the article Yuri Botnari under G12. David_FLXD (Talk) ^{Review me} 18:25, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

List of Adaalat episodes

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/List of Adaalat episodes
• Articles for deletion/List of Adaalat episodes (2nd nomination)

List of Adaalat episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Wikipedia is not a directory. The article states only trivial things like episode number, episode title and date of telecast. The encyclopedic information usually found on such lists is missing, eg. TRP ratings, Writer, Director, Production code, etc. All editors who think this is a case where improvement is needed and not deletion please note that this information for Indian TV shows is almost never available and even if found is found from some unreliable fan-chat-forums. Why not just redirect it then? Well... the last AfD had non-admin closure (which i think i should have objected. The user who closed had voted in it and closed it just based on 3 opinions. Anyways! Bygones.) but some enthusiastic fan/SPA is back with same unencyclopedic page-filler. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 14:29, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:29, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

---

Keep- This serial is a landmark in Indian television serials. List is supposed to be kept along with main article but in no way deleted as many wikipedians refer this directory to get an indepth information of the serial. This is also a widely viewed Television Serial as can be seen in its Youtube Page. Alternative to Keep is Merge with main article of Adaalat. This serial is an encyclopedia in itself about many Law related aspects in India and its Justice system. Tall.kanna (talk) 12:22, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Landmark! Really?? Widely viewed based on Youtube hits? Encyclopedia about Indian law and justice system? All i understand from reading 48th episode's name was "Kissa C.M. Ki Secret List Ka Bhaag – 2" and it aired on 14 August 2011 is that 48th episode's name was "Kissa C.M. Ki Secret List Ka Bhaag – 2" and it aired on 14 August 2011. What law and justice system was brought to our knowledge? §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 13:49, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Delete - This is a directory. Firstly, Wikipedia is not a directory and secondly it states that Wikipedia articles are not directories, directory entries, electronic program guide, or a resource for conducting business. For example, an article on a radio station should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, etc., although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable. Same goes for a soap opera, it should not list upcoming and already aired episodes. --Tamravidhir(২০১২) 13:24, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:17, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

---

• Redirect to Aadalat. It was redirected last time as there was nothing notable about it. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 08:25, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah! And that lasted for ever. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 11:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• Delete No evidence that this satisfies WP:LISTN. Warden (talk) 10:40, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
• Delete I would say redirect except I see little likelihood of this article being reached and it would be easier to simply delete. Ducknish (talk) 19:53, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:51, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Luc De Schepper

Luc De Schepper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:08, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

IP editor requested speedy deletion with the rationale "Dr. Luc is retired and he no longer wishes to be available online". AGF, I think we should take that as a request by the subject for deletion pursuant to WP:BIODEL. It is hard to evaluate just how notable the subject is, the references contained in the article are not sufficient to establish notability under any of the relevant notability guidelines. However, a google news search does turn up a decent number of German results, not being able to speak the language, it is hard for me to evaluate whether they establish enough notability to override the BIODEL request. Regardless, I think it is proper that we have a deletion discussion on the matter in light of the IP request. Monty₈₄₅ 16:47, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

• Delete not much lost if the speedy was not in good faith, I'd say we go ahead and delete it. --Nouniquenames (talk) 18:14, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the article could be easily deleted, but NOT because some anonymous guy has written that De Schepper no longer wishes to be available online, but by normal/existing Wikipedia-criteria. By the way, if it were true that he no longer wishes to be available online his own website wouldn't exist either, now would it?Majesteit (talk) 07:03, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

• The nominator is clearly honest in the claim that he doesn't understand the language of the Google News results, because they are actually mostly in Dutch and about the rector of Hasselt University rather than this Luc De Schepper. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:32, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:55, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

---

• Delete No evidence of notability found in a search. BTW his website does indicate that he retired three years ago.[39] --MelanieN (talk) 17:24, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus for keep following relisting, and kudos on the article improvements. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:23, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Garry Baverstock

Garry Baverstock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Fails to meet WP:GNG. Every source cited appears to be self-published, trivial mention, about a project and not the subject, or otherwise not independent of the topic. Professional awards listed may be par for the course in this profession. The only award that seems significant is a "member" award (not a Knighthood) of the Order of Australia; and 225 "member" awards are doled out annually, so therefore not in itself a claim of notability. WP:COI problems also: Article is apparently authored by the subject writing under a corporate name. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:31, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment: Have found some mentions in books of this architect.

• Green Urbanism Down Under: Learning from Sustainable Communities in Australia
• Proceedings of Ises World Congress 2007 (Vol.1-Vol.5): Solar Energy and Human Settlement
• Case Study 8.7 Perth Hills Western Australia - Your Home

Some notability does seem to be indicated for this person. Shearonink (talk) 05:27, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment, by the statistics quoted above, it follows that only one Australian in 100,000 becomes a Member (AM) of the Order of Australia. This seems, prima facie, to be an indication of notability to me. --Greenmaven (talk) 10:54, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment. Without discussing this particular case, I'd be wary of using the AM as automatic grounds for notability. A quick look at any of the recent honours lists shows plenty of people who clearly have only local notability winning the award. Generally we'd have to go one up (Officer, AO) for automatic claim for notability. I'd say it's best to say an AM suggests notability, but does not guarantee it. Frickeg (talk) 04:35, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that reasoning is what convinced me to nominate this article for deletion. I was not convinced that the mere suggestion of notability due to that AM was enough to edge the article into 'keep' territory. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment There being 225 per year is not a problem. >10000 athletes are expected to compete at the next olympics, all notable for that. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:41, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
  • While I agree that that is pretty silly (all those athletes, I mean), that still is just 2500/year for the whole world, which is quite a bit less, proportionally, than 225/year for Australia alone. In addition, the fact that the jocks are flooding WP with biographies of barely notable and barely verifiable sports people doesn't mean that we have to emulate them. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 12:25, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
• Delete. Time to register an opinion on this one. There are an impressive number of sources here and the article is actually fairly well done, but none of those sources are secondary ones asserting notability - they are all primary sources of the actual event or award. The Google archives reveal a couple of "said architecture expert" sources, a couple of "developing something in Cottesloe Beach" articles, and a couple in which apparently his uncle was killed on HMAS Sydney. Other than that, nothing. Thus I don't think he passes the WP:GNG, failing the significant coverage and independent of the subject criteria. Frickeg (talk) 00:23, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

---

• Keep For professionals, major awards in the profession normally prove notability. If they're shown by RSs, as they are, that really should settle the notability question. It would be good to find formal published reviews of his work also. I have some considerable problems with the promotional wording in the article, and I'd normally view as promotion the listing of minor awards and publications, under the provision that Wikipedia is NOT A CV. I'ver done a little editing, but I have not yet sorted out the appropriate awards and publications. Someone with more expertise in the subject might do so more readily than I. DGG ( talk ) 04:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
• Keep on basis above. AM is significant. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:17, 24 July 2012 (UTC).
• Keep clearly notable architect and academic involved with working with solar energy in Australia. I'm removed the resume type content and made it short and sweet with plenty of reliable sources.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:39, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
• Keep. He already looked notable as nominated (e.g. Order of Australia) but the article was an incoherent rambling mess. Dr. Blofeld's improvements make the case much more clearly. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:06, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:51, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Bas Vodde

Bas Vodde (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

A BLP article with notability not demonstrated and no independent sources Ymblanter (talk) 19:45, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

• Delete Probably. In a Google Books search, there are some indications (in books of which he is not an author) of notability in the TDD and agile development field, e.g. http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=HbRo4kYnTnMC. So a possible case for an article about an author, but needs de-puffing. Mcewan (talk) 23:46, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:49, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

---

• Delete: unsourced BLP articles should deleted per WP:BLPDELETE. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 06:00, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:51, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Grocery Direct Consolidated Transportation

Grocery Direct Consolidated Transportation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Non-notable company. Press coverage appears trivial in nature (of the "here's a good idea, and here are 3 or 4 companies who are doing it") variety. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:02, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  Gongshow ^Talk 00:49, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 22:19, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

---

• Delete - After some source searching, not finding [significant] coverage in reliable sources. Also, the two articles cited in the article from Food Logistics don't mention the company. The topic appears to fail WP:CORPDEPTH at this time. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:04, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment Actually, the articles do mention the subject; you just have to dig past the first page. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 04:22, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Comment - Thanks for pointing this out. Both are, unfortunately, passing mentions. (Links: [40], [41].) Modified my !vote above. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:37, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

---

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

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

The result was Keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:56, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Christian Children's Fund of Canada

Christian Children's Fund of Canada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

CSD G11 or A7 is a possibility here but I chose AfD because there is an appearance of importance. But this turns out to be merely an indexing written up by the organization, and this does not provide any significant discussion of the organization. Drmies (talk) 14:38, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

• Keep. It's eighth on Blumbergs' list of the top Canadian international charities by spending outside of Canada for 2004[42] and there are a few reliable sources.[43][44] Clarityfiend (talk) 19:08, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 22:21, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

---

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:43, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

---

• Keep per Clarityfiend. I find the second source cited to be compelling. Carrite (talk) 17:34, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
• Keep gnews gives a lot of coverage from a variety of countries. let's see if my AfD followers turn up here. LibStar (talk) 07:26, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

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

See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luta Livre

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:52, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Luta livre esportiva

Luta livre esportiva (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Unsourced article about part of a martial arts system that gives no indication of being notable. The article on the entire system was already removed. Papaursa (talk) 23:48, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 23:48, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Which "article on the entire system" removed and when? Staszek Lem (talk) 00:05, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

The article on Luta Livre Vale Tudo. At least I think this was a subset of that one. Papaursa (talk) 00:15, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I think that is a misunderstanding. Luta livra redirects to this article. Luta livre Vale Tudo was deleted. Vale tudo still exists.Peter Rehse (talk) 00:17, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I may have misunderstood about the other luta livra article, but I still don't see notability or sources for this one. Papaursa (talk) 00:35, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Generally I agree - the whole nomenclature and what is different or notable is really confusing. I am inclined to think they are all the same - but for the moment I am going to sit on the fence with regard to Keep or Delete. That may change.Peter Rehse (talk) 00:51, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

• weak keep Google search shows thousands of hits, i.e., the term does exist as a sports category recognized in Brazil. It requires an effort to filter out "admissible" references amonmg blogposts and wrestling school adverts. But they do exist: [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], Staszek Lem (talk) 01:48, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
• Delete I agree there's a lot of ghits, but I couldn't find significant independent coverage. I don't think that the links given above meet that criteria. Mdtemp (talk) 16:13, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
  • The links given above are specifically selected to be independent. "Significant" is a matter of opinion. "A lot of ghits" (from different sources) means it is visible. Unfortunately it seems that the article authors don't care to fix it, and I know not enough Portuguese to do it for them. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:40, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
    • WP:GHITS. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:42, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
      • yeah, I know; but in my 'weak keep' vote I listed some of them which may indicate notability. Anyway, since still nobody cares to improve the page, I don't care if it will go. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:36, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:42, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

---

• Delete The article lacks any sources to support claims of notability. Like previous editors, my search didn't turn up independent sources. Jakejr (talk) 15:16, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
• Delete for something that has existed since around 1950, it goes gets a minor coverage, and not much in mainstream sources. LibStar (talk) 00:16, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:26, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Mohammed Hameed

Mohammed Hameed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:18, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that he has been called to the Iraqi national team. This does not make him notable as WP:NSPORT explicitly excludes this scenario. Sir Sputnik (talk) 10:41, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 10:43, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 10:58, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:35, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

• Keep - seems to have numerous media articles discussing him. Which isn't surprising given he's a back-up keeper on the national team, and also is a keeper for one of the biggest teams in the country. Here are a couple of examples [51], [52]. I don't think GNG is an issue - the issue is, that his coverage is entirely in Arabic; however I don't believe that the GNG criteria requires that the coverage be in English. Nfitz (talk) 15:07, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment – Per WP:GNG, ..."Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language." Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:40, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Might pass WP:GNG per Nfitz, but as long as the article isn't improved I see no point in keeping a microstub that "might" be notable. Mentoz86 (talk) 16:20, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

• Nfitz linked to coverage that does exist, not that might exist. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:15, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
• Fix the article then. If stubs were deleted for being stubs we wouldn't have stubs. Nfitz (talk) 02:46, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

• The burden is on you to evidence notability - YOU fix the article. GiantSnowman 13:03, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• Done Nfitz (talk) 01:59, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:40, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

---

• Keep - Meets WP:BASIC per [53], [54]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:20, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Phil Imray

AfDs for this article:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phil Imray

Phil Imray (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

He has not played a fully professional league match at a club or at international level. Article fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Simione001 Simione001Simione001 (talk) 03:20, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

• 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 15. Snotbot  t • c »  03:41, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

• Keep – This person passes WP:BASIC and WP:GNG:

• "Wellington keeper gloving chance at Hibs". Stuff.co.nz. 2008-07-17. Retrieved 2011-10-11.
• "Trialist Imray dreaming of a shot at SPL with Hibs"
• "Mixu will not offer Hibs deal to 'mystery' man Imray"
• "Miramar keeper secures Chatham win"
• "Soccer: Miramar win Chatham Cup".

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:19, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

• • Those references seem to be just ordinary run of the mill sporting articles, nothing special, therefore in my opinion he fails WP:GNG. The fact also remains he hasn't played a league game at professional level and has not made a international senior appearance.Simione001 (talk) 01:42, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

• Keep. I'll quote myself from the last AfD: "Fails NFOOTY, that's true, but the guy easily meets GNG. There are articles in major newspapers that are solely about Imray – that is not 'routine' by any stretch of the imagination. See The Scotsman: "Trialist Imray dreaming of a shot at SPL with Hibs", "Mixu will not offer Hibs deal to 'mystery' man Imray"; The Dominion Post: "Wellington keeper gloving chance at Hibs"; New Zealand Press Association/The New Zealand Herald: "Miramar keeper secures Chatham win"/"Soccer: Miramar win Chatham Cup". All significant coverage in major newspapers (and news agencies)." Jenks24 (talk) 06:06, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
• Keep. Player very clearly meets WP:GNG and a simple Google news archive search would have confirmed that. The user who nominated this has nominated several other New Zealand players recently, and I recommend that people check out those AfD's as well, as some of them appear just as questionable. Nfitz (talk) 02:50, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
• Delete - I'd say he fails WP:BLP1E as all the "significant" coverage is actually WP:ROUTINE and about his trial with HIbs. GiantSnowman 17:40, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
  • As can be seen by the sources provided, he has had significant coverage for more than just the Hibs move. If you check gnews, you can also see plenty of articles that mention him, which actually are routine coverage, but mean that BLP1E does not apply. Jenks24 (talk) 04:46, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
• Delelte - WP:ROUTINE press coverage about a potential move, nothing significant about the player to pass WP:GNG. Sources provide also fails WP:NTEMP. --Jimbo^[online] 21:30, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Where does WP:ROUTINE mention potential moves? It lists sports scores and matches, things that are already scheduled to happen. Jenks24 (talk) 04:46, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Transfer related stories are routine amongst footballers. --Jimbo^[online] 23:05, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
• Delete – BLP1E does not apply, but ROUTINE does. Jenks24, don't stick to the letter – reporting potential moves is routine sports journalism. – Kosm1fent 07:03, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes, if the articles just said "and in other news, X is reportedly going to be transferred to Y". In-depth articles that discuss a player's history, attributes and so on are not routine. Jenks24 (talk) 07:41, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
• Keep - enough bios in main papers to meet GNG. Mattlore (talk) 08:22, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:37, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

---

• Keep, albeit weakly, as he passes WP:GNG, as Jenks24 points out. — sparklism ^hey! 11:01, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:58, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Anthony A. Nguyen

Anthony A. Nguyen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Autobiographical article about a scholar of questionable notability. Contested PROD. Google news search on Anthony A. Nguyen shows only one result, a simple public record that does not indicate notability. Little significant coverage from independent sources found in a standard search. MikeWazowski (talk) 00:22, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - after filing this, I noticed that Anthony A.Tuan Nguyen had been speedy deleted as a copyvio of this link - this appears to be the case here as well. MikeWazowski (talk) 00:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:06, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• Delete. There's no evidence of notability, and even if there were the facts that this is entirely self-written and entirely lacking in good sources mean we would need a complete rewrite to get to something verifiable and encyclopedic. By the way, Anhtuandoannguyen1976 (talk · contribs) removed the AfD notices; I restored it and told him on his talk page that that's not the right way to contest it. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:36, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
• Delete This editor seems intent on self-promotion; his only purpose here seems to be recreating his autobiographical article and inserting his name and website into other articles. COI issues aside, this is a poorly-sourced puff-piece for a non-notable person, and clearly doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Yunshui 雲‍水 07:56, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
• Delete. Passes neither WP:PROF nor WP:BIO at the moment, but has potential for WP-notability in the future. This is a good example of an article that has been created too early. WP inclusion is about notability, not potential for future notability, however strong that potential may appear to be.--Eric Yurken (talk) 15:26, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
• Delete. Well, let's be honest, just because the article is self-written and lacks in good sources doesn't mean it will be deleted. We know the AfD is a flawed process, power by numbers and the random admin who takes a glance at the "rationale" looks at the number of votes. So, that being said, yeah, he fails WP:ACADEMIC and WP:BIO. Lot's of WP:PEACOCK can't disguise lack of notability. Jimsteele9999 (talk) 23:56, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:21, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Aviad Cohen

Aviad Cohen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Does not appear to meet WP:MUSICBIO. Four self-released albums and no charting history. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:58, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:19, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree Jpacobb (talk) 01:14, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• Delete as failing WP:MUSICBIO. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:08, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
• Obvious keep! he surely passes GNG as well as the first point in WP:MUSICBIO (also under his previous name, 50 Shekel), and deletion-nominators and voting editors should spend a few minutes of searches before marking a subject as non-notable. Several sources: [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65]. Cavarrone (talk) 19:16, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:08, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

---

• Keep - Per many of the sources presented above by User:Cavarrone, this person clearly passes WP:BASIC and WP:GNG. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:05, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
• Keep passes WP:MUSICBIO #1 which is basically WP:GNG, per search results from Cavarrone and my own search results. Article is currently under-sourced but should be kept and improved per WP:PRESERVE, I'll put it on my own 'stuff to do' list for later. Zad68 12:48, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:51, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Ben Nemtin

Ben Nemtin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Does not meet basic WP:N requirements, known only for fairly low-key MTV tv series, no notable awards, no significant news coverage as an individual. — raekyt 03:06, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 22:43, 2 July 2012 (UTC)}

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 22:43, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 22:43, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 14:23, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

---

• Delete. Fails WP:FILMMAKER. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 21:59, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

---

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) 05:10, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

---

• Keep. New York Times #1 bestselling author plus creator-producer of well-known MTV series. Article needs expansion, but notability is there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BennyHillbilly (talk • contribs) 05:58, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:07, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

---

Delete. Fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:BK. Is not, in fact, even the author of a book. Qworty (talk) 10:16, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• Keep and allow continued improvements to this stub. WP:AUTHOR does not refer to only authors of books, but is set to address creative individuals in general. As the MTV show The Buried Life , "major" or not, has established notability enough to merit a Wikipedia article, it can be argued that this person, as creator, executive producer and cast member of the show, meets WP:CREATIVE. And the book What Do You Want to Do Before You Die? IS a book, DID make the New York Times Bestseller list,[66] and WAS in fact co-authored by Nemtin,[67] so a claim that it is not a book or that Nemtin had no part in its creation is patently incorrect. As a book itself receiving coverage in multiple reliable sources,[68] the book meets the standards set at WP:NBOOK per WP:BKCRIT and the "author" portion of guideline and WP:NBOOK is met. And oh... we have the individual himeself being the recipient of coverage in multiple reliable sources... another point in his favor.[69] I see an improvable stub on a notable topic. I do not see anything that requires deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:47, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:52, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Jonnie Penn

Jonnie Penn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Does not meet basic WP:N requirements, known only for fairly low-key MTV tv series, no notable awards, no significant news coverage as an individual. — raekyt 03:04, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 22:24, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 22:24, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 22:33, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 14:22, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

---

• Delete. Fails WP:NACTOR. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 22:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

---

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) 05:10, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

---

• Keep - do not fail WP:GNG. Still has had involvement in major MTV productions it seems.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:23, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
  • The Buried Life is hardly a major production.. source for "productions" or did you mean only one? What criteria of GNG specifically do you think this person meets? — raekyt 12:43, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:07, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

---

Delete. Fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:BK. Is not, in fact, even the author of a book. Qworty (talk) 10:16, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• Keep and allow continued improvements to this stuub. WP:AUTHOR does not refer to only authors of books, but is set to address creative individuals in general. As the MTV show The Buried Life , "major" or not, has established notability enough to merit a Wikipedia article, it can be argued that this person, as creator, executive producer and cast member of the show, meets WP:CREATIVE. And the book What Do You Want to Do Before You Die? IS a book, DID make the New York Times Bestseller list,[70] and WAS in fact co-authored by Penn,[71] so a claim that it is not a book or that Penn had no part in its creation is patently incorrect. As a book itself receiving coverage in multiple reliable sources,[72] the book meets the standards set at WP:NBOOK per WP:BKCRIT and the "author" portion of guideline and WP:NBOOK is met. And oh... we have the individual himeself being the recipient of coverage in multiple reliable sources... another point in his favor.[73] I see an improvable stub on a notable topic. I do not see anything that requires deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:42, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:00, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Project Cathedral

Project Cathedral (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Does not meet general notability guideline: could not find significant coverage in reliable sources. Unsourced, orphaned, created by a single-purpose account. GregorB (talk) 13:18, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

• Delete as completely lacking independent references. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:41, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:04, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

---

• Delete. There doesn't seem to be any coverage of the project by reliable sources. The article is promotional, and is likely an advertisement for the subject.--SGCM (talk) 03:22, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
• Delete - too many peacock terms, so at the least start from scratch. Bearian (talk) 20:32, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 09:51, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

List of Ishaan episodes

List of Ishaan episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

The article has no encyclopedic information that is associated with List of episodes. This one merely writes the plot and date of telecast. Also unreferenced and fails WP:GNG. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 14:08, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Anbu121 (talk me) 15:41, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Anbu121 (talk me) 20:11, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Anbu121 (talk me) 20:11, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 20:47, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

---

• Delete as lacking independent references (indeed any references at all). Stuartyeates (talk) 09:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

---

• Delete per nom and a failure of WP:GNG. Till 08:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
• Delete A classic example of WP:CB. No reliable sources, no real indication of notability, huge amount of pointless content and I have trouble parsing the lead. --Ritchie333 (talk) 09:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
• Delete No evidence that this satisfies WP:LISTN. Warden (talk) 10:53, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 WilyD 06:27, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Muslim Brotherhood conspiracy theories

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Muslim Brotherhood conspiracy theories

Muslim Brotherhood conspiracy theories (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:22, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• Keep: First, nominator hasn't bothered to give a reason. More importantly, the reason proffered elsewhere is that the "very concept" of the article violates NPOV. This is nonsense. There is an article called List of conspiracy theories, which goes back at least as far as 2003, and other articles about conspiracy theories calling them such. Most importantly, the claims referred to in the article are, by and large, McCarthyist claptrap, including two perpetrated by Michele Bachmann, who made her name making a truly McCarthyist claim in the 2008 US presidential campaign. Nominator, who believes in the conspiracy theory, attempted to support his position with garbage written by the Walid Shoebat, a dubious source at best. -Rrius (talk) 06:20, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
• Procedural keep nomination fails to provide a rationale for deletion. Till 08:24, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
• Speedy close No reason given for nomination. --Ritchie333 (talk) 09:29, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
• Delete The article violates wikipedia's NPOV guidelines. Rrius is incorrect. A reason was given on the article's talk page. Proof has also been given to show the article is incorrect. Rrius does not like the source because he hates Bachman. However, his personal feelings aside, a source has been provided and should be taken into consideration regarding the deletion of the page. Korentop (talk) 09:51, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Umm, I mentioned that you gave an excuse elsewhere. As for the "source", it is a self-published source from Walid Shoebat, which has nothing about it to suggest it is reliable. That it is actually just distortion and innuendo can be seen by anyone who reads it. In any event, the presence of such a source is beside the point. Korentop simply does not present any argument for deletion. The closest he comes is arguing that the title violates NPOV, which, as I mentioned above, doesn't work. -Rrius (talk) 12:05, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Procedural note: Korentop is the nominator, as there is no separate nominating statement, this delete vote should be considered the nominating statement. Monty₈₄₅ 15:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
• Delete We had a page called Muslim Brotherhood conspiracy theories and it was renamed by consensus. There is no reason for a second page. It violates consensus. There is no reason that allegations and counter allegations can't be reported factually without editor's POV or taking sides. We agreed to use a neutral title for real and alleged international operations and outreaches of this movement. See log. Jason from nyc (talk) 11:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Having looked at the log, that doesn't actually state the case correctly. Jason is talking about Influence Operations of the Muslim Brotherhood, which at one point was moved to Muslim Brotherhood conspiracy theories and drastically. Jason complained that the move violated consensus, and it was moved back. In reality, the change was drastic enough that it was virtually a deletion of the old article, redirecting it to a new one. In any event, the current "conspiracy theories" article does not seem to duplicate the "Influence" article, so there is no credible way to argue that consensus about retaining the old article in any way affects the new one. This is especially so since there is no discussion of the incident, just edit summaries. Moreover, even if Jason were correct, it would be an argument for merging, not simply deleting. -Rrius (talk) 12:05, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
    • I was referring to the log: [[74]]. See April 21, 2012. "Conspiracy" was moved to "Influences" according to consensus. Note also in the log on July 20th LonelyBoy2012 delete the whole "Influences" article and declared it unsalvageable. He then proceeded to create a new article with the old name "Conspiracy" title. This isn't collaboration and consensus reaching. I suggest everyone work on the "Influences" article and that includes possible name reversion if consensus is reached. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:42, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
• Keep I don't see the problem here. Every claim is referenced, and most of the sources I can instantly recognize as reliable. The notion that calling these conspiracy theories is NPOV is ridiculous on its face, as Rrius pointed out. I'll also draw your attention to Category:Conspiracy theories; some of these are probably more ridiculous than the Muslim Brotherhood ones. I don't see any objection to this article not based on editor POV, and I'm not sure what this influence vs. conspiracy business is, but the latter much better characterizes these claims. --BDD (talk) 15:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
• Procedural Note: This deletion nomination was originally placed directly in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 July 24 log, I have moved it to this subpage. You can find the editing history of the nomination on the daily log. Monty₈₄₅ 15:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
• Keep. First, thank you to Korentop for figuring out how to propose this deletion. WP doesn't always make things easy. That said, an objection to the content of this entry could be met with an NPOV tag. If the name of the article is problematic, the entry could be moved to a new name or merged into a different article. Korentop's notion that the "very concept of this page violates NPOV" doesn't bear close examination. The entry is about a subject, however poorly named IMHO. Calling it a concept is just an attempt to up the ante, but we really needn't get metaphysical. The mainstream media seems to cover this topic without undue Angst. I don't doubt there were some battles between editors, reporters, and copy editors about just what to say, how prominently to play the story itself, how much to focus on Abedin herself, the broader attack on the State Dept., etc. Still, this is a controversy on the current US political scene that we are capable -- with effort and self-discipline -- of discussing and documenting. Once we decide to keep this entry, as I hope we will, I'll propose a name change. The relationship between this entry and Influence Operations of the Muslim Brotherhood is a subject for another time. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 17:32, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
  • To expand my comment... I think we could build a good entry to respond to the 3rd part of the question Newt Gingrich has posed in this context: "The question ought to be asked across the board – what's the role of the Muslim Brotherhood, what are its various networks and to what degree does it now influence the government of the United States?" (emphasis added) Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 16:20, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
• Delete as a coatrack of conspiracy theories. Carrite (talk) 17:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC) See below for expanded rationale. Carrite (talk) 19:10, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

• Maybe I'm misreading WP:COAT, but I don't see the similarities between this article and any of the examples there. Rather, it resembles "factual information (including criticism) about a discredited scientific theory" from WP:WINAC. The article's title claims it will discuss MB conspiracy theories, and that's exactly what it does. Are you concerned about WP:SYN? Would you prefer a List of Muslim Brotherhood conspiracy theories title and format? --BDD (talk) 19:43, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Obviously I can't speak for Carrite here, but the part I was thinking of is: "The nominal subject is used as an empty coat-rack, which ends up being mostly obscured by the "coats". The existence of a "hook" in a given article is not a good reason to "hang" irrelevant and biased material there." There is actually no subject here, just a hook upon which to hang random negative statements about the Muslim Brotherhood. (edit) Also, because I don't think that the subject of the article meets the GNG as a subject, I couldn't support a list of these theories either.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• I still don't follow. What are the "coats," if not the conspiracy theories themselves? I can understand objections based on notability, but in terms of content and structure, it's just a less developed form of, say, Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories or Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories. --BDD (talk) 20:01, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't know about the other articles; perhaps they should go too, or maybe not. My argument is that "Muslim Brotherhood conspiracy theories" as a single topic is not discussed in RS as far as I can see, so it shouldn't have an article. Any individual conspiracy theory involving the MB which is discussed in RS should have an article.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:11, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

@BDD: Let me rephrase. This is pure original research. compiling a mass of unrelated, unsubstantiated "conspiracy theories" (term undefined) under a single heading as if that is an encyclopedic topic instead of the amalgam of trivia that it is. As soon as there is any scholarly coverage by anyone anywhere on the planet of "Muslim Brotherhood conspiracy theories" as an integrated whole, there might be a glimmer of a rationale for keeping this, ummmm, closet stuffed with crap. But there isn't and there won't be, in all likelihood. Carrite (talk) 19:07, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

P.S. COATRACK is just an opinion essay. One would be correct in saying my citing it as a deletion rationale was improper. One would be incorrect in saying that the general idea is inapplicable here — that's exactly what this piece is. Carrite (talk) 19:10, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

• Delete per Carrite. To expand, it seems to me that there is not a single unified topic with coverage in reliable sources that could sensibly be called "Muslim Brotherhood conspiracy theories." What we have here instead is a bunch of random unrelated conspiracy theories which involve the Muslim Brotherhood. Any given one of those may or may not satisfy the GNG, but as a group, there is no coverage in reliable sources. Compare this topic with the other articles in Template:conspiracy theories, which mostly do independently meet the GNG to see what I mean. I will say that the argument that the article violates NPOV is not a valid reason for deletion, though.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:59, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
• Keep There is no reason provided for deletion. If the article does not reflect NPOV as some voters stated, them change it as per guidelines. I see no valid reason provided for this AFD anywhere. Poyani (talk) 21:32, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

See the procedural note above for the nominator's rationale. Other than the fact that this piece is start-to-finish original research compiling unrelated wack theories from the internets, you're right, nobody has provided a valid reason for this AFD anywhere. Carrite (talk) 18:59, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• Keep. All of the theories mentioned are notable, and the article follows the standard format that Wikipedia usually uses to discuss general categories of conspiracy theories (for instance, the New World Order (conspiracy theory) article is laid out in a similar fashion and I don't think it could be described as a coatrack). If the individual theories discussed in this article deserve to have their own separate pages, then the proper thing to do would be to split this page, not to delete it. LonelyBoy2012 (talk) 21:06, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment This is one of a number of WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments in this AFD. That there are a number of other articles which may or may not be encyclopedic, but which we're not actually discussing here is not relevant to this discussion. Also, if the individual theories are notable, the proper thing to do is to write articles about them, not "split this page." After all, if it were an argument to keep a page just because the individual items enumerated on it were notable, why not have The first ten random notable things I thought of just now? The point is that in order to have an article which is a list of things like this one is, the grouping itself must be notable. This is not a notable grouping, whether or not the items grouped in it are notable.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:14, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

• Keep - pretty crazy ideas, but arguably notable ones. This content should be on Wikipedia somewhere, and it doesn't belong in the main Muslim Brotherhood article, so why not a separate article? Robofish (talk) 22:47, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

  I should note: on looking around further, it seems that some of these conspiracy theories have made their way into Wikipedia articles. There was one at Muslim Brotherhood Influence Operations, which I've renamed to Muslim Brotherhood activities in the United States, but still depends on unreliable sources and states allegations as fact. There's another at Transnational organization, which seeks to compare the Muslim Brotherhood to the Communist Party of the Soviet Union; that one I think is beyond saving, so I've nominated it for deletion. Robofish (talk) 23:35, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for that rename. It was driving me crazy. --BDD (talk) 17:47, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

• Keep: Per Robofish. Kurdo777 (talk) 07:29, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
• Keep Nonsense and prejudice is best exposed through objective description, based on reliable analysis and reporting. That's the justification for NPOV. Without it, we'd not be able to deal with anything unpleasant. DGG ( talk ) 00:45, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

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