Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 March 12

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 11 March	13 March >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Procedural close. Redirects should be discussed at WP:RFD.

(This AfD is being closed many years later, because it was never properly closed back then, because it was never visible, because it was never transcluded on any of the daily logpages. Technically, it has still been open this whole time.) (non-admin closure) jp×g 06:59, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Cooper (badmington)[edit]

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

Terrible misspelling of badminton. For me clearly a case of speedy deletion. --Florentyna (talk) 15:38, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Despite being asked to do so, nominator clearly has not read WP:Redirect:

Purposes of redirects

Reasons for creating and maintaining redirects include:

Likely misspellings (for example, Condoleeza Rice redirects to Condoleezza Rice).

Pdfpdf (talk) 21:55, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Keeping means, every Person (badminton) will get a misspelled redirect Person (badmington). (And I'm sure, somebody will do this after the end of the discussion.) Means, we as contributors to an encyclopedia will massivley support misspellings. From the statistical point of view I think, nobody will search for Craig Cooper (badmington). Everybody will search for Craig Cooper. And if somebody knows, that there are different Craig Coopers, and ALSO knows, that there is an addition in brackets, this person will off course use the correct spelling. So please, no support for such really useless and terrible misspellings. Florentyna (talk) 22:21, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The Manual of Style is unambiguous. If you don't like what the MOS says, campaign to have the MOS changed. In the meantime, the MOS unambiguously says "Keep". Pdfpdf (talk) 01:37, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, there is not written that every dyslexic creation must be introduced. Where it will lead us in the end? Bettminton, bedminton, baidminton, beadminton, bedmington, battminton, batminton, batmington, buttminton? Florentyna (talk) 07:12, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - a) Have you read the MOS yet? Your responses suggest that you still have not read it.
    - a) You are quite correct - it is NOT written that every dyslexic creation must be introduced.
    - c) At the risk of, yet again, repeating myself: The Manual of Style is unambiguous.
      - i) The MOS says "Likely misspellings". None of what you present are "Likely misspellings".
      - ii) If you don't like what the MOS says, campaign to have the MOS changed. In the meantime, the MOS unambiguously says "Keep".
    - d) You can ignore the MOS and re-state your irrelevant opinion and Point-Of-View as often as you like, but none of that is going to change the MOS.
    - e) (At the risk of, yet again, repeating myself: If you don't like what the MOS says, campaign to have the MOS changed.) However, please note: HERE is NOT the place to campaign to have the MOS changed.
    - Pdfpdf (talk) 10:50, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I will be happy to userfy or incubate this article upon request. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:36, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mini hockey[edit]

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

The article has been tagged for source improvement since 2007. it currently has zero sources. A search for "mini hockey" found no reliable sources talking about what the article describes, a game played indoors. "Mini hockey " as used in the sources is sometimes used to describe a game played on ice with smaller than normal team size or or as part of "mini hockey sticks given out as souvenirs" or other variants with no consistency as to being a specific encylopedic topic. -- The Red Pen of Doom 11:36, 13 March 2012 (UTC) (categories)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:05, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG. Given that has also been tagged as needing citations since 2007, I would also invoke WP:BURDEN. Logical Cowboy (talk) 04:21, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage about the "mini hockey" as described in this article. In fact, what the article describes is essentially kids playing around inside the house with whatever is at hand. -- Whpq (talk) 13:24, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Kids play with whatever they have at hand all the time, often emulating other games. That doesn't make this notable. Reso lute 05:15, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge. Mini hockey is a well-known game in hockey-centric countries such as Canada, and worth mentioning in Wikipedia. It could be merged into Indoor hockey as a variation on the large-scale game. A quick search] of Google News reveals many articles about mini hockey. —JmaJeremy ^TALK _CONTRIBS 13:46, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - could you please explain which of the search results represents significant coverage about the phenomenon under discussion at this AFD as opposed to simply the word fragment "mini hockey" occurring in an article (many being mini hockey stick). I searched and found none, but will happily evaluate any that you have found. -- Whpq (talk) 14:37, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I find the WP:ROUTINE argument persuasive. henrik•talk 10:05, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Manning Bowl (American football)[edit]

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

Same reasoning as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harbaugh Bowl, nothing truly special about these games. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:41, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. There's nothing special about these games except that the quarterbacks were brothers. Similar connections could be made (how about when the Giants and the Panthers played, each team having a wide receiver names Steve Smith?). At best a blurb about their head-to-head matchups should be in each player's article. —Wrathchild ^(talk) 00:09, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Having WRs named Steve Smith is purely coincidence, unlike having brothers playing each other. Besides, whenever you watch a family play each other, the announcers would mention it, unlike 2 people with the exact same names. As I said on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harbaugh Bowl, these games are special in most ways, as most people wouldn't normally see a game between brother quarterbacks, especially since this is the first NFL game featuring brothers playing against each other. These games are also usually highly publicized and hyped, since these games are fairly rare. And according to WP:SPORTSEVENT, which states that Articles about notable games should have well-sourced prose, not merely a list of stats, these games are also popular among most fans. Also, since this article is fairly new, it may be a little early to discuss this. WP:SPORTSEVENT also said that notable games include: "A game that is widely considered by independent reliable sources to be notable, outside routine coverage of each game, especially if the game received front page coverage outside of the local areas involved". There are a lot of sources that give it a lot of coverage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZappaOMati (talk • contribs) 00:23, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:02, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. What next, "Jenkins Bowl" for the 2004 and 2007 games between the Packers and Panthers featuring brothers Cullen and Kris Jenkins? There are a number of siblings playing and coaching football, and the mere fact that their teams play against each other does not make those games notable. cmadler (talk) 14:27, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ooh! Ooh! What about the "Barber Bowl(s)"?! Tiki Barber playing against his twin, Ronde! When will that ever happen again? —Wrathchild ^(talk) 15:11, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The difference, of course, is that QB is the most important position on a football team and these games have pitted two brothers who are likely destined for the Hall of Fame. There is no parallel or precedent in American football, it is a unique and notable occurence when these two are on the field against each other. Carrite (talk) 17:42, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While some might think the brother-vs.-brother aspect is overblown, the phrase "Manning Bowl" is used in the press and this topic is sourced out and encyclopedia-worthy, in my estimation. We have pages on people that were on the field for just one pro game; certainly this well-done, sourced out topical article is the least of our worries when it comes to Wikipedia's professional football coverage. Carrite (talk) 17:40, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage the games received are truly routine, however. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:06, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As opposed to what??? Instead of recaps being printed in the paper, perhaps they're laser etched on polished marble? Or does one seek President Obama offering guest commentary? OBVIOUSLY, post-game coverage is gonna be post-game coverage. The question is whether the run-up to the game is covered routinely — which in this case it most surely is not. Carrite (talk) 04:42, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As opposed to significant coverage that assumes the notability of these events in particular. Achowat (talk) 05:16, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:SPORTSEVENT. This is a notable rivalry that is one-of-a-kind and throughout the careers of the two, has attracted large amounts of media attention. Besides, the media compares the Manning brothers in many other ways. Stedrick (talk) 14:08, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:ROUTINE game coverage per WP:NOT#NEWS. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:53, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'll reiterate my comments from the Harbaugh Bowl AfD: Just because there was coverage in reliable sources doesn't guarantee that it is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, as the general notability guideline acknowledges. The problem here is that this game doesn't meet the standards of notability for events. Lasting effects? Hardly. Duration of coverage? Nope. Also, per WP:ROUTINE, "routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article. ... Routine events such as sports matches, film premieres, press conferences etc. may be better covered as part of another article, if at all." That's certainly the case here: a mention of the so-called "Manning Bowl" on each brother's biographical article would be more than sufficient. Terence7 (talk) 01:18, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I should first perhaps mention that, due to my New Orleans connections, I have been watching both of the Mannings for a long time (Eli since high school). This AfD, like the pending one for Harbaugh Bowl, presents the question: what quantum of notability is necessary for an article about a regular-season NFL game? In some sense, every NFL game could be said to pass WP:GNG, since there's always plenty of contemporaneous coverage and then almost always further coverage later in the season and afterward. But we clearly don't want a separate article on every game, so we have to have some understanding of what sorts of games are unusual enough to qualify for their own article. Category:National Football League games has only 14 entries, at least two of which are currently being reviewed at AfD. The other games on the list tend to have truly famous plays (e.g., River City Relay, Miracle at the Meadowlands). There are others in other categories, such as the Heidi Game which is categorized under Category:National Football League controversies. Somewhat subjectively, I don't think the Manning games come up to this level. To the extent that there's some notability in the "rivalry" between the Mannings, I don't think it's limited to, or even particularly focused upon, their occasional games against each other, but more about comparing their overall careers, and how Eli has now surprisingly won more Super Bowls than his big brother. It seems enough to talk about these comparisons in their respective biographies. --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:25, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORTS, specifically, WP:SPORTSEVENT. Contemporary coverage was routine; game will be forgotten; no books will ever be written titled "The Manning Bowl." When in doubt, ask yourself, what would Encylopaedia Britannica do (WWBD?)? A: Delete it! Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:03, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and retitle The rivalry between the two brothers surely is notable. They have played against each other, played in superbowls, and been statistically compared. The word "bowl" implies a single game, and they have played multiple games, plus been compared in other ways (e.g. Super Bowl wins). Really, the article needs to be refocused. Hellno2 (talk) 03:29, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - relevant information can easily be incorporated into the Peyton and Eli pages. Achowat (talk) 18:53, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The fact that the quarterbacks were brothers has generated coverage that in my opinion can not be considered routine as defined in WP:ROUTINE. The suggestion to refocus the article away from the games to the general rivalry of the brothers seems sound. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 09:43, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawal per the sources found by MelanieN. Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 21:15, 20 March 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Frank worth[edit]

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

The author's original edit summary pretty much sums up my objection:

“

created a UNIQUELY written reference page (no info was previously available on Frank Worth the photographer)

”

This is pure original research, ~~and since no sources are available~~ (as admitted by the creator), Worth fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG as well. Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 22:22, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I call shenanigans on that nomination. Frank Worth, by the same editor, was deleted for being a copyright violation. Clearly something existed about this person. According to the deleted edit history it is this:
- "Frank Worth". Photographers. Capital Art.
We cannot have it both ways. Either the biographical text existed, in which case there is some biographical material available, or there wasn't a copyright violation. Checking the deleted edits I confirm that there was, in fact, a copyright violation. Uncle G (talk) 23:20, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah. Wasn't aware of that. In any case, I still think that Worth fails BIO and GNG due to lack of in-depth coverage. The biographical information that was cited in the previous article is from a company trying to sell his art (although that wasn't disputed). Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 23:29, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The content itself is the proof that the photographer was on scene, capturing images of noted celebrities. I am the editor and I apologize for the for the initial violation. I selected the wrong draft for upload. I didn't mean to commit a violation. As the creator of the post, I would like to participate in this discussion to address and speedily correct any issues. Namlerep (talk) 16:10, 2 March 2012 (PST).
- My chief concerns are with notability: that is, how much Frank Worth himself has been discussed in reliable sources that have no vested interest in him. Ideally, all article topics should meet the notability guideline. Would you be able to provide any web sites, books, etc. that are independent of Frank Worth and give detailed coverage of him? Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 00:45, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Or, in other words: Where did you get your knowledge of the subject from? Cite your sources. (The ones cited don't cover what you've written.) If this is the result of your primary research, and not from already published biographies and articles, then it doesn't belong in an encyclopaedia and writing it directly into an encyclopaedia is as wrong on the WWW as it is in your library. Wikipedia is not a publisher of first instance. You need to show that there's supporting, already published, material to create an encyclopaedic biography of this person in his own right, rather than merely a footnote or an aside in another topic. Uncle G (talk) 12:32, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question. I'm most interested in photography. I am little interested in Marilyn Monroe. But let me ask about the latter. However surprised I may be that, decades after her death, Monroe retains a fanatical following (of fans and "students"), she does have one. Predictably, this is reflected in Wikipedia. We read in this article: Frank had a long and close relationship with Marilyn Monroe, his most famous subject. The relationship included a secretive love affair that the couple arduously concealed. Frank was one of the last people Marilyn reached out to before her unfortunate death. Frank took many photos of Marilyn before she achieved stardom with her first film “The Asphalt Jungle.” Most commonly, however, most of the taken images were kept private by Frank Worth[2]. In fact, Frank admitted to his affair with Marilyn Monroe only months before he died. Now, any verifiable (or indeed merely rumored) affair between her and anybody else is certain to be written up in the large and still growing literature on Monroe. So which disinterested, reliable source writes about this? -- Hoary (talk) 13:58, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That would definitely help contribute to notability. However, that information may be the result of primary research (Google Books search for "frank worth" "marilyn monroe" affair brings up no results that would be considered relevant to Wikipedia). Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 23:34, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:38, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I see no evidence that he received substantial long-term coverage from published secondary sources with a reputation for reliable coverage. A copyvio of capitalart.com doesn't prove anything for notability purposes; that website doesn't look like a reliable source to me. Nyttend (talk) 23:23, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Userfy~~ (Changing to "Keep", see below.) At first I was all set to say delete and salt; the article reads like badly written fantasy or fiction. However, to my surprise I found books [1] and exhibitions of his photographs [2] [3] [4] suggesting that people in the art world take him seriously. Further searching found plenty of reliable source reporting about him, for example the Los Angeles Times and even the BBC. The article in its present form is hopeless, but the subject is clearly notable. I would suggest that the article be taken out of mainspace while the author rewrites it in encyclopedic form (hints: no purple prose, no puffery, nothing that you can't verify, and don't refer to him as "Frank"). I will be glad to help you with a rewrite. --MelanieN (talk) 00:49, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Changing my opinion to Keep. I just did a complete rewrite of the article, putting it into encyclopedic style and adding Reliable Source references. It needs expansion (as long as the material added can be confirmed) but I believe it now clearly demonstrates the notability of the subject. --MelanieN (talk) 16:50, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also moved the article to Frank Worth (capital letter for the last name). --MelanieN (talk) 16:52, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Notability demonstrated by sources found and added by MelanieN. Well done. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 15:17, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^{talk to me} 22:02, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Leo Shane III[edit]

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

This non-article describes a journalist who a) won a single award and b) some people complained about. There's really nothing here to hang a whole article on. Jayron32 21:15, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:35, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of substantial coverage over time. Nyttend (talk) 03:07, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Google News search finds plenty BY him, but not much ABOUT him. I note that he was interviewed once by NPR, but otherwise nothing. Articles by the ombudsman of the newspaper he writes for do not constitute independent coverage. The award he got is not enough by itself to establish notability; for one thing, it was awarded to a team of journalists, not to him alone. --MelanieN (talk) 01:21, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:23, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Mascara[edit]

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

Delete. Minor television worker, fails WP:CREATIVE and WP:ENTERTAINER. Only one media article, a puff piece from 2003. WWGB (talk) 03:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 03:21, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 03:21, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I also found coverage in Q Magazine, the Melbourne Observer, the Herald Sun and the TV Tonight blog. Moswento (talk | contribs) 11:33, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the two latter sources found by Moswento (the former two are non-pinpoint and 404, respectively). Bearian (talk) 23:26, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable.--Grahame (talk) 23:57, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- How so? There are several reliable sources related to him. 72.137.97.65 (talk) 23:19, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:21, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:26, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the links to the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age publications. 72.137.97.65 (talk) 23:17, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: having a reliable source does not make him notable, it provides evidence of his existence not his notability.--Grahame (talk) 00:12, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete article is full of uncited claims, sources provided are not in-depth to meet WP:BIO. 08:19, 19 March 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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:50, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Joan H. Lee[edit]

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

No evidence this person is independently notable of her thesis, and notability is not inherited. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 22:10, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Next time, please notify the creator. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 02:42, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*facepalm* My bad on that. Was not malicious. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 13:51, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She is a scholar who becomes notable by virtue of her scholarly work. Simple--not a matter of inheriting anything. Drmies (talk) 01:10, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: Actually, that's exactly what inheriting notability means, to claim your work/product's notability for yourself, or vice versa. I grant that there's a difference between being notable because you wrote something, and not being notable despite having written something notable. The difference is that in the former case, both author and product should have RS about them, and in the latter, only the written work gets significant coverage. And I have no evidence that we're dealing with an example of the former. She doesn't turn up in any sort of RS I can find except as secondary to her work. You'd think someone would write a news article about her, who happens to be the author of this thesis, rather than this thesis, which happens to be authored by her. Furthermore, I haven't found any evidence that she's notable for any scholarly work except that one thesis, which means she may also run afoul of WP:ONEEVENT. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 01:18, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good luck with that interpretation. Drmies (talk) 01:49, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - This GNews search produces a couple more hits that aren't yet in the bibliography. Drmies (talk) 02:39, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Consider the significance of the event and her role in the event. Early to say, but seems pretty significant. JordTu (talk) 22:07, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:57, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:57, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's extremely unusual for an academic to become notable so early (and, in fact, I don't think she meets WP:PROF, but there's a clear pass of WP:GNG/WP:ANYBIO. I have never before seen an MA thesis generating so much interest and coverage. The only minus point I see is that perhaps at this early point in her career, WP:BLP1E should be taken to apply here. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 13:52, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed: BLP1E is a valid consideration here, but in my opinion it's outweighed by the crazy amount of coverage--I'm applying item 7 of WP:PROF here. Mind you, I feel weird about looking at PROF for someone who hasn't even graduated... Guillaume, did you ever make the papers like that? De Typhoon doesn't even know I exist. Drmies (talk) 16:08, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS, PROF, and BLP1EVENT. Although the cited sources don't show dates, every one I looked at was published in February 2012, which is not surprising since that's when Lee's thesis went up on Proquest. I would not be shocked to learn that a press release went out at about the same time. This looks like the kind of 'sexy' science paper (it deals with young people, the internet & language change, and offers a counter-intuitive conclusion that journalists can riff off of) that periodically dominate the science news pages for a couple of months and then fade away. Cnilep (talk) 01:42, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- - New article in Vietnam two days ago. JordTu (talk) 22:23, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - She appeared on CTV Calgary Morning Live today. JordTu (talk) 18:14, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I tend to agree that she meets GNG/PROF7. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:24, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak Keep notable under GNG. I don't think WP:PROF really applies, especially in view of her position and other publications. The info box is stretching things by calling her an information scientist and linguist, since she is still a student, as shown by her listing at the university which I added as an external link. (And her other work consists of 1 meeting paper listing--not even an abstract, & one article published in her university's own publication) That she wrote a MA thesis on something which happens to get widespread attention does not mean notability as an academic in the usual sense, though widespread attention does meet the GNG. It would really help to write the refs in such a way as to display where they come from--whether newspapers, blogs , or scholarly articles (it's done by adding a work= parameter to the citeweb template) . It's in the wikitext, but it needs to be visible, because one's understand of her is affected by it--for example, in fact, ref 1 is her thesis, refs 2—4 are local newspapers, 5-6 national newspapers, 7—9 responsible online news services, and every one of the rest newspapers or science/technology news services throughout the world that reprinted the story. But I think Jorgath has a point: it's like someone who has published a single literary work, where the article could equally well be about the work, and perhaps BLP1E does apply. On balance, we might as well include it DGG ( talk ) 01:39, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Blatant attack page Aervanath (talk) 00:24, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin W. Cronin[edit]

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

Since this article's creation, it's been a blatant violation of WP:NPOV; the entire article is oriented toward showing how horrible and illegal this man's actions are. It's too far gone: time to throw it away. Even if it had treated him neutrally, the article would be problematic: only two of the sources on the article mention him more than just in passing, and of those one is primary (a group of lawsuits that he filed), and the other gives him a short paragraph. He doesn't pass WP:POLITICIAN: the only American judges who pass it are those who have held statewide office, and because he sits on the 48th Circuit Court, it's obvious that 1/48 of Michigan is nowhere near to statewide. Please note that the article had three sources with substantial coverage when I first found it; I removed them because one was a blog and the others were non-blog sources that didn't appear to be any more reliable than the blog. Even if he gets anything close to devoted coverage, it's likely to be purely local, and we generally delete smalltown politicians who get coverage from local media and nowhere else. Nyttend (talk) 21:58, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. A note on the suggestion to "speedy userfy": Yes, userfication is an alternative to deletion. No, we don't automatically move an article into its creators userspace instead of deleting. That being said, I'd be happy to restore this and userfy it for anyone who expresses a willingness to take on the task of trying to improve it so that it meets the minimum standards for inclusion.Beeblebrox (talk) 22:32, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Obi Agbogidi Olo-Ome Alfred Okolie 1[edit]

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

Non-notable person JayJay^{Talk to me} 00:57, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:50, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see no evidence to keep. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:58, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy userfy to User:Dannylaw/Obi Agbogidi Olo-Ome Alfred Okolie 1, per WP:ATD. Unfortunately, I found no evidence either. But if what's written is even part true, this guy is in his 90s and has been a ruler for 65 years - therefore he's probably notable. If verifiable sources can be found, he can be included at Current reigning monarchs by length of reign (top of the list?). -- Trevj (talk) 10:01, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PS "Obi Okolie I" appears to be linked (via a blacklisted reference at ArticlesBase) to Anioma people. Unfortunately, WikiProject Nigeria doesn't look to be very active. -- Trevj (talk) 10:14, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are a few passing references to this fellow, e.g., [5], and I've fixed one of the dead links in the article as well. This doesn't seem strong enough for GNG, the question then becomes does this level of leader have inherent notability? --joe decker ^{talk to me} 15:39, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete, as copyright violation. Closing discussion as moot. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:42, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List Of Leviton Products[edit]

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

WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:NOTCATALOG. No reason given as to what the encyclopedic value is of this particular company's current product listing. A consumer would be better served by going to Leviton.com and perusing their sales web site. Zad68 (talk) 18:33, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Deleted twice, this time as a G12 Copyright Violation as noted below. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 18:44, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Gabai[edit]

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

This looks and smells like a copyright violation. The text appears to have been lifted from a game playing site. I just can't find the place it came from. I'm in two minds about this one. The battle itself was "a small-scale and little-known affair", so is it notable even if we remove the game playing stuff, or should it be deleted as non notable? Or are all historic battles between folk in Persia notable anyway? So I've brought it here for discussion and consensus. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 12:16, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 18:10, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This debate was originally closed by Ten Pound Hammer at 13:24, 4 March 2012 (UTC), given that the article had been Speedy Deleted by Jimfbleak. An editor subsequently questioned that Speedy Deletion, and the article was restored by Jimfbleak on 11 March. Since the concerns that initiated this AFD (and that led to the speedy) have not been addressed, and since the original result has been overruled, I'm reopening this debate and relisting it. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 18:10, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

comment This is clearly a copyvio of http://www.ne.jp/asahi/luke/ueda-sarson/Gabai.html which has now been found. I'm reflagging it as such with a speedy deletion tag. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:32, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, so it is! I'll close and delete momentarily then. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 18:42, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No quorum, so WP:SOFTDELETE Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:50, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mircea Perpelea[edit]

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

None of the claims for this BLP are sourced, and so there is no need to lend them any credence, but I will address three of them just the same.
1) "Director with the National Bank of Romania". To be clear, this is not the same as the Governor of the National Bank of Romania, who is notable. It simply means he's a manager there, one of some two dozen.
2) Prefect. While some prefects are notable for other activities they've undertaken, it's rare for this unelected position to bring notability by itself, and there's no evidence this is the case with Perpelea.
3) Consul in Marseiile. See WP:DIPLOMAT: notability is presumed for "diplomats who have participated in a significant way in events of particular diplomatic importance that have been written about in reliable secondary sources. Sufficient reliable documentation of their particular role is required." This standard is clearly not met for Perpelea. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:15, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:32, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:32, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:34, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 17:57, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable enough as a bureaucrat, fails WP:DIPLOMAT, no relevant third-party sources on his career. Oh and, WP:COI... Dahn (talk) 20:01, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Normally this might be a good candidate for a relist, but the utter failure to meet WP:V makes this fairly uncontroversial. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:21, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

T.S.I.[edit]

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

The usual conglomeration of WP:CRYSTAL problems that come with having articles on unreleased and unannounced albums. The "Recorded Tracks" are a mixture of rumors and reported live performances, with no sources reporting that any of them will actually be on an album named "T.S.I.". That's probably good, because the article says that the name of the album really isn't T.S.I.:"T.S.I are the initials of the album, she's not revealed the entire name yet.". Many of the sources here are for a previous unreleased album that we had to delete as well at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LifeStyle. This isn't quite a G4 speedy, but very close. —Kww(talk) 17:34, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:38, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:HAMMER. When a real title and a real track listing and a definitive release date are announced, then it can have an article. Bearcat (talk) 22:46, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^{talk to me} 22:15, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Adel El Mogy[edit]

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

WP:BLP1E. He was accused of a crime of administering virginity tests, and acquitted. Not notable outside this one event. Not beneficial to cover the individual for a singular event he was found not guilty of. Dennis Brown (talk) 16:43, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Tagged for CSD Zad68 (talk) 16:46, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clear delete Speedy-delete was declined. From WP:PERP: "Note: A living person accused of a crime is not guilty unless and until this is decided by a court of law. Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured." And how much more so if the alleged perpetrator was actually cleared. Zad68 (talk) 17:03, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, speedy was declined only because BLP1E isn't a category that can be speedy deleted, ie: procedural decline. Dennis Brown (talk) 17:57, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—I PRODed this before it came here. Agree fully with the BLP1E and PERP concerns. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 18:08, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, either speedily as A7, or through this discussion. No evidence of lasting notability, fails the general notability guideline, the notability guideline for people and WP:BLP1E. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 18:19, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:51, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:52, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:52, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:52, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – see WP:BLPCRIME, WP:PERP, WP:BLP1E. The doctor was exonerated in court. Of course, I'm not sticking up for that court or how it metes out justice. Regardless, an article on this subject runs afoul of the three links above. Plus he fails WP:GNG outright. JFHJr (㊟) 15:30, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^{talk to me} 15:41, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

XStoryPlayer[edit]

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

Contested prod. Promotional article for unremarkable software. No significant coverage from reliable sources, no indications of notability. Google search on "XStoryPlayer" -wiki shows only 41 unique results - most are primary sources, none are from independent reliable sources. MikeWazowski (talk) 15:27, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To call software "unremarkable", its has to be reviewed by claimer. I very much doubt if above claimer, has actually used the software to validate this claim. The intention of the XStoryPlayer wiki page is to explain what the software entails. Of course one could say it has an promotional side to it. But that could be said about any page that refers to something a company does or makes. Weather or not a product has many google hits should not be deciding factor in this. Independant reliable sources are somewhat chicken and egg. The article itself was created by the company that makes XStoryPlayer, so one could say thats a pretty reliable source. --Asimo912 (talk) 15:41, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia articles are not sources for Wikipedia. Uncle G (talk) 16:06, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - UncleG, I think you missed Asimo912's point.
    Asimo912, you should read WP:COI if you are associated with the company.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 16:24, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Asimo912 seems confused about the purpose of Wikipedia and should read Wikipedia:Five pillars, WP:Notability and WP:RS. Wikipedia is not the place to promote your software. It doesn't matter if your software is brilliant or terrible, what matters is whether other people have written about it. Wikipedia is a compendium of what has been written on a topic by authoritative and impartial people. It's not a place for publicising new ideas and new products. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:32, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - I am not confused about the purpose of Wikipedia. My point is that everything a company makes or does can be considered information to promote a company. "Third party" references are mostly paid for or made by large companies, who have bloggers and journalists on their payroll. The information on the XStoryPlayer wikipage is educational and it would be best if the readers themself decide how to judge this information. If people decide it is not accurate or not representive of the actual product I gladly accept their opinion. But it seems to me that currently the topic is judged on it being new and therefore not noteworthy.--Asimo912 (talk) 17:15, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        … despite the fact that you've been clearly told that it's the sourcing, and lack and unreliability and non-independence thereof, that it's being judged on. Readers don't judge, by the way. Editors do, and questioning the existence, depth, and provenances of sources is a major part of the whole editorial process. If you're going to make daft arguments that only people who agree with you are qualified to judge, or that people are addressing something else when they say that sourcing is their focus and directly address it, you won't rebut the argument that there are no reliable and independent sources for this subject, and you'll lose the argument per deletion policy. It's your choice, of course, but you've now been told that it's a foolish one. Cite independent and reliable sources from which an article can be made, or lose the argument. Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G (talk) 17:24, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I understand that placing a topic on wikipedia has also risks, namely that other people can edit it and say that its not accurate or misleading. But to simply state you want to have it deleted because you think it is not noteworthy, seems a bit strange to me. This way only large companies can have their products explained on wikipedia. I am simply making a wiki page that's a starting point for other editors to work with. But I guess I have to wait a few years when I have lots of "hits on google", and then make a entry for it in the wikipedia.--Asimo912 (talk) 17:39, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Or you could stop with these daft arguments that people have all tried before, and that get short shrift around here because of their well-known fallacies, and do what I just said was in your best interests to do. It's the way to get the article kept. You'll only have yourself to blame if you fail to do what you've been told is the right thing to do and the outcome that you were told would be the result then happens. Now cite those sources. Uncle G (talk) 00:20, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - On the contrary, I understood just fine. You didn't, however. This isn't about conflict of interest. It's about not understanding what reliable sources and independent sources are, for the purposes of writing in Wikipedia. Uncle G (talk) 17:24, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 12:33, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:33, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lack of coverage in third party, reliable sources. Doesn't meet the WP:GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 12:46, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no sources Shii (tock) 14:36, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I failed to find any secondary sources I could call reliable. In fact, I'm not sure whether among the sources I found there are any secondary at all. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:23, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It would be helpfull if above critics could suggest improvements for the wiki page XStoryPlayer. Deletion should be last resort in my opinion. I like to add that articles are now judged on how many "google hits" they have. It would better if editors also read the actual article instead of imitating a google bot.--Asimo912 (talk) 21:48, 13 March 2012 (UTC) — Asimo912 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Deletion is the last resort and this is exactly the case as this article's survival is less probable then that of snowball in hell. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:51, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why do I get the feeling I just entered the Ministry of Silly Walks (Silly_Walk), and it appears my "silly walk" is judged just not silly enough. It reminds me of the Dutch post offices 15 years ago.--Asimo912 (talk) 10:31, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You don't seem to understand the meaning of the word "sources" Shii (tock) 15:23, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am quoting from Wikipedia:Verifiability:
- Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the requirement in the case of self-published sources that they be published experts in the field, so long as:
  1. the material is not unduly self-serving; It is not
  2. it does not involve claims about third parties; It does not
  3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source; It does not
  4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; There is not
  5. the article is not based primarily on such sources. It is not
Therefore there is no reason to not keep the XStoryPlayer page.--Asimo912 (talk) 15:58, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Not quite because WP:NOTABILITY is also an important aspect and that calls reliable sources that are Independent of the subject. The sources you mention would work for verifiability but that is not enough to keep an article. To be blunt this article will be almost certainly be deleted unless Independent sources are found.--174.93.169.157 (talk) 16:48, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - But what would be an independent source? A magazine, a forum, someone who has written other wiki pages? Should these reliable sources also have independent reliable sources to support them?--Asimo912 (talk) 18:15, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Independent means that the source is independent of the subject, ie not from the company that makes the software, a developer of the software or PR agency promoting the software etc. It does not mean that there needs to be independent coverage of each individual source. That is not to say that these types of sources are always bad but they are not enough to make the article meet notability guidelines. Also another isssue is that WP:IRS also calls for sources with a history of fact checking and accuracy so a forums are almost always not considered to be reliable since almost anyone could make a form post. It is also the same case for other wikis since any registered user can post at an open Wiki. A magazine could be be reliable but it would depend on which magazine it is. For some more assistance here is a list of sources considered reliable, situational, and unreliable, for video game articles Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources. I think the best course of action is for you to find some sources and post them here so then can be evaluated.--174.93.169.157 (talk) 20:01, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - I am going to take a look at that--Asimo912 (talk) 12:45, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability isn't even claimed. No sources, no notability, nothing to write home about or in an encyclopaedia about QU ^TalkQu 23:36, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, especially per QU above. No claim to notability and the article's creator obviously has serious WP:COI issues. OSborn^arf_contribs. 18:37, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unreferenced, no indication of notability, created by an SPA as likely spam/promotional. Dialectric (talk) 07:08, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:31, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blood of the Black Owl[edit]

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

I was going to do some MOS-cleanup here, but it became clear quickly enough that we are dealing with an article on a non-notable band. They have albums out, but those didn't storm the charts, nor were they released by notable labels. There's the usual hits on metal zines, but nothing that I think is reliable enough. Drmies (talk) 15:01, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—I CSD'd this early on, and I don't see much improvement in the sourcing since. I couldn't find RSes to support notability, then, or now. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 22:56, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not finding significant coverage for this group in reliable sources; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:BAND at this time. Gongshow ^Talk 23:40, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. joe decker ^{talk to me} 22:42, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

François Asselineau[edit]

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

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

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

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

Unknown to the French general public as a politician and as a civil servant. Please take note that his article has been deleted several times at the French wikipedia and is very likely to be deleted again. Take note that one of his few claims to fame is that he can't manage to have an article at the French wikipedia. This article mentions it and calls him a "totally unknown" politician. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 14:49, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vanity page. Has not been covered by any major media, is just the subject of some kind of buzz by bloggers who support his candidacy. If he succeeds in being an candidate for the French presidency, things may change, but he probably won't (you need 500 signatures by mayors for that). Oh and please take note that his is not a "malicious" proposal : the French don't have any bias against FA because of his "bad reputation". Actually, he doesn't have a bad reputation, he has no reputation at all, except as someone who floods the internet trying (so far in vain) to promote himself and his party. He is only vaguely notable for not being notable and trying to be. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 14:49, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note that, because you're the nominator, it is assumed you recommend Delete. Feel free to add to your rationale, but you don't need to restate the bolded Delete, and doing so can lead to confusion. FYI. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:15, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You say Has not been covered by any major media, but sources are from Le Parisien,Le Figaro, Les Echos, Le Monde, Libération...Are they minor media in France? --Lawren00 (talk) 23:41, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To take only the first weblink http://www.leparisien.fr/espace-premium/val-de-marne-94/asselineau-candidat-a-la-presidentielle-03-12-2011-1750168.php it is stated that it is local news (Nogent-sur-seine) and it mention just it will present it's candidature and as you can see it's just a short article. Xavier Combelle (talk) 11:19, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I fixed the AFD tag at the article, the formatting here, and moved the debate to the correct spot in sequence. This is the 4th nomination of this article. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:15, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it was deleted once, and then recreated. What a mess ! On fr wiki, this article keeps being deleted, and recreated from time to time. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 15:18, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It was deleted because a French admin user:Coren made abuse of his administrator tools. It was proven by the unanimous overturn ans relist vote here. Do you justify the usage of administrator tool abuse in special case? --Lawren00 (talk) 23:47, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No abuse, at all, IMHO. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 12:13, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep : I trust Azurfrog's understanding of the notability guidelines on the English-language wikipedia (see below) : while FA definitely fails WP:POLITICIANS, he appears to meet WP:GNG + WP:BIO because of the sheer weight of sources making passing mentions of him. In short, he has created a buzz out of thin air, which might make him vaguely notable. I have no problem accepting that the criteria may be different from one wiki to another, and, I repeat, I trust Azurfrog's good faith on that. However, I stress the fact that the current article is a ludicrous vanity page and should be severely rewritten. FA, as far as French politics go, is so far an absolute nobody who is mainly notable for not being notable and trying to be on the web. While the article may be acceptable per se, the English Wikipedia can't afford the indignity of having such a ridiculous page about such a character. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 12:13, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete: Problem with the previous AfDs is that it is one thing to count the number of sources, and quite another to read or listen to them. Go through this interview (dated 23d February 2012!) on Radio Monte Carlo, for instance, and the 'tongue in cheek' questions put to François Asselineau, clearly implying that the interview is taking place only because the interviewer has been 'deluged' by e-mails from Asselineau's fan-club, and with the lead "I don't know you at all, Pierre Asselineau - sorry François Asselineau - nor your party, but maybe you have something to say, for you are a serious man, aren't you?"...
Indeed, François Asselineau is totally unknown to the general public, being described by Le Parisien as a "ghost candidate". But then, he is a master at creating buzz out of thin air, leading to empty articles or interviews.
Is that notable enough for en:WP? --Azurfrog (talk) 16:23, 12 March 2012 (UTC). After all due consideration, I am changing my vote to Keep:[reply]
Keep: François Asselineau fails WP:POLITICIANS insofar as being a member of a French Conseil général is nowhere near being a "member of a national, state, or provincial legislature".
But the article meets WP:GNG + WP:BIO: while the "significant coverage in reliable sources" consists mainly of primary sources or sources merely mentioning the subject (in some cases to state that he is a perfect unknown), and while "trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability", this shallow depth of coverage is nevertheless offset by the "multiple independent sources that may be combined to demonstrate notability". --Azurfrog (talk) 11:14, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your point is that Francois Asselineau has media coverage because he created a "buzz". However, I would like to be explained how the buzz has been lasting 23 years since the first national media mentioned him in 1989 [6]. --Lawren00 (talk) 23:50, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He was mentioned as a high-ranking civil servant, which definitely not proves his notability as such, since the article was not about him. He has definitely created a buzz (a mini-buzz, that is) around himself as a politician and as far as French politics go, he is an absolute nobody, which is why his article should be, if not deleted, at least reworked. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 12:06, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for crossing the line to the enlighten side of wikipedia ;) If you think that the article needs a rework on some parts, I welcome you on the talk page of the article to discuss the changes, make a consensus and then proceed the changes. I suggest to not proceed changes (except for spelling and syntax mistakes) that could lead to editorial war without discussing it priory. Until today it had worked like that and it helps to not heat-up the atmosphere. --Lawren00 (talk) 01:35, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am kinda fed up of having to defend the validity of my article every month because French administrator can not live with an article on François Asselineau. Can we stop accepting the nomination for deletion? This is an obvious POV of this group.

TV i-Télé dans "L'invité de l'édition permanente", 5 mars 2012 [7] France 24 dans "La semaine de l’Eco", 25 novembre 2011 16h10-16h45 [8] Antenne Caraibes Internationale TV dans "Face a Face", 2 novembre 2011 [9] BFM TV dans "Les Experts de l'economie", 16 septembre 2011 9h-10h [10] International Radio Africa n° 1 dans "Le Grand Debat", 7 septembre 2011 19h30-20h00 [11] Africa n° 1 dans "Le Grand Debat", 20 Juin 2011 19h30-20h00 [12] [13] CHOQ.FM dans "L'autre monde", 14 Février 2011 [14] National Radio France Info dans "Les invités de France Info", 9 mars 2012 [15] Sud Radio dans "Menard en liberté", 8 mars 2012 8h-9h [16] Beur FM dans "Forum Debat", 1 mars 2012 18h30-20h00 [17] Beur FM dans "Forum Debat", 2 janvier 2012 18h15-18h40 [18] Sud Radio dans "Menard en liberté", 10 novembre 2011 [19] Beur FM dans "Forum Debat", 20 septembre 2011 18h30-20h00 [20] [21] Beur FM dans "Forum Debat", 27 octobre 2011 18h30-20h00 [22] Radios chrétiennes francophones, Carte blanche à François ASSELINEAU, 10 June 2011 [23] Beur FM dans "Forum Debat", 6 septembre 2011 18h15-18h30 [24] [25] French major newspapers Le Parisien, Asselineau candidat à la présidentielle, 3 decembre 2011 [26] Le Figaro, XVIIe: un divers droite jette l'éponge, 21 Fevrier 2008 [27] Le Figaro, UMP: liste dissidente contre Panafieu, Decembre 2007[28] Le Parisien, Démission remarquée à l'UMP, Aout 2006[29] Le Parisien, Ça bouge à l'UMP, Decembre 2004[30] Les Echos, Création d'une délégation générale à l'Intelligence économique à Bercy, Novembre 2004[31] Les Echos, François Asselineau, octobre 2004[32] Les Echos, François Asselineau, Juillet 2000[33] Les Echos, Cabinet de Françoise de PANAFIEU François ASSELINEAU, Mai 1995[34] Le Monde, Tourisme, Mai 1995[35] Le Figaro, Ces petites listes qui compliquent la donne, Février 2008 [36] Le Monde, Municipales: la droite se présente en ordre dispersé a Paris, Février 2008 [37] Libération, VIIeme, XVeme et XVIeme, la droite se déchire, Février 2008[38] Libération, A l'UMP, l'arbre de Neuilly cache une forêt de dissidences, Fevrier 2008[39] Le Parisien, XIXeme arrondissement, Fevrier 2008[40] Le Parisien, Panafieu malmenée dans son fief du XVIIeme, Février 2008[41] Le Parisien, A Paris, Rachida Dati menacée de dissidence, Février 2008[42] Le Parisien, 24 HEURES A PARIS, Janvier 2008[43] Le Parisien, Rachida Dati contestée dans le VIIe, Décembre 2007[44] Le Parisien, Bertrand Delanoë bientôt dans les arrondissements... Françoise de Panafieu travaille son projet. Un nouveau groupe politique au Conseil de Paris, Septembre 2007[45] Libération, L'état a la traque aux intrus économiques, Novembre 2004[46] Le Monde, BERNARD BLED, ancien secrétaire général de la Ville de Paris, devient directeur général des services administratifs du conseil général des Hauts-de-Seine, Mai 2001[47] Libération, Ile-de-France. Paris (75), Mars 2001[48] Libération, Ile-de-France. PARIS, Mars 2001[49] Les Echos, Le ministre du Tourisme engage un bras de fer avec Bercy, Juillet 1995[50] Les Echos, Composition du cabinet de Françoise de Panafieu, Juin 1995[51] Les Echos, Cabinet de Gérard Longuet Philippe ANDRES François ASSELINEAU, Janvier 1994[52] Le Monde, NOUVELLE CALEDONIE Deux rapports officiels consacrés aux activités de l'Agence de développement rural et d'aménagement foncier (ADRAF), Septembre 1989[53] Le Nouvel Observateur, Présidentielle: François Asselineau saisit le CSA en pure perte, 7 mars 2012 [54] Le Parisien, Mondeville et le candidat fantôme, 27 mars 2012 [55] Le Parisien, Mondeville retrouve son « candidat fantôme », 1 mars 2012 [56] Nord éclair, Un « petit candidat » contre la grande Europe, 29 février 2012 [57] La Voix du Nord, Liberté d'expression Un « petit » candidat à l'élection présidentielle a fair halte hier à Villeneuve-d'Ascq, 28 février 2012 [58] Internet sources from Notorious blogs et websites Numerama, Un candidat à l'élection présidentielle privé de page Wikipédia, 5 mars 2012 [59] Terre d'info TV, 4 Questions à François Asselineau, 2 Mars 2012 [60] ParisWebTV, Le boeuf par les cornes, 7 février 2012 [61] Bondy Blog, section lyonnaise, "Asselineau : La dictature de l'Europe ", 28 octobre 2011 [62]

--Lawren00 (talk) 16:45, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most of these "sources" are primary sources ; building an article with this is original research. Schlum (talk) 17:08, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Primary sources from Le Parisien, Le Figaro, Les Echos, Le Monde, Libération? Do you mean that Francois Asselineau wrote the 20+ articles in these 5 major newspapers? Interesting. --Lawren00 (talk) 23:53, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, oppose French Wikipedia control AGAIN? Are you serious? The previous two AfDs ended in Keep and now people from French Wikipedia are, yet again, trying to control English Wikipedia. We don't care what the status of his article is in French Wikipedia. It has NOTHING to do with our rules and policies here. The sources on this subject are quite clear and have been vetted time and again. French Wikipedia editors really, really need to stop doing this. Silver seren^C 16:53, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

French sysops can live quite well with an article on François Asselineau here. But it just happens they are currently being harassed by supporters of François Asselineau, because of the deadline for the French presidential elections (deadline by March 16th, if I remember properly). And these supporters' best punch is to insist that there is an article dedicated to François Asselineau on the English WP. Without such blatant POV-pushing and daily harassment on fr:WP, no one would care, really.

But, whether you like it or not, this article is being used by Asselineau as a major argument against the French Wikipedia, and a significant part of the vaporware is about how incredible it is that there should be an article about him only in English! I said 'harassment', and I mean 'harassment'... Who should be fed up?

Now, notability on French Wikipedia requires that "medias of national or international standing" have published articles "dedicated to the subject of the article", on several years. Just because Asselineau has been invited (or has asked to be invited?) with other people to comment on current events, it does not mean he is notable himself.

This is why the sheer number of articles where he may be mentioned is so wholly irrelevant to assess notability, at least on French WP. --Azurfrog (talk) 17:06, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All right, so you explained the real reason of your pushing here. Because you are "harassed by supporters of François Asselineau", that I would simply call "vandals", it justifies for you to get your revenge on the English Wikipedia and act the same way with these vandals that you are denouncing. Every means are good to justify your point of view? With that kind of logic I do not think you raise the image of French Wikipedian Admins impartiality here. --Lawren00 (talk) 00:01, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What's funny is that, for example, this article, mentioned by the article's creator as a proof of Asselineau's notability, describes this politician as an unkwnown ! Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 17:09, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Let's see if Mr Asselineau gets his 500 signatures before Friday. If not, I'll vote for deletion. Bouchecl (talk) 17:12, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your point of view. Can I have a link to the rule mentioning about this very new politicians notability criteria? It looks like I could not find it. --Lawren00 (talk) 00:05, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my detailed reasoning at the many previous AfDs and DRVs at which French users tried to get this article deleted on various spurious grounds. Also, while I'm doing the thing where you summarise your opinion using words in bold, I need to add surely not this AGAIN and this is not fr.wiki.—S Marshall T/C 17:29, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I should just add that my participation in this AfD was solicited by User:Lawren00. The closer will see that the message used was appropriately neutral but will no doubt wish to check whether Lawren00 was selectively notifying participants sympathetic to his case.—S Marshall T/C 17:38, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I did and thank you for giving your point of view. I tried to alert non-French native users (not only you but some others) and it is unfortunate but most of non-French native users, with a certain distance against this debate, voted "keep". I tried also to alert other admin here but it looks like I could not find the right place. If you know where I can request the point of view of users other than those very active on the French wikipedia, please let me know. --Lawren00 (talk) 00:14, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I am concerned, this is the very first time I vote in an AfD about François Asselineau, whereas User:Lawren00 has been himself voting countless times, and is - for all I know - a vocal supporter of Asselineau, in and out of Wikipedia. So I am not convinced your remark ("the many previous AfDs and DRVs at which French users tried to get this article deleted on various spurious grounds") is quite relevant ;-). --Azurfrog (talk) 17:48, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My life out of wikipedia has no relevance in your argumentation for deleting the article. Even if you had Harry Potter's Magic wand that could reveal my real identity, let me warn you that I do not want to see my name in Wikipedia. If you do put my name in Wikipedia, I would have to request administrator to block you. Thank you for respecting Wikipedia's rule Template:Pinfo4.
For the other part of your point, I defend the article I created that you try to delete. That is why whenever you open an article for deletion you have the obligation of informing the author. Does my presence here make sense? --Lawren00 (talk) 01:06, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral I don’t care if en:wiki wants to keep an article about someone whom greater notability is about complaining on fr:wiki. They have their own guideline about political notability ; this guy have proven to be out of fr notabiliy guidline with a large consensus, and all the shown "sources" have been analysed as primary or irrelevant sources ; if en:wiki wants to keep it, knowing these elements, good for them :) Schlum (talk) 17:38, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This whole idea of a French plot is ridiculous. I didn't vote the last time, because I guess this is useless. Let me try one more time, with a different angle. We face a bizarre coalition of François Asselineau supporters and genuine users, who can't read French, and have no clue, for that reason, what this is all about. So I let them believe that French Wikipédia has different criteria than English Wikipedia for politicians (which is not the case) or that I'm a member of small group of POV pushers with a bias against François Asselineau: the current Article for Deletion on French Wikipedia makes it very clear that the great majority of users there are in favor of deletion. What is more, I'm not only a sysop but also a member of the arbitration comitee on French Wikipedia (not very likely to be a POV pusher...). Maybe that's simply because we have direct access to the so-called "sources" that FA supporters are giving and can read them for what they are (just try it if you can, you'll see) : not evidence of any notoriety whatsoever. But I'm just saying. --Gede (talk) 17:43, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I read French fluently, and I'm not an Asselineau supporter. The problem with the line of argument you advance is a deeply ironical one. It's the existence of sources like this (which is, even more ironically, listed in the nomination statement as a reason for deletion): a whole page of text about how non-notable and unremarkable M Asselineau is, how small his impact on French politics has been, and how weird it is that en.wiki has an article about him despite this fact. Another shorter article with a similar theme is here. But by publishing these pieces, these secondary sources, independent of the subject, are in fact establishing Asselineau's notability. On en.wiki, notability is an objectively-measurable criterion based on the existence of multiple independent sources exactly such as the ones I have just linked. Therefore he's notable. QED.—S Marshall T/C 18:39, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The sources you are choosing to point are indeed interesting (on the similar debate on :fr, I have admitted the second one is among the most interesting and specific to Mr Asselineau among the big list given by Lawren00 - for the first one I am not sure "Numerama" is a reliable source, I have no hint of who writes there). I notice these sources are gently ironical towards Mr Asselineau, and that the results of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ole_Savior and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ole_Savior_(2nd_nomination) were both "delete" ; sources covering this politician with "gentle mockery", as I read in the deletion debates, were not accepted as "sufficient" coverage passing the threshold of WP:GNG. Being gently laughed at is not sufficient to justify of an article. French Tourist (talk) 21:18, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes... I accept that not all the sources provided are very good. My position is that there only need to be two or three sources to justify a short article, provided those sources are independent secondary sources that pass WP:RS and provided they're genuinely about Asselineau. Whether numerama.com is a reliable source is something you could challenge; this page would be relevant to such a discussion, I think. With regard to the Ole Savior deletion discussions, in fact the first discussion led to no consensus—it's true that the second was a "delete" but I don't think the fact that we deleted that one necessarily means we must delete this.
Asselineau is an anti-european and a right-winger, and I don't approve of his politics in the least. But I can't condone this nomination. Let's just say that I'm somewhat suspicious about the reasons for wanting to delete his article during what is after all an election campaign.—S Marshall T/C 22:50, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Numerama, not sure if it is a reliable and notable website? You mean being in top300 of French Internet is not enough? See the alexa rank. --Lawren00 (talk) 01:20, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What French Wikipedia decides to do with their version of the article has nothing to do with us or this version of the article. This is just French Wikipedia editors and administrators' trying to control content on other Wikipedias for subjects that they dislike and these actions are appalling. All of you need to stop beating the dead horse, as the prior two AfDs clearly showed that the discussion is good and dead. Silver seren^C 17:55, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, leave 'em poor horses alone and stop being 'appalled'; let's rather start talking about Wikipedia:Canvassing, as I am a wee bit afraid Lawren00 may have warned his pals on a selective basis ;-)... --Azurfrog (talk) 18:16, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Which pals are you talking about? Name them. Now, let me name your pals coming from the French Wikipedia to rule the English Wikipedia: Azurfrog (admin), Gede(admin), Jean-Jacques Georges, French Tourist(admin), Schlum, Hatonjan, Boréal(admin), Esprit Fugace(admin), GdGourou(admin) for those who came here already. And the other we can expect in the coming days User:LPLT(admin), User:Udufruduhu(admin), User:Sipahoc, User:Lebob, User:Loreleil, User:Bokken(admin), User:Lomita(admin), User:Sardur(admin), User:Rémih(admin), User:Hégésippe Cormier(admin). --Lawren00 (talk) 02:44, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It sure has nothing to do with us here, directly speaking. But it shows that a different Wikipedia, with very similar criteria for politicians, and users with direct access to the sources has ruled against the inclusion of François Asselineau. That should give us a hint : that they must known what they're doing, and that we don't here. Because of this bizarre coalition of FA's supporters and users who can't read French, and can't juge what this is all about. By the way : can you read French ? (I mean really read). If not, how did you get to your conclusion ? --Gede (talk) 18:01, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete he seems to have no impact on french politics, so he does not desserve to have a WP article. He's article kinds the WP fr, which seems unacceptable. Hatonjan (talk) 18:13, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

French Wikipedia member. Silver seren^C 18:52, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You create your own criteria for the validity. Since when a politician should have influence in the French politics to be valid? Let me know the source of this criterion, I missed it. --Lawren00 (talk) 02:57, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Am I missing how he DOESN'T meet the standards for inclusion? The article is sourced and he's been mentioned in notable 3rd party sources. Also, constantly relisting an AfD doesn't get an article deleted. Wildthing61476 (talk) 18:34, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article is sourced but most of the sources merely mention the guy and are not centered on him. The few articles by reliable sources which are centered on him describe him... as a little-known politician ! So far, he has made no impact whatsoever on French politics, he is unknown to the French general public, is never mentioned in any opinion polls and we shall know by friday if he succeeds in securing a valid candidacy for the french presidency (this is very unlikely). In general, he utterly fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG. This is not a nefarious plot by French users campaigning against a political figure. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 08:24, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found no reliable and relevant source, as of now, that would allow to write a verifiable article about his life. Only small tidbits, which doesn't make him notable. Knowing the french appetite for anything related to politics (and do remember that I am not French), any presidential candidate less than utterly unknown would have hundreds of media articles about him, his life and his actions, which is not the case currently. Boréal (talk) 18:49, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So you mean the current article François Asselineau is stuffed with unverifiable information? Tell me which info into the article is not backed with a source. I am curious. --Lawren00 (talk) 02:57, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I still think that, given the available sources, it is not possible to write an article that would be longuer than a couple of sentences without relying on sources that are non-relevant, biased and/or non-centered on the subject, which makes me think that no article can be written, as of now, on this subject, based on the basic principles of Wikipedia (verifiability, neutral point of view). One of my specialities on Wikipedia is to find information and write articles for subjects that were put in AfD, so they are finally deemed to be acceptable (although I give no credit to such labeling of contributors, that's why I've been called "inclusionnist" several times). I would not be honestly able to do such for this article, altough I do acknowledge that others might think otherwise. And I'm still pretty sure that we are in a case were people are pushing to create notability with a Wikipedia article, which is exactly the contrary of what should be done. Anyway, that this article is kept will not prevent me from sleeping at night. Boréal (talk) 13:41, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Considering that every delete vote thus far is from a French Wikipedia member, I feel like it should be given less weight, considering that there appears to be some personal involvement on their part, per whatever this harassment is the subject is doing toward them (which has nothing to do with subject notability). Also, is there some sort of canvassing going on on French Wikipedia? User:Hatonjan's last post was in October. And it seems strange that he would suddenly just know to come here out of the blue. Silver seren^C 18:57, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a poor argument, and you know it. Stick to WP:AGF, please. How many edits on fr.wiki (or on en.wiki for that matter) does it takes to disqualify someone from voting in AfD procedures. I have 3800 edits here, I meet the criterias and the fact that I (or anyone else) also contribute on the French Wiki is not germane to this discussion. Period. Bouchecl (talk) 19:18, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Except all of you are the ones bringing up French Wikipedia's activities as if they matter. Either they do matter or they don't. If they do, then so does any personal involvement with the subject that all of you are dealing with. If they don't, then all the arguments related to French Wikipedia above should be deemed irrelevant. Silver seren^C 19:25, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article is borderline if your read WP:BASIC and WP:POLITICIAN. The main contributor is almost exclusively editing Asselineau and related articles, which also raises issues with regards to WP:COI#Campaigning. This is serious and strictly based on English Wiki rules and procedures. Oh, and by the way, 1) I'm not French 2) it's the first time I vote on this particular article and 3) I'm known as an inclusionnist. Bouchecl (talk) 19:44, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can say that I did not see Bouchecl has a part of the French Wikipedia admin group against Francois Asselineau. That is why I did not include in the list of the Azurfrog's pals. However, Silver seren^C is 100% right regarding Boréal and Hatonjan. --Lawren00 (talk) 02:57, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason why my status as admin on the french wiki has anything to do with my opinion on this article. Or you don't understand what it means to be an admin on Wikipedia (i.e. absolutely no particular power on article content). Seems closer to an ad hominem attack to me than anything else, as I'm really not the "pal" of anyone here. Boréal (talk) 12:58, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing found In the AfD discussion over there on French Wikipedia. Silver seren^C 18:59, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Wow, User:Touriste over there said in the discussion, "I think an influx of French users landing and voting Delete without making a new argument against the subject would be very productive."~~ Silver seren^C 19:01, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Come on now! It means exactly the opposite! How can you manage any source about François Asselineau if you can't even understand this simple sentence: "un afflux de franchouillards débarquant et postant "Delete" sans apporter de nouvel argument serait très contre-productif", which clearly aims at discouraging any vote here (it just means "any influx of Froggies voting Delete without any new argument would be very counter productive"). --Azurfrog (talk) 19:09, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That was my read of the French as well, though one might argue that sending anyone over here to !vote is canvassing, whether or not they make new arguments, and especially if they come from a discussion that leans toward delete (or Keep, for that matter). YMMV. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 19:13, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, my translation software must be acting up. You'd think it would at the very least be able to tell when a word isn't the opposite of itself. But, anyways, that doesn't address the canvassing issue. Silver seren^C 19:17, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This does not seem canvassing to me… It only provides information about similar procedure inter-wikis, like it was done here. This announce does not target user profiles specifically, like Lawren00 did by sending a message to users who supported "keep" in previous AfD requests. Schlum (talk) 19:32, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Except that every single person, just about, in that discussion on French Wikipedia, then came over here. I don't see how that's not canvassing. And I don't condone what Lawren did either. Silver seren^C 19:42, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As you can see, I’m a fr:wiki editor, and did not give a "delete" advice, as I think it’s an en:wiki matter. Btw, I think that how french editors analyze the given "sources" (in their natural language) and guy notability (who is a french politician) may be interesting elements to take in account by en:wiki editors ;) I used to be very active in the "PàS" which are "AfD" equivalent in fr:wiki, and know that what happened in other languages wiki is often taken in account. What happens here can interest some fr:wiki editors for the same reasons. Schlum (talk) 20:02, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in the previous AfD, do you think it would be appropriate for us to delete an article here and then go to French Wikipedia and try to get it deleted there? It seems like that would be highly inappropriate, as if one is trying to control the content of every other language Wikipedia. Silver seren^C 20:16, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator is an active editor in en:wiki, as in fr:wiki ; I think you are mixing up fr:wiki with fr:wiki editors (who can be active in other wikis). I already saw AfD in fr:wiki launched by users more active in another wiki, after it had been deleted in their local wiki, yes, and did not find it inappropriate. Can I remind you that the creator and main contributor / defender of this article is too mostly active in fr:wiki but for this article ? Schlum (talk) 21:06, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So we've got Lawren and the nominator, fine, that cancels out, if you want to word it that way. But i'm talking about all the other French Wikipedia users voting in this AfD, users like Hatonjan, who hasn't made an edit on English Wikipedia for five months and suddenly shows up now thanks to the French Wikipedia discussion pointing it out. Silver seren^C 21:13, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"all the other French Wikipedia users voting in this AfD" ? I myself can see than most of them are pretty/regularly active in en:wp too… Do you deny them the right to give an advice ? This article in en:wiki was talked about in a french article recently, that was discussed in fr:wiki ([63]) ; does the fact that editors that are mostly in fr:wiki, but active in en:wiki too, show interested in the procedure here really astonish you ? You pointed out an exception, and as you can see here, at least two other users tried to discourage same kind of contributions in en:wiki ; hard to see canvassing here IMHO. Schlum (talk) 22:05, 12 March 2012 (UTC
Silver seren^C did right to point that link. It is not Touriste who is calling help from his pals but Azurfrog evidence here. Let me translate his sarcastic call It is interesting to see that the main defense for keeping the article was brought by a French native... Then we should not leave him alone over there, poor thing. This explain why so many users from the French wikipedia are coming here to impose French Wikipedia administrators point of view here. --Lawren00 (talk) 04:17, 13 March 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Canvassing found [64]. Schlum (talk) 19:24, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rock freaking solid Keep: I would be hardpressed to find many Delete grounds more specious, insulting and - indeed - reprehensible than that there are editors on another Wikipedia who find an article's existence here inconvenient. Now perhaps the French Wikipedia operates off of different rules, but here on the English Wikipedia all notability criteria are subordinate to WP:GNG, which establishes nothing more than that a subject has been discussed in significant detail in multiple reliable sources. Period. It doesn't matter whether he's a notable politician or not - WP:POLITICIAN is subordinate to the GNG. It doesn't matter whether the reasons for this coverage are silly. It doesn't matter whether or not he's a self-promoter. It doesn't matter whether there's enough biographical information in print to write a credible biography of the man. What matters is this: does he meet the GNG? He does, by quite a comfortable margin. Done bloody deal. Startlingly enough, the nom concedes that he does in this diff: [65] Perhaps the editors of the French Wikipedia can tend to their own knitting, and we'll tend to ours. (The question of why the existence of this article bothers them so much we'll table to another time and place.)
Beyond anything else, given Nyttend's cogent point that the subject's position as a Parisian city councillor is normally the sort cited as a pass on WP:POLITICIAN, the Council of Paris is the legislative body for the department of Paris, giving Asselineau a clear pass on criterion #1 as a provincial legislator. Ravenswing 19:53, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But the subject hasn't been discussed in significant detail. All articles quoted mention him in passing, or mention the strangeness of his claim to be a serious candidate, or slightly mock him : none of which is enough to write an article. Theses articles can't be used to write an article about, say, his life, his family, where he studied, his political career, or his ideas - he's a politician, and I can't even find his political program from these articles. The very vehemence of you "keep" I find a little unsettling : fr.wp follows the same notability criteria as en.wp, the discussion there is open and full of arguments, and you just dismiss all of that with "those delete grounds are specious and insulting". You want to keep this article ? Be my guest. But it won't make him meet the GNG - not if you can read French and understand how flimsy his claim to notability is. We weighted every source against "significant coverage, reliable sources" : it doesn't pass with flying colors as you seem to think. It's merely an Internet buzz. Esprit Fugace (talk) 22:36, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: Perhaps you could benefit from - especially looking at your edit history - some experience in what consensus on the English Wikipedia recognizes as "reliable sources" and "significant detail." I find, for instance, that these citations [66][67][68] from Les Échos, all three cited in the article, qualify as reliable sources and discuss the subject in significant detail as WP:GNG defines it. The Numerama edit is a feature article [69] on the subject, and that qualifies as a reliable source which discusses the subject in significant detail.
Would these qualify under the guidelines in place on the French Wikipedia? I would not for an instant dream of surfing on over, having no experience with the same, and telling the editors there how their notability guidelines work. I think we should expect the same courtesy in return. Ravenswing 00:32, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Despite how it looks, I'm actually not here to argue about F.Asselineau : I'm here because I'm hurt by your comment, who heavily implies all sorts of very offensive things about fr.wp. "Specious, insulting, and reprehensible" ? And I'm supposed to take a lesson of courtesy from you ? Esprit Fugace (talk) 06:37, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I imply nothing of the sort about the French Wikipedia; no doubt there are thousands of editors there who recognize that the rest of the world does not operate by their rules. Ravenswing 10:05, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please take note that several of the French wikipedia contributors are also regular contributors to the English wikipedia (including yours truly), so this is hardly a French invasion. I'd really like to know how you can judge that Asselineau does not fail WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG : IMHO, he does fail them by a very wide margin. He has no influence whatsoever on French politics, no notability among the French general public, has been mentioned as a city councillor in several newspapers articles but has not been the subject of extensive coverage and is in general a complete unknown. What more do you need ? Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 08:17, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have already repeated the links, from reliable sources, which plainly discuss Asselineau in significant detail. Only two are required to pass the GNG; I stopped reviewing links after I had found four. I have already mentioned that having been a member of a provincial legislature - as the Council of Paris is - is a by-definition pass on criterion #1 of WP:POLITICIAN. M. Asselineau's influence on French politics and name recognition among the French general public have nothing to do with notability criteria on the English Wikipedia. Azurfrog, below, has the honesty to concede that he - and perhaps others - are applying the standards of the French Wikipedia to this AfD. Perhaps you are making the same mistake, and should consider applying the standards of this Wikipedia to articles and discussions here, or else go to the talk pages of the appropriate guidelines and see if you can change consensus to reflect your own POV. Ravenswing 10:05, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I strongly disagree with your referrence to the criterion #1 of WP:POLITICIAN. The wording there is "members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature.". Obiously this is a wording by someone from North America, with implicit referrence to US states and Canadian provinces, that is federal entities. The "département de Paris" (indeed the town of Paris under another name in French public law) has nothing to do with such federal entities ; in France only two local assemblies have legislative powers : Congress of New Caledonia and (arguably) Assembly of French Polynesia. Assimilation of the Council of Paris to things like Florida State Legislature or Legislative Assembly of Ontario is absolutely unreasonable and denotes a bad understanding of French public law. French Tourist (talk) 11:20, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: The words "federal entity" appear nowhere in WP:POLITICIAN, and you cannot credibly proclaim criterion #1 to mean something it does not actually say, going on to claim that since this Council does not meet your personal interpretation it therefore does not qualify. It's to be expected that you'd have a poor understanding of the English Wikipedia's policies, of course, but as I've mentioned elsewhere in this AfD, if you want to change those policies, seeking a consensus for your POV on their talk pages is the proper way to do that. Ravenswing 11:37, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: OK if you want to read wordings litterately rather than try to undertand the meaning of sentences, I can modify my reasoning to adapt it. WP:POLITICIAN invites admission of every member of "national, state or provincial legislature.", and council of Paris is not such an assembly, first because it is not a "legislature" (unlike "Florida State Legislature"), and second because Paris, which is both a "commune" and a "département", is neither a nation, a state or a province. I have no reason to ask for any change in en:wp policies, I suggest to follow them, and to follow them litterally. French Tourist (talk) 11:44, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is something seriously unhealthy in the arguments of seren above (and only his, I understand very well and respect the position of other editors here, like S Marshall or Ravenswing who underline they have had a look at the sources and find them "significant" enough). Seren, as concerns his position, seems to make the straw man fallacy that French wikipedia users are here in quest of power on english speaking Wikipedia, a kind of colonial war. This is obviously wrong and does not help to keep a good working atmosphere here ; we are not here to speak of cross-wiki power but to open and discuss sources to judge if WP:GNG is met or not. I have decided to make this observation when seeing his last absurd comment ("do you think it would be appropriate for us to delete an article here and then go to French Wikipedia and try to get it deleted there?" - of course yes it would be appropriate, we sometimes receive warnings by foreign wikipedia users about multiwiki spam and we appreciate them). Arguments for deleting based on the possible bad behaviour of Asselineau's friends on some wiki are obviously poor, symmetric arguments for keeping based on the supposed bad behaviour of French wikipedia's users here are as poor : "oppose French Wikipedia control" is a void motive for keeping ! French Tourist (talk) 20:47, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: It's no poorer an argument than those made by the nominator, which advance no valid deletion grounds and include that the article has been deleted before on the French Wikipedia. Ravenswing 20:56, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- He completely fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG, is largely unknown in his own country and makes no impact whatsoever on French politics. What more do you need ? Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 08:17, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Per WP:POLITICIAN and WP:N. Also suggest an immediate block of the nominator for WP:DISRUPTive nomination. 204.167.92.26 (talk) 22:19, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Vote by a non-registered user (i.e. IP address).~~ Plus I don't see how the nomination could be "disruptive" since I am not the only one to have this opinion. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 08:19, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Unwarranted. I've made my opinions of the nomination clear, but the nom is scarcely a SPA lunging across from the French Wikipedia to muddy the waters; he has nearly 5,000 edits, most of them in articlespace, and a strong and varied recent edit history. We don't block people for simple advocacy of a position. Ravenswing 22:33, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete not enough known political person. The long list of "reference" mentionned above are mainly lists of local polls results ... M Asselineau is mentionned as a participant but not as a major politician. Wikipedia in english could not be an annuary of all local persons that declare themself candidate for all election. --GdGourou - °o° - Talk to me 22:32, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What? 204.167.92.26 (talk) 22:38, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They are very clearly not all local poll results. And you are yet another French Wikipedian canvassed to this discussion. Silver seren^C 22:44, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[70]… Schlum (talk) 22:59, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is he someone I should be concerned about? He seems to generally edit areas wholly unrelated to France. Silver seren^C 23:07, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
…and to do maintenance work in en:wiki since early 2005… and not only on subjects related to France, or for inter-wiki links. I see that Wikipedia:Assume good faith is as maltreated here as in fr Wikipédia. Schlum (talk) 23:12, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really involved in deletion request on EN:WP as i have a lot to do on FR:WP. But I'm very upset by the communication pushing by supporter of M Asselineau. I think you've not really read all mentionned article but in summary M Asselineau is a local politician who declare himself candidate to the French presidential election, one by fifty, but one that offcially don't actually reach the 500 signtaures from french mayors necessary to validate his candidature. Most media journaliste don't know him and the only info found on net are local participation to talk show, results from local election (name+percent), and the more detailled articles indicate that he is unknown or complain to be not listen... the best is BFM radio-tv presentator who declare that he receive a lot of mail-twits-... praying him to invites M Asselineau but as he don't know him, he couldn't prepare any interview. --GdGourou - °o° - Talk to me 09:45, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break[edit]

Neutral - I second Schlum about the issue re WP:en guideline on notability and the fact that WP:fr users should not judge based on what happened on WP:fr, but WP:en users should understand that while the existence of this article on WP:en is not an issue for WP:en, it is for WP:fr, that is being harassed by the friends of Mr Asselineau. Another RfD on WP:fr is again reaching the same result, and I suspect the same opposite result will happen here for 3 reasons: (i) whether or not this article exists is not a real issue to WP:en, (ii) lots of pseudo-sources in french, create a myst of notoriety that actually does not exist, but the language issue is here instrumental and finally (iii) natural negative reaction to what is perceived as an external POV (the very vocal friends of Mr Asselineau, such as seren, understand very well they have to play that chord, and it works fine, judging from some comments such as Ravenswing's). Asavaa (talk) 22:49, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since when am I a "Friend of Mr. Asselineau"? Silver seren^C 23:07, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you and I are both "friends of M Asselineau" today, because we don't want his article deleted.
Deuxtroy says it well on fr.wiki here. En.wiki has an article about this French politician. An election in France, involving the article subject, gets under way and a user chooses this moment to start the fourth AfD in less than a year about the same person despite the fact that the previous discussions all led to "keep" outcomes... what are we supposed to think?—S Marshall T/C 23:12, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That your Google translator is out of order. I did not mention any election. Pointed out thay en:WP criteria differs from fr:WP ones. And suggested that rudeness is not the better way to have open-minded talks. And choose to be deleted for the french page. Without caring how it turns on en:WP. But never made any relationship between this AFD and election. Nor between Keep advices and any talks about "frienship". Please don't turn my words. Or if it is not correct english (sorry but I am not used to write), don't put your words in my mouth. Deuxtroy (talk) 10:18, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need Google translate to read French. I didn't say you said that. I said "Deuxtroy said it well here", and linked to what you said. Then I added my own commentary afterwards.—S Marshall T/C 22:38, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your position is quite interesting, S Marshall: you do not question one minute the motives of the people who created this article for an unknown politician desperatly seeking recognition (if you can read french, this article clearly says that while he tried to use a media authority to receive a mandatory time slot in the media, said authority ruled that his notoriety is zero), you prefer to question the motives of people who decided 4 years ago that he had no notoriety, who are currently examining the case again and are deciding again (on WP:fr) he has no notoriety and is in fact trying to use WP to create notoriety, and who are tired of being harassed on WP:fr with the existence of the WP:en article as a proof of notoriety. This is the only reason people from WP:fr are interested in this article: it is used in the framework of a disruptive campaign on WP:fr. Period. Asavaa (talk) 06:51, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I accept that the article is creating a problem on fr.wiki. I must admit that I would not personally have created this article; I think there are many more important France-related articles to create and develop. (We ought to have an article on everyone in the Légion d'honneur, for example.) But the reason why I'm questioning the motives here is that we're having the same discussion again and I think users may be having trouble getting the message. Three times now, we've had a full discussion on the matter and found that this article meets en.wiki's criteria for inclusion. The process being used here has its own link on en.wiki: WP:KEEPLISTINGTILITGETSDELETED. We don't allow that.—S Marshall T/C 12:20, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, considering the previous discussions, I certainly wouldn't have listed it again, and I reckon it is a loss of time and a source of frustration for lots of people. The discussion might be interesting, but it is almost impossible to have a reasonnable discussion, so...the only advise I would have is to keep AGF in mind with the WP:fr people coming here and to take into account their frustration ;-) Asavaa (talk) 17:42, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I rather hope I'm reading your comments wrong, Asavaa ... are you seriously claiming that my stance on the subject's notability is the product of propaganda? Beyond that, though, in looking over the edit history of the Delete proponents, only the nom, Gdgourou and Azurfrog have any particular record of recent edits to the English Wikipedia. The other three are virtual SPAs, whose edits are sporadic at best. What, may I inquire, led them all of a sudden to participate in this AfD? Would you believe it fair to characterize them as the "very vocal enemies of M. Asselineau," out to eliminate him from the public record for base political motives, or would you consider that a gross breach of WP:AGF?
Strange though it might sound, there are actually editors on the English Wikipedia who gauge articles based on black-letter policies and guidelines, and who make their opinions known for no other motive than to build this encyclopedia. Some of them might actually be participating in this AfD. Go figure. Ravenswing 00:46, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am exactly saying that the appearance of notability has been created by a very vocal propaganda. The reason why WP:fr users come here (which is probably not a good idea if you do not understand correctly how the local WP works) is that this article is used on WP:fr as an argument (see, he is notable since he has an article on WP:en) in a very tiring and time consuming harassment campaign on WP:fr. People coming here and you are treating as censors are just WP:fr users twho are tired of this campaign, some AGF would help you understanding that. I am not french, and I can assure you this guy is completely unkown. As simple as that. You might regret it and regret the way french media are working, but the stance on WP:fr has always been that we are not there to create notoriety for any would-be politician. His brand new party never had anybody elected (one of his supporters on WP:fr said the party had 1,300 members, not exactly a very large movement) and he himself had only a single minor elected position a long time ago in another party (not within WP:fr's criteria, I dunno here). I did not come here to tell you what to do on Wp:en, I came here to give some information. If you do not like the information, so be it. Asavaa (talk) 06:51, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Delete? Why? I'm seeing no rationale here. A well written and notable article about a French official of the City of Paris, and leader of a political party (albeit a small one). So the guy actually wants a WIkipedia article, so what? Far, faaar less significant personalities have articles on this project, no question. This guy is some sort of eurosceptic.. suspect these weird repeated deletion requests are some kind of political thing (wouldn't know, though). As for what goes on on frWiki, that's nobody's concern over here: Wikipedia is not a source. -- Director (talk) 23:13, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't know what to think about a lot of the information in this article, but his position as a city councillor is sufficient. It's our practice to keep articles on aldermen/councillors/burghers for major cities, and Paris is one of the world's leading cities. Nyttend (talk) 01:53, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply : I am not sure you are right here. I had a look at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Politicians which reads : City councillors and other major municipal officers are not automatically notable, although precedent has tended to favor keeping members of the main citywide government of internationally famous metropolitan areas such as Toronto, Chicago, Tokyo or London. You will notice that this refers to members of the citywide government. In Paris, the relevant mandate would be "adjoint au maire de Paris" (they are presently 37) not "conseiller de Paris" (they are, by law, 163). I have checked how many members they are in the main council of the cities cited in this policy page - I did not easily find the information for Tokyo (their government system seems quite intricate), but if I believe Wikipedia, there are 44 councillors in Toronto, 50 in Chicago and 25 in London. So the importance of being a member of the council of Paris should be relativized. French Tourist (talk) 07:36, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Remarkably enough, very little time has been spent to talk about guidelines, and how François Asselineau fits them, be it the French guidelines (irrelevant here) or the English ones (which should be discussed rather than just brandished). Indeed, contributors mainly active on French WP implicity refer (way too much, quite certainly) to the French guidelines for politicians, that insist on significant press coverage centering primarily on the subject matter: no simple mention (as are many of the articles listed above) is acceptable to prove notability. Likewise, any article that would just be a resume (such as this one, or that one, mentioned by Ravenswing) will not be considered as "significant coverage", as secondary sources will be expected. Moreover, being an aldermen/councillor/burgher, even of a major city, is not per se enough to qualify.
Now, guidelines applicable here focus on "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage": a lot has already been said about Asselineau getting abundant coverage (which is true, even though he may not be the prime subject of many articles). But is he a major political figure? I think not, even locally (indeed, Le Nouvel Observateur, a major French magazine, recently concluded that "his (political) representativeness is nil"). Beyond that, guidelines provide that "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability", which does seem to apply to him. Which brings us back to what "significant press coverage" should be, as a great many of the above articles insist he is totally unknown and exist only because Asselineau is so vocal about how he is being dealt with unfairly, leading to the general feeling (after reading said articles) that this significant press coverage is about vaporware.
According to WP:GNG, "significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material", which probably is the key difference with French guidelines. However, for my part, I could use some extra factual explanations of what a "significant" press coverage should be, and, conversely, what would not be a significant press coverage. Is it just about quantity, provided sources are "reliable and independant"? And some better insight insight into what a "major political figure" really means would be appreciated. --Azurfrog (talk) 07:02, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Significant means that there are enough reliable (that you can trust, that are trusted for relating facts) and independent (the publisher should not be directly related to Francois Asselineau or UPR) sources to build a "decent article". All single piece of information in the current article is backed by information sourced from the major French Newspaper. And of these all together makes an article of (18 276 octets), 5 pages. --Lawren00 (talk) 10:24, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, having tried to start a real discussion on how precisely Asselineau fits the guideline, I rather expected a real, serious answer such as the one provided by Ravenswing below, not just the same BS all over again. --Azurfrog (talk) 10:32, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe anyone is asserting that Asselineau is a "major political figure," which he plainly isn't. The element of WP:POLITICIAN being cited is the one where city councillors of major cities get a pass. Whether the Council of Paris counts is certainly debatable, which is why I'm going with criterion #1, where members of a provincial legislature - which the Council of Paris os - get a free pass. As far as "significant" press coverage goes, it's indeed about the length of the piece; a large paragraph, as in the Les Echos cites, has long been considered sufficient. Beyond that, WP:BIO holds that "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability ..." generally taken to mean that a preponderance of short mentions in numerous reliable sources will suffice. Ravenswing 10:15, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your answer, which does help. However, I very much doubt that anyone can consider the Council of Paris as a "provincial legislature"; "Conseils généraux" (since this is what you are referring to) have never been deemed to have the requested degree of independence. Could you explain in some detail the reasons why you believe it can be considered as such, given the centralized nature of the French State? --Azurfrog (talk) 11:31, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is the official deliberative body for a political entity that is legally a province of its nation. Whether it is an independent body, or whether it has genuine authority, is no part of criteria #1. Every dictatorship and autocracy out there has deliberative and legislative bodies, but we don't disqualify their members on that fact alone. Ravenswing 11:41, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Come on! Could it be that you are mistaking "départements" and "provinces"? On what ground exactly would you say that a "département" qualifies as a "province"? --Azurfrog (talk) 11:52, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, Paris is not a "province" legally. There are only three provinces in France : South Province, North Province and Loyalty Islands Province. Additionally, the words "deliberative" and "legislative" are not synonyms. French Tourist (talk) 11:49, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In this, Azurfrog and French Tourist are correct, but I can see why there is confusion. On en.wiki we are accustomed to thinking of capital cities in a certain way; we think of the huge, teeming American megalopolises, or of London which has a larger population than Scotland. Senior politicians in such a place are figures of major importance. Not so on the continent of Europe, which has a high population but a scattered and dispersed one. European cities are small—the two biggest on the continent are Madrid and Berlin, and if you put them together they're still smaller than London. Paris (despite being deservedly famous for its beauty) is small even for a European capital city. I do not agree that all councillors of Paris are inherently notable, although my position is that this particular one is.—S Marshall T/C 12:20, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but then the funny part is that Ravenswing just conceded that his major rationale for his Keep vote was precisely criterion #1 of WP:POLITICIAN ("I'm going with criterion #1"). So that the more we try to pin down precisely which criterion applies here, and the more it seems to become elusive, or - at the very least - highly debatable. --Azurfrog (talk) 12:29, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What the very unfunny part is here is the degree to which our French visitors here are demonstrating deficiencies with either the English language or in comprehending the policies and guidelines of the English Wikipedia. Part and parcel of this was the nom attempting to strike out the vote of an anon IP, when anon IPs are allowed to fully participate in AfDs as in most other areas of the English Wikipedia.

Another is this issue. It is painfully obvious that the language of criteria #1 refers to second-level subnational entities generally, since of course many countries don't use the English words "state" or "province" to designate them. As such, comments along the lines of how many French subnational entities have the word "Province" in their names are innately WP:CIVIL violations. That Paris is legally a "department," and that "department" is the word used in France for second-level subnational entities, is not in question. (I hope.)

A third is the propensity of our visitors to put words in people's mouths. I most certainly did not "concede" (or state, or infer, or anything else along those lines) that my "major rationale" for my Keep vote was WP:POLITICIAN. It is that the subject satisfies the GNG. I stated that explicitly, I've stated that more than once, and I am at a complete loss to understand how anyone could fail to recognize that, short of deliberate rhetoric-chopping. Ravenswing 17:04, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I take back this "concede", and apologize to have jumped to a general conclusion, from what was in fact just an explanation of how you felt about Conseil de Paris. As regards your statement "that the language of criteria #1 refers to second-level subnational entities", that may be, except that equating a département with a State or Province is an obvious OR, trying to define a French entity on the basis of a wholly different kind of organization: as explained below by French Tourist, a département is not the "second-level subnational entity" in France. --Azurfrog (talk) 18:25, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And what would be, according to you, the second-level subnational entity in France? National entity being obvious, first-level subnational entity are obviously the "Regions". Aren't departements then de facto the second-level subnational entities in France? Or do you know of any subnational entity in France that would fit either over Regions or between Regions and Departements? I can't think of any personally. 83.202.202.201 (talk) 20:39, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry to still disagree on this "province and state" question. I posted further upwards a bona fide interpretation of its meaning, that is federal entities, or at least entities that have some broad autonomy making them reasonably analogous to federal entities (e.g. New-Caledonia in France, or Scotland in the United Kingdom). You explained to me with some harshness that since the word "federal" did not appear in WP:POLITICIAN, I had introduced there my "personal interpretation". I have hence tried to follow your suggestion and to found my reasoning on the precise wording of WP:POLITICIAN. Now you explain to me that, though the expression "second-level subnational entity" did not appear in WP:POLITICIAN this was the meaning intended by its authors. I am sorry to disagree : this is _your_ personal interpretation which is far from obvious. Indeed I am not sure to understand what you mean by "second-level subnational entity" (Google returns to me a number of issues of "second-level sub-national", with a dash between "sub" and "national"). As far as I understand, this expression is mostly used by the FAO GeoNetwork OGC Web Map Server, but I did not manage in a cursory glance to understand what it means and how it applies to France. As far as we have been now, I don't agree (and don't disagree either) with your assertions "It is painfully obvious that the language of criteria #1 refers to second-level subnational entities" and ""department" is the word used in France for second-level subnational entities", I simply don't understand them. What is your definition of a "second level subnational entity" ? French Tourist (talk) 17:21, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With hindsight, I could have been more constructive and I come back to be (but it will mean being long). You have (at least) two different possible hierarchies between administrative entities ("collectivités locales" in French legalese speak). You can decide that A < B when B has some level of hierarchical control over the decisions taken by the authorities of A ; you can postulate that A < B when the territory of B is broader than the territory of A. In French public law, the first hierarchy is extremely plain : the French Republic is hierarchically superior to any collectivité locale, and there are no hierarchical relations between collectivités locales : regional executives have no control at all on departmental executives, who have no control at all on town executives. If you use "second level" in this meaning, Paris is indeed a second-level subnational entity, but so is Rochefourchat (pop. 1) and it seems unlikely that this is the meaning of WP:POLITICIAN : admitting that the councils of collectivités locales can be considered as legislative (some other non obvious question), every municipal councillor of France, present or past, would be admissible to an article (they are several hundred thousand, probably more than a million if you count together present and past ones). If you use "second level" in the second meaning, I am far from sure that WP:POLITICIAN means that, but anyway it would not apply to Paris since its territory is strictly included in the territory of Île-de-France, which is itself a proper part of the French territory. I hope it clarifies my objection. French Tourist (talk) 17:44, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ravenswing, it would be nice if you would stop talking about "French visitors", as if we came here solely for the pleasure of discussing François "nobody" Asselineau : Azurfrog and myself are regular contributors on the english-language wikipedia, and that is also the case for several of the voters here. And I confirm the fact that all councillors of Paris are not inherently notable - far from it, actually. BTW, should this article be kept - God forbid, for IMHO en wikipedia would really make a fool of itself - it will be pretty easy to verify in the following days/weeks/months, as we are having an election year, that FA has no impact whatsoever on French politics. He is very unlikely to be a valid candidate for the presidency (we shall have the official list next monday) and almost as unlikely to make any impact on the parliamentary elections. Call me naive, but how can someone who is not notable in his own country meet any notability guidelines here ? Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 17:52, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, your oft-repeated incredulity is getting tendentious. The links to WP:GNG, WP:POLITICIAN, WP:BIO and WP:N are there for you to read. The standards for notability on Wikipedia are what they are, and hundreds of thousands of editors work with them just fine. If you disagree with them so strongly, and you lack the time, inclination or ability to sway consensus to your liking, no one compels you to edit here. Ravenswing 09:06, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no relevant source for this article. Hégésippe | ±Θ± 08:51, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what this argument even means. And this is yet another person that was predicted to show up above. Silver seren^C 13:42, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As Lawren00 request Silver seren to participe to this deletion request here, and all the energy he spend to protect this article, i assume that's some Wikipedia:Canvassing here but from both part... By regarding WP:GNG, the subject need not be the main topic of the source material, that's not the case in the source given for not french speaking user, I could translate on request... --GdGourou - °o° - Talk to me 15:12, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I warned non-French natives because all the French administrators were forced to come here by Azurfrog (admin) ~~as he is calling his puppies~~: Gede(admin), Jean-Jacques Georges, French Tourist(admin), Schlum, Hatonjan, Boréal(admin), Esprit Fugace(admin), GdGourou(admin), User:Hégésippe Cormier(admin) for those who came here already. And the other we can expect in the coming days User:LPLT(admin), User:Udufruduhu(admin), User:Sipahoc, User:Lebob, User:Loreleil, User:Bokken(admin), User:Lomita(admin), User:Sardur(admin), User:Rémih(admin)... Let me repeat the words he used WE SHOULD, he forced other admins ~~and their puppets~~ to come here complaining how Wiki En is bad and how French wikipedia Admins ~~are such superior elite that they~~ can go on any wiki to explain how things have to be done on their point of view. Numerama finally wrote another article about your ~~miserable~~ behaviour[71] that is adding to the list of 50 sources above. ~~You can be very proud of yourself.~~ --Lawren00 (talk) 15:49, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"his puppies", "he forced other admins", "their puppets", "how French wikipedia Admins are such superior elite". Please stop trolling. French Tourist (talk) 15:59, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"I warned non-French natives because all the French administrators were forced to come here by Azurfrog (admin) as he is calling his puppies": what a laugh! But then, Lawren00, why have you forgotten to mention that I warned "my English puppies" even before the French ones, as you can see here. So, as the English editor you must be, being such a censor of French ones (oh! aren't you?), I thus gave you advance warning so you could, yourself and other non-French natives, give your advice on the French AfD.
Ain't I a nice guy to all my puppies? --Azurfrog (talk) 16:21, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Forced ??? Who forced anyone to do anything ? And who is supposed to be whose "puppy" ? Actually, if anything, numerama seems to be making fun of Asselineau's desperate attempts to have a page on the french wikipedia : but the article is quite neutral, so one can hardly say that it denounces a so-called "miserable behaviour". BTW, Lawren00 is becoming quite insulting here, don't you think ? Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 17:52, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This comment [72] lighted me up in addition to that one earlier [73], but it is true that I does not justify such words so I remove them. --Lawren00 (talk) 01:55, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - AfD is not supposed to be about whether one likes or does not like a topic. It is not supposed to be about whether one thinks a page is perfectly written. It is supposed to be about whether a topic is notable under our guidelines, which call for MULTIPLE, INDEPENDENT, SUBSTANTIAL pieces of PUBLISHED coverage in so-called "RELIABLE SOURCES." This is a clear keep based on that criteria. Check out the footnotes — public figure. Carrite (talk) 17:47, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Did you actually read the sources ? Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 17:52, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you actually read WP:POINT??? This article has already been kept twice. This entire nomination seems to me a POV-driven exercise and is highly disruptive. Carrite (talk) 18:09, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-Jacques, keep civil : Carritte was active in a previous discussion, and it is not a good idea to treat him as a venusian visitor opening randomly this page. He is putting the debate on a right way, while underscoring that the sources are at the heart of the admissibility decision to take, this is constructive and you should not answer him as you rightly do above to some very uncivil and noisy other contributors. As concerns the heart of the problem, I disagree with the word "substantial" ; this is obvious for some sources (e.g. 18 - only one sentence about Asselineau, to say he will be non-candidate to an election), but it is hard to discuss since the strategy of the article defenders has been to drown us under pointless documents, whose sheer number hides their emptiness. French Tourist (talk) 18:04, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I apologize if I seemed uncivil, but the whole debate is rather irritating. What I meant is that none of the sources mentioning him establishes that he is a relevant political figure - far from it. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 18:20, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You keep saying that, and I wonder if it's getting through to you that the subject's relevance as a political figure has nothing to do with the pertinent notability criteria on this Wikipedia. None of the sources NEED to establish him as a "relevant political figure." They do not need to treat him respectfully. A reliable source discussing the subject in "significant detail" qualifies under the GNG even if it categorizes him in the most dismissive terms. Please stick to how the English Wikipedia's policies and guidelines operate, however much they may differ from the ways you're used to seeing. Ravenswing 20:54, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Administrative divisions of Metropolitan France v2.svg

Administrative divisions of France.

* Comment A recurrent argument by those citing WP:POLITICIAN in favor of keeping the article relates to the fact that Mr. Asselineau is a former member of the Council of Paris, a deliberative body described by Ravenswing and others as a "provincial" legislature. However, as seen on this graphic, General councils of France (department) are a third-level structure in the political hierarchy of France, below the 22 Regional Councils and the National Assembly, but above the 37,000 or so communes. Bouchecl (talk) 18:35, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's rather a pretty picture, and I'm sure I could come up with a similar one for the United States government, where as in France there are bodies with greater authority than state governments. What's your point? Ravenswing 20:54, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand this reply. This naive picture of French administrative divisions wants to mean that in a naive discourse, French _regions_ (not "departments") are the equivalent of US states. For you what are the US "bodies" which would be analogue to regions ? I can't follow you. French Tourist (talk) 21:21, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My point? The graphic (lifted from Administrative divisions of France) shows that departments are not a second-level of government but at best a third level. Of course, as French Tourist mentions, it's a naive way of seeing things, since France is a unitary state where regions or departments have no jurisdictions of their own, as stated in fr:Administration territoriale de la France (but not in the English version, interestingly). Oh, and I can't wait for Ravenswing version of the US division of power between the federal government, something and the states. Bouchecl (talk) 22:01, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Third level nation wide, but that would be a second-level subnational entity, first-level subnational entity being the Regions. 83.202.202.201 (talk) 23:03, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict) Even then, considering that French regions "are the equivalent of US states" would really be comparing apples and oranges: it is so different really that drawing conclusions on such biased premises would be tantamount to Original Research. While we are at it, one could just as well claim that in the EU, the political entities best corresponding to US States are those States belonging to the Union, namely France, Germany, Spain, etc. --Azurfrog (talk) 22:09, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant coverage in reliable sources to meet the GNG. Maybe someone could WP:SNOW close this now? No valid deletion rationales have been offered and the discussion is going off-topic. --Pontificalibus (talk)
Is it "going off-topic" to stress that having been a member of a Conseil General falls very short of being a member "of a national, state or provincial legislature", and thus fails notability of politicians? As for the "significant coverage", it might meet GNG, but even this is debatable when one goes through the actual content of this coverage. --Azurfrog (talk) 10:35, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't get too wrapped up in the special (i.e. optional alternative) notability standards for politicians, this is an easy Keep under GNG, in my opinion. Carrite (talk) 16:13, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is why I ended up changing my opinion to Keep, taking into account the definition given for "significant coverage" by WP:BIO (= shallow occurrences, but many of them). --Azurfrog (talk) 17:25, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A WP:SNOW closure sounds about right at this point, with sentiment running over 2:1 in favor of keeping the article, and every Delete proponent apparently applying the standards of another Wikipedia to this AfD. You don't see twenty straight Delete voters show up for the most obvious get-rid-of-it-now articles, and that's what it'd take. Ravenswing 18:21, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's salt Articles for deletion/François Asselineau (5th nomination) while we're at it ;-) .--Pontificalibus (talk) 11:45, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No need for overkill, keeping WP:AGF in mind ;-)... This 4th discussion has led to a better understanding of where GNG differed between en:WP and fr:WP (where depth of coverage and significant secondary sources are expected, and mere mentions or résumés, however numerous, never accepted as a proof of notability). Now that this misunterstanding has been clarifed, I don't expect new AfDs will pop up here. --Azurfrog (talk) 12:02, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Interesting figure on the french political scene Pierro78 (talk) 10:31, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, since he meets English Wikipedia's political notability criteria. GoodDay (talk) 03:42, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, not very strong. Yes, I have changed my mind since the 2nd nomination where I had been a vocal supporter of deletion. This evolution is linked to the appearance of new sources, mainly (if not only) an article in the local daily Le Dauphiné Libéré brought to attention by one of the !-voters on the :fr-deletion debate (and not yet hinted here as far as I know). For the first time, I admit that a good quality source brings sufficient coverage on non-trivial activities of Mr Asselineau. I have not changed my mind on the notices in Les Echos about which I was (and still am) on well-informed and mutually understanding disagreement with S Marshall ; plain résumés are not _sufficient_ coverage in my opinion. But in the very last months, substantial articles begin to appear, OK I have always been ready to review my position if sources did spring up ; they did, I follow them. French Tourist (talk) 08:56, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment One of the falsest things in this debate, after the stupid and lunatic accusations of a crusade to enslave the English-speaking project by :fr sysops, is the assertion according to which admissibility rules are deeply different on :fr and :en. While it is true that both projects have sufficient inclusion criteria which are not the same (e.g. coverage in two national media on a period of several years on :fr, membership of a state or provincial legislature here), this is quite irrelevant since none of this criteria is met, as far as I interpret them. But obiously both Wikipedias follow the same simple rule : anything which is covered by reasonably substantial reliable sources can be kept. While every project has its own jurisprudence and sensibilities, arguments given in a !-vote on :fr -especially those linked on analysis of sources- are relevant for a deletion debate on :en and reciprocately (which does not mean of course that the result of one of these debates should be taken into account on the other Wikipedia - the important things is what arguments are brought, not how they are finally weighted at closure). It is quite ironical that my argument for keeping comes from the :fr debate while some persons here are nearly shouting that we should keep our eyes from this discussion. No, we should not, and I shall insert the link before leaving : fr:Discussion:François Asselineau/Suppression. As it is a !-vote here and the important thing is arguments, reading this lengthy page in French would be useful for closure ; while a number of things said there are obviously irrelevant for use on :en (and even irrelevant for use anywhere, including on fr for some of them :-)), the discussions about sources, about what they really contain and whether they are reliable and substantial enough, are pertinent for a discussion on _any_ wiki aiming at gathering reliable information in an encyclopedia project. French Tourist (talk) 08:56, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There's nothing false at all about the assertion: several of the French admins have admitted outright that the notability standards there are stricter than they are here, and the nom has himself admitted that he had gauged this article by the standards of fr.wikipedia.
What IS false is your assertion that anyone has claimed that the French admins should be debarred from this discussion. Wrong: what people have asserted is that they should discuss this subject solely with respect to whether or not he meets the standards of this Wikipedia, and that especially the suggestion as to whether anyone on fr.wikipedia finds the existence of this article inconvenient to their purposes should never have been raised here. Ravenswing 09:09, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As I said in one of the past nominations, sources found, he meeting GNG. Dream Focus 19:05, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Conserver Appears to have received "significant coverage" by our standards. WP:Notability is not the same as impact, importance, or coverage on other wikis. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:23, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete (WP:CSD#G7: Author requested) by Fastily (talk · contribs)

Nanning Tutoring Center[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Google search gives references to blogs, Q&A sites, etc. +unreferenced article. Dipankan says.. ^{("Be bold and edit!")} 14:45, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. A local private school with little to no notability. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:48, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have an external link that leads an individual to the Nanning Tutoring Center website. The school is accredited by Association of Christian Schools International and partners with Florida Virtual School, which according to wikipedia, has over 120,000 students in its educational system. This is all notable.Ninjajy (talk) 17:02, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Nothing Ninjajy has said bolsters the notability of this school. Having a website?? Who doesn't? Accreditation? Not really notable. "Partnership" with Florida Virtual School? More likely NTC is a customer of FVS, which sells its services to schools inside and outside of Florida. No signs of any notability provided. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:28, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ - I have found links on the web that talk about the Nanning Tutoring Center. Go on the Official homepage of the ACSI link found in my article and type in "Nanning Tutoring Center". There are also two other links listed in the references section and within the documents, the Nanning Tutoring Center is mentioned.Ninjajy (talk) 17:38, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry I forgot to link the above statement as mine. Anyway, for those who don't know what link I'm talking about go here http://www.acsi.org/www.acsi.org/FooterLinks/MemberDirectory/tabid/577/Default.aspx and type in "Nanning Tutoring Center" for the school name Ninjajy (talk) 17:39, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The links listed include:
  - this, a mention in a Seven Star Academy newletter of a note from the principal of the Nanning Tutoring Center regarding a completely unrelated matter
  - this, a mention in a different Seven Star newsletter that lists NTC as one of several member schools that have adopted online learning techniques, and
  - this, a search engine form that, when properly filled out, verifies that NTC is a member of the Association of Christian Schools International
- All in all, no evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources. Ninajy (talk · contribs) is urged to actually read the relevant guidelines to understand why this entity is not suitable for inclusion. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:45, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I am the author of this article, and I am requesting for its deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ninjajy (talk • contribs) 01:56, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as G3: Hoax by RHaworth (talk · contribs).

Sanity index[edit]

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

Looks made-up. Google search on "Sanity Index" newspaper united kingdom produced nothing relevant, and neither did less-restrictive searches, which fails WP:GNG. The article content itself is sourced from another Wikipedia page, which violates WP:V, and it's a derived result, which violates WP:NOR. So really a non-starter all around. Zad68 (talk) 14:36, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a hoax (and tagged as such). There is no indication that anyone (other than this article's author) has devised a "sanity index" comparing the ratio of readers of "proper" newspapers to tabloids. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:38, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't look like it was intended to be a hoax per se, but if the article is done in via CSD, fine... Zad68 (talk) 14:40, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to John Keane. I'm going for a compromise here, which is a merge to the article on the author, with no objection to splitting out a section for the book, following consensus on that talk p. The term is a good redirect, and the mergedsection or new article will provide the information DGG ( talk ) 02:09, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Monitory Democracy[edit]

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

A neologism that was made up bv John Keane in a book he wrote in 2009. The word is pretty much only used by this individual, and doing multiple searches for the term only brings up this book, and other papers that the same author wrote. The article's only source is the book where the term was made up. Fails WP:RS, and WP:N, as it is just a neologism that has no widespread use, and no references that support any sort of notability. Rorshacma (talk) 21:23, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. All 14 "referencers" are cites to the same book by John Kean. North8000 (talk) 21:52, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a neologism that hasn't received significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the person who coined the phrase. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:59, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. & WP:NEO.--JayJasper (talk) 20:54, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 21:51, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Leaning Delete~~ Comment - Many available sources are primary, with John Keane using the term. Here's some examples other than the references in the article as of this post, all written by John Keane: Monitory democracy and media-saturated societies, (John Keane) Monitory democracy resides in the China labyrinth, The China Labyrinth. However, significant coverage in reliable sources does exist, including this article from The Nation (Sri Lanka): Monitory democracy for better governance. Perhaps other editors can find additional reliable sources that cover this topic significantly? Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:48, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, why not move content into John Keane (political theorist) if not independently notable?--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:04, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:51, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning Merge to John Keane (political theorist) per this source: The Nation (Sri Lanka): Monitory democracy for better governance. (Struck "leaning delete" !vote above.) Any information in the merge should be sourced by this secondary source, which is independent of John Keane (not written by Keane), although some primary sources could also be used to verify information. However, if additional third-party reliable sources are found that constitute significant coverage, this !vote can change. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:28, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is something discussed. [74] So the concept gets coverage. It also is mentioned in many places, that don't mention Keane at all. He came up with the term, but its used enough to warrant its own article. Do college textbooks cover this term? Dream Focus 14:25, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The article that links to, however, is just another paper written by John Keane himself, which once again leads back to my original point that he seems to be the only one actually widely using the term. Doing a gsearch for the term, while specifically ommitting his name, only gives me a single hit. Since the concept is so central to his writing, I wouldn't be opposed to a merge or redirect to his own article. However, at this point, I'm still going to argue that there isn't enough to establish independent notability for it to exist as its own article. Rorshacma (talk) 00:42, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Your search methodology is flawed. It omits all works by other people who happen to write something like "the notion of monitory democracy (Keane, 2009) …". Uncle G (talk) 17:08, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to John Keane, since this is not notable enough to stand independently but is a logical part of that article.--Yaksar (let's chat) 07:48, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:02, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move to The Life and Death of Democracy, and repurpose as an article on a notable book which has had substantial reviews in major UK publications: Guardian, Telegraph and FT (needs reg/payment) Keane is an important writer but this isn't a concept that has its own life. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:39, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ironically, putting this beneath Keane would be giving it a non-neutral treatment, since Keane's book is not all of the views of the subject by any means. Clive Gabay (Gabay 2010, p. 130–131) harv error: no target: CITEREFGabay2010 (help) and Matthew Flinders (Flinders 2012, p. 44–46) harv error: no target: CITEREFFlinders2012 (help) have rather different views of monitory democracy to that of Keane. Yes, people other than Keane have written about this in books.
- Gabay, Clive (2010). "De-naming the Beast: the Global Call to Action against Poverty and its multiple forms of publicness". In Mahony, Nick; Newman, Janet (eds.). Rethinking the Public: Innovations in Research, Theory and Politics. The Policy Press. ISBN 9781847424167.
- Flinders, Matthew (2012). Defending Politics. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780191623738.
Uncle G (talk) 17:08, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What you fail to mention, of course, is that in both of these works the concept is introduced and discussed as "Keane's monitory democracy".--Yaksar (let's chat) 17:35, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I "fail to mention" it because it is in fact a falsehood, as you will find out if you actually read the books. Not, in any case, that the simple and commonplace association of an idea with its inventor is in any way a rebuttal to the assertions that people other than Keane have written about this in books, and that it is non-neutral to omit their scholarly and significantly differing viewpoints by covering this with respect to Keane. Uncle G (talk) 20:51, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the term has no coverage outside the one book/guy. Mtking^(edits) 08:05, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd be embarrassed, myself, to write such a statement immediately below the citations of two other books that demonstrate in no uncertain terms the falsehood of that assertion. Uncle G (talk) 20:51, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:48, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

S. K. Mohanty[edit]

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

No evidence of notability; the references are (unreliable) Mohanty papers, not neutral sources; websearches show up nothing to support notability —EncMstr (talk) 22:39, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although there is some claim of notability by stating his won award, I can find no information about this to verify this, or to even show that the award itself is notable. The only references provided are to papers written by the article's subject, and thus may fall under having only first party sources. On another note, even if it is decided to keep the article, it would have to be largely rewritten, as it is currently written like an advertisment. Rorshacma (talk) 18:37, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 16:05, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:45, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete promo article that fails WP:BIO 184.33.223.198 (talk) 19:51, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus.

In closing this discussion, I proceed as follows:

I do not include the following opinions in my appreciation of consensus because they do not adequately address the policy-based issues raised by this nomination:

OlEnglish (keep), engages in crystalballing ("only likely to grow in notability in the future. More sources will emerge")
Silver_seren (keep), does not address the merits of the article, only the preceding speedy deletion, which is not the issue here
MONGO (delete), no argument made (for which a link to a general policy is not a substitute)
Fred Bauder (keep), does not address the merits of the article
You really can (delete), no understandable argument ("naval gazing"?)
GabrielF (keep), just a bare assertion ("The topic itself is notable")
Writegeist (keep), "per Foo et al." isn't really enough of an argument
DGG (keep), discusses COI (see below) and makes many interesting wikiphilosophical arguments but does not address the crucial notability issue, i.e., is there enough sourcing for inclusion?
Dru of Id (delete), likewise does not address the notability issue
El duderino (delete), nothing but broad aspersions against one published source
78.86.102.100 (delete), many generalities but no clear argument

In particular, I'm discounting arguments (for keep or delete) that are based on WP:COI. They are very hard to verify in a project based on pseudonymous editing and distract from the content-based arguments. More generally, there is broad disagreement in the community about the function and application of WP:COI (see the related RfC in which, bias alert, I have commented), so it can't be readily used as an argument in a discussion, especially one that is about article content rather than conduct. In any event, I have already discounted the opinions of several on the part of whom COI has been alleged for different reasons.

A few called for an article on the broader issue of paid editing to be written, but that is not really relevant for the decision about how to proceed with the article about this particular group.

A numerical breakdown of the remaining opinions that do contain valid arguments (i.e., those addressing relevant inclusion policies or guidelines) reveals the following:

keep or keep/merge 12
merge 2
move to project space 1
delete (some combined with other preferences) 19

Based on the raw numbers, this is less than a two thirds majority for deletion, and as such cannot be said to represent consensus for deletion. But I still have to determine whether there are any among the remaining arguments that carry particular weight in the light of our policies or guidelines. I find that there are none. After discounting the aforementioned less than helpful opinions, the discussion is essentially about whether there is sufficient sourcing to satisfy WP:N. A majority says no, a substantial minority says yes. The evaluation of the quality of sources is a matter of editorial judgment, not an issue that allows a black-or-white application of policy, and therefore I may not substitute my own judgment for the collective judgment of the community.

Consequently, the outcome of the discussion is that there is no (clear enough) consensus to delete the article. A renomination after some time has passed, to allow the discussion to be focused more tightly on the issue of sourcing, might be helpful. Sandstein 18:24, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Corporate Representatives for Ethical Wikipedia Engagement[edit]

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

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

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

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

Declined CSD A7, or rather, speedied by Jimmy and reverted by Ironholds. This is a procedural nomination. Seems this discussion is needful. Alarbus (talk) 11:39, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject of PR firms editing Wikipedia has been much in the news recently, but this is a Facebook group, and these are almost never notable in their own right. Some of the sourcing has the distinct sound of a barrel being scraped.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:52, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While it is true that Facebook groups are almost never notable, they are not automatically un-notable. When a Facebook group gets picked up by business magazines I see that as a clear indication of notability. The article needs some work though. Agathoclea (talk) 12:04, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Doesn't this belong in Wikipedia: namespace? 84.106.26.81 (talk) 12:23, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not a hundred percent sure of what you mean, but the article about the group should be in namespace - this deletion discussion is in Wikipedia space. Further internal discussions on the ramifications on practice and policy will be in Wikipedia space. Agathoclea (talk) 12:26, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep or merge to Paid editing on Wikipedia, which will be live shortly (draft here). As article-creator, I acknowledge that notability is far from ironclad here, and that available sources have largely been exhausted; however, I think there is a fair argument for its inclusion. Let's look at the sources: Forbes, Techdirt, and TechRepublic offer the strongest mentions of the subject from reliable sources for business and social media news. Forbes is writte by a PR expert, ~~but someone unaffiliated with CREWE~~ (CREWE member); Techdirt is a nice overview of the debate; and TechRepublic is not a particularly lengthy mention, but it is independent. The majority of other sources in the article come from PR trade publications and experts. Techdirt published an opinion piece by the head of the Public Relations Society of America (a CREWE member); Campaign Asia-Pacific has an opinion piece as well; PR Week wrote an overview of the debate, as did Institute for Public Relations; New Zealand Institute of Management has a blog post about CREWE; O'Dwyer's noted PR blog has a substantial piece (CREWE member); Lovell Communications has a mention on their blog; and the social media blog SocialFresh has an article (CREWE member) and a post from the same person on popular PR blog PR-Squared. There'a also a brief article from online pop culture magazine Cream, and a youtube podcast including notable members of the group. The remaining links are to primary documents: Phil Gomes' original blog post, the Facebook group itself and one of their Group Documents; and a link to an archived version of WP:COI. Off the record, I think it's important that we have articles about Wikipedia itself, although we should be particularly careful that they are neutral and independently sourced; also off the record I think sourcing will improve for CREWE over time. In this case, it's clear that the majority of interest is from sources related to the PR field; however, they are used cautiously and mainly for sourcing quotes. The article is well verified and neutrally written, covers all sides, but not in excessive detail. I think it's a valuable contribution to the encyclopedia and meets, albeit weakly, WP:ORG and WP:GNG. Ocaasi^{t | c} 12:26, 12 March 2012 (UTC) I should note that I wrote the article around the same time I joined CREWE. I'm not a PR professional or a paid editor and never have been. I do think the group is a good idea, because it spurs dialogue between historically opposing camps. I also joined WikiProject Cooperation, with the same intent of encouraging best practices from COI editors. Ocaasi^{t | c} 20:59, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails entirely to meet WP:ORG and like many facebook groups, is likely to be ephemeral and of no notability outside that of individual participants, who by the nature of Facebook, may be just about anyone. CREWE is not even an organization; it is a facebook group. Fails as well to meet WP:WEB. Consider that a great many facebook groups on a great many topics may be mentioned tangentially or even directly in some news stories without thereby becoming notable in any way. The group has 264 members, has zero official position with either Wikipedia or any other formal organization. It's a perfectly ordinary facebook group, nothing more.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:37, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh come on, those 264 members happen to include the chair and CEO of the Public Relations Society of America. Sure, that isn't an official endorsement, but by Jove if that doesn't say something. Most Facebook groups don't include such power players and aren't going to be the focus of an article in Forbes when they have just 264 members unless there is something pretty significant about them.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:49, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears not to have outside notability. However, an article on the use of Wikipedia by people following proper and reasonable adherence to Wikipedia policies, or seeking to do so, would not fail that principle, and would have to be quite separately considered. Collect (talk) 12:44, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please define "outside". Agathoclea (talk) 12:46, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No coverage in RS publications or sources. While the group has been mentioned in a lot of projectspace discussions, that does not confer "notability" for a mainspace article. Collect (talk) 13:10, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this not an RS, for example? (Here's another random article from the same author in the same publication [75].)ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 13:19, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First mention in paragraph 16 or so - and in connection with a specific person (Hobson) is not a significant assertion of notability. Can you find any RS source giving more than trivial coverage - as required by Wikipedia notability standards as a rule? Collect (talk) 13:55, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Forbes, for one. Including all of the ones I mentioned below. Silver seren^C 13:59, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per Ocaasi. While not overwhelming in volume or neutrality, sourcing appears adequate per WP:GNG and WP:ORG. (I can think of a few Wikipedia articles on WMF projects that have less independent coverage, but I guess that's just WP:OTHERSTUFF.) ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 13:03, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:GNG and WP:ORG are in my view now met (the very first line of the latter states "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources" - that is the case here). Rangoon11 (talk) 13:47, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am in a bit of shock right now. Did Jimbo really just delete the article out of nowhere in an out of process manner? A7 was very, very clearly not appropriate. Not to mention that, being personally involved in the subject, he directly violated WP:INVOLVED. I thought it was this kind of stuff he said he was going to stop doing? Silver seren^C 14:16, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He's been pretty quiet on this matter. I guess he wanted to express his global opinion on the matter; not that what it is was made clear. User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:06, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He didn't have to do it in a manner that broke policy. He could have just filed a normal AfD. Silver seren^C 14:16, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anyways, the article. It has been featured in a number of news reports and specific industry publications, including Forbes, PR Week, Techdirt, Campaign Asia-Pacific and Techdirt 2 as the news articles. The industry specific sources include O'Dwyer's and New Zealand Management. There are also a number of other sources that fall in a range in between a news source and an industry specific source, including a number of official discussions by companies. I would think notability would be quite evident at this point. Silver seren^C 13:54, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete...See...WP:NOT...MONGO 13:59, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you be more specific? Silver seren^C 13:59, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind, I guess this comment explains your opinion well enough. Silver seren^C 15:33, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hope the closing administrator will note that Mongo's recommendation above is not a valid rationale for deletion. Carrite (talk) 18:42, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why is that..I linked to the policy page that delinates my rationale...do I have to copy/paste the clauses in that policy here to be specific...no.--MONGO 22:09, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're exactly right, you don't have to say a single word to explain how your citation of the policy page "There Are Certain Things Wikipedia is Not" applies in any way to a discussion of how this article subject passes or fails to pass notability guidelines. And I trust the closing administrator will note that fact. Carrite (talk) 22:32, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To be pendantic about it one can say that WP:NOT only comes into play when the subject matter passes GNG, but we decide not to allow it despite its apparent notability. Since the NOT clause is not specified it only leaves us with an admission of notability. Agathoclea (talk) 22:43, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nice try.--MONGO 23:00, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now; however, this matter is essentially a policy discussion and should probably be treated in that way. Facebook groups are sometimes notable. This one might be. User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:06, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - for a subject that isn't terribly notable, this one has some pretty solid citations. Quite a lot of it is close to Wikipedia: discussion; clearly, we shouldn't be writing articles on ourselves; and we don't want to encourage articles on Facebook groups now, do we... but seriously, this seems a worthwhile article, and Ocaasi has it just right above: there isn't a whole lot more to say here, but I guess it passes the bar. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:56, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - naval gazing non encyclopedic trivia. Also as per Jimmy's comments - Youreallycan 15:13, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neither Jimmy's nor your comments address the sources involved. It has nothing to do with naval gazing, but the coverage that the topic has received. It passes WP:ORG via the first line of that guideline and it passes WP:WEB per the first criteria of that guideline. Silver seren^C 15:20, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The stratospheric expansion of the www and all sorts of everyone being able to repeat what they read elsewhere means that citations are massively available about all sorts of everything - that does not make the subject worthy of inclusion in a project that has a stated educational and encyclopedic mission. - six million articles - five million of them educationally and long term notability worthless, and this is one of them. Youreallycan 15:23, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that the opinion that five million or our six million articles are useless is in line with anyone else. And it's not like the subject got routine, small-town coverage. It got significant coverage in major news sources. Silver seren^C 15:32, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it does File:Size of English Wikipedia broken down.png. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:37, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per Jimbo and Fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG and as per WP:NOT note for a facebook group it has only 238 members at the moment.Several Facebook groups with millions of members/fans/Likes and have more coverage do not have pages as they are not notable. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:49, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are other Facebook groups that get significant coverage from reliable sources? If so, they should have articles too. I already explained above how ORG and GNG are met, very easily. What part of NOT are you referring to? Silver seren^C 16:00, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You stated your opinion , your belief, your interpretation of the guideline - you did not assert a fact of anything being met. Youreallycan 16:06, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's my opinion that the guidelines say "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources" and "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself", respectively? Silver seren^C 16:13, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notable, sources such as Forbes mention this group--Misconceptions2 (talk) 15:55, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest merging this to a more general page on public relations editing on Wikipedia, similar to Church of Scientology editing on Wikipedia? I don't think there's an article on that though, is there? It might be a good idea to create a general article on that instead of small articles on minor PR groups like this one. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:09, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Cooperation/Paid editing on Wikipedia. Silverseren^C 16:14, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No, that's not an article, so it's inappropriate merge target. I was also thinking that merging this to the wider topic having received more coverage, [76] etc. would be better. I can't find a suitable article though. So, in the mean time, this will do. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 16:18, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, here is another good one that could be used for a broader article, in case anyone reading this has time to write one soon. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:22, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's a work in progress of an article that is eventually meant to be moved into mainspace. Silverseren^C 16:24, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Oh, my mistake, I didn't read your link--you're a step ahead of me. Ok, well, when that is moved to mainspace it will make an excellent merge target. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:28, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Perhaps, but that would be a discussion that would have to be separate from this AfD, since that doesn't relate to the notability of the subject. Silver seren^C 16:32, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Whomever attempted deletion this for A7 should be sanctioned or de-sysopped, in my opinion. This seems to have been a flagrant WP:IDONTLIKEIT violation of Wikipedia policy, nothing this deeply fleshed out and so patently obviously relevant should be murdered in the night like a thief. PROD would have been declined at once, let alone speedy. Kudos to the administrator who overturned this rogue action. This is going to be a news story in the MSM that reflects poorly upon the project, I'm sure... Policies and guidelines apply to EVERYONE. Carrite (talk) 16:19, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well...Jimbo did it. :/ Silver seren^C 16:20, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - For those of you who are dropping in at AfD because of the furore now certain to ensue here, please do remember that the question here is whether this article topic is the subject of SUBSTANTIAL coverage in MULTIPLE, INDEPENDENT, PUBLISHED, RELIABLE SOURCES. Whether the group has 2 members, 238 members, or 2 million members is irrelevant; whether you agree or disagree with the objectives of the group is irrelevant; whether Jimmy Wales or any other Wikipedia Authority Figure loves or hates the group is irrelevant. It's all about the sourcing. For the record, I will note that I am a regular participant in the CREWE group as an informal "Wikipedian voice"; I am not now, nor have I ever been, nor will I ever be a paid advocate or paid content writer. Carrite (talk) 16:33, 12 March 2012 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 16:37, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - Paid editing of Wikipedia or Wikipedia and Public Relations Professionals. By focusing on the debate rather than on a specific group we can avoid concerns about the group being too small or potentially ephemeral. The broader scope can also provide better context. The topic itself is notable. GabrielF (talk) 16:37, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The group is described at some length in Forbes and Techdirt - that's enough for me; they meet WP:GNG. If I took the time I bet they're mentioned by name in some of the many other solid-sounding sources for this article. I also must reject the notion of "renaming" i.e. changing the focus of the article - it would effectively prohibit an article about a tight, well-defined topic area in favor of what the deletionists usually call a "coatrack", an open-ended exploration of all the different groups that might ever have touched Wikipedia. For those who don't like this article, I should point out that this is not a Bugs Bunny cartoon and you can't stop the oncoming train by pulling down the windowshade. If this article turns out to be a lightning rod, good - much easier for us to assess the impact of WP:Requests for comment/COI with a practical example; much easier to assess the effects of a single-party conflict of interest in an article about a brand new group than one where the argument is about the image of some immense corporation with fifty years of history. Wnt (talk) 17:01, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Daimler ‘altering own Wikipedia page’ is in the news today. This is an important issue, and far bigger than a single Facebook group. The phrase "Ethical Wikipedia Engagement" is classic spin doctoring, because when PR firms edit Wikipedia articles, it is usually to remove critical material on behalf of their clients. See also [77], Stella Artois is watched to prevent this from happening.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:15, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quite possibly, however the accuracy of the group's name does not affect its ability to achieve notability under policy.Rangoon11 (talk) 17:24, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable, Facebook group, the sources are self-submitted puffery by the creators of the group who as PR are able to "print sources" like money on Wikipedia.

There needs to be an article about the issues as a whole, but not about this Facebook group. The issues however and how they affect Wikipedia are important and should have an article, but there's not much coverage of it other than on Wikipedia Review (which I have no idea if it qualifies as a reliable source so might not really be viable to have an article with enough non-biased sources). Then again, there has been a recent burst of news articles on the subject in other media such as by The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, with whom I've been in contact recently so it could be possible for something to be started. This is pure spin-doctoring as "ethical" when they are very deliberately lobbying to get Wikipedia policy and there are so many examples of gaming the system around this article it's abominable. See the previous discussion on the talk page (quote, "Robert Lawton: Those who follow the rules don't get noticed. 3 February at 14:31 · 5 Likes: Jeff Taylor, New Media Strategies — Adam Harris Berkowitz, NYU — Fred Bauder, Crestone, Colorado [who should know better] — Kris Gallagher, Northwestern University — John Cass [one of the admins of the group], Boston, Massachusetts") as well as on my own talk page (quote "you'll need to change Jimbo's mind and also get WP:COI changed", Silver Seren, founder of WP:CO-OP, CTRL+F on the page)

The article paints the group in an overwhelmingly positive light with no mention of that goal, using, surprise surprise, a lot of quotes from similar and sometimes even the same PR outlets involved in running the group.

It has been directly edited by Public Relations advocates such as and employees to try influence Wikipedia policy[78], and WP:PAIDWATCH has come under attack by the same employees[79] now who are trying to shut down the independent watchdog project of WP:PAIDWATCH (it used to be to directly discourage all WP:COI editing, now it exists just to try monitor the activities of corporate representatives to ensure they stay within the WP:COI policy rather than advocating its change to better suit Corporate Representatives, as the founders of WP:CO-OP have) and the founder has been threatened with being blocked by an administrator[80] for mentioning that those attempting to get the project deleted are also corporate representatives, with which direct attempts to influence policy seems to be in violation of WP:COI?

Other than WP:PAIDWATCH, Jimmy is pretty much the only person associated with Wikipedia or WMF that seems to be actually standing up against this kind of activity, his input is probably a good thing at this point as it looks like the corporate representatives have some influential individuals on their side to help mould policy to better suit them as they wish it...

They appear to be attempting to create a chilling effect on discussion with that threat against Herostratus (and I was also targeted for harassment previously after my posts on the Corporate Representatives page and PAIDWATCH, after I added Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Websense,_Inc. to the PAIDWATCH wikiproject at 9:23[81], "bob rayner" arrived at 9:58[82] along with "Bilby" at 11:13[83] to talk:Websense to defend the companies' paid PR sockpuppeting — both whom are not members of wp:PAIDWATCH, but apparently founding members (the 5th and 7th respectively) of the previously mentioned Wikiproject working with the Corporate Representatives PR group, which most of them - as stated on the group itself (as you've probably seen) - are also members of themselves. After I edited in your reply to the group, speaking as the public representative for Wikipedia, I found that the very next edit after being reverted was bringing up a completely unrelated argument elsewhere as "ammunition" to get me, as an "enemy" of the group, blocked)

Silver Seren and Fred Bauder are both very active members of the group themselves, this is a classic case of WP:COI and shows just how toxic the situation surrounding this article and the Corporate Representaties' advocacy group on Wikipedia, WP:CO-OP has become. That also goes to show just how serious the issues raised by WP:PAIDWATCH is, the subversion of Wikipedia's own policies by advocates here to suit corporate and political interests. This is already happening as per the examples raised on WP:PAIDWATCH, those with the most money to pay for groups of editors, the current and future developments of this are possibly the most harmful thing about Wikipedia, and how further it will go over time as "identity management" technology progresses... --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 17:27, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no information about any such allegiances, but it doesn't matter. People who have enough pull can print sources, and there's nothing we can do about it. If a pop star puts out another single, we cover it. If a PR group has the pull to get Forbes and Techdirt to print stuff about them, we cover it. We are in no position to evaluate the ulterior motives for every "reliable" source - if we did, there is some risk that we would simply have no sources left for anything at all. Wnt (talk) 17:38, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is, CREWE are making no bones about what they're doing and what they're after. I haven't seen, say, Lady Gaga publicly declare a position against WP policy and organize a group of PR flacks to loudly oppose it. This is nothing like a pop song. We're being WP:GAME'd. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ Contrib. 17:49, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The group's objectives are entirely unrelated to the matter at hand here, which is whether this article meets Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines. Your personal views about CREWE, whether they are accurate or inaccurate, are completely irrelevant to the issue and does nothing but obfuscate the basic question to be decided. Carrite (talk) 18:03, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) WP:COI wasn't sabotaged by random PR flacks (if that is true) writing articles - it was sabotaged by ArbCom, as User:Will Beback could attest. If this is "gaming", then apparently the gamers have won the Grand Pooh/span>bahcy while we had no idea the ball had been served. What I'm sure of, though, is that abandoning a core standard like WP:GNG in response to this gaming is not a clever retort, but a disastrous retreat. Robust inclusionism is "a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was not meant that we should voyage far." Wnt (talk) 18:08, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! You have been successfully gamed. If I were a total WP:DICK, I'd walk away from this AfD secure in the knowledge that I could get away with virtually anything on WP as long as I bent its own policies back on itself in a contorted but superficially logical manner. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ Contrib. 18:14, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gamed at what, exactly? At keeping an article that tells me more about the root cause behind the sudden de facto demise of COI than I've learned from reading a very lengthy ArbCom proceeding and an RFC? This article is not a strength for the publicists, but a weakness. It is something they have to "manage" more than any client's account, which they don't get paid for, where they will constantly have to confront any issues that emerge out of policy. They wouldn't want what they want if they knew what was good for them, but that is, for some reason I cannot decipher, true of quite a few corporate-level lobbying activities of every variety. Wnt (talk) 18:36, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSUSEFUL? Really? Also "there's no such thing as bad press". Coming from a PR background myself, I can tell you that no one involved on the pushy side of CREWE would regard an article about their non-organization to be a liability of any kind. Spin and damage control is what they do in their sleep. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ Contrib. 03:44, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@SMcC. ASSUME GOOD FAITH. You obviously have strong feelings about paid editing. Fine. Now let's talk about whether this article's sources, cited and "out there on the internets," pass muster. Carrite (talk) 18:40, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I don't at all. You'll find me noticeably absent from virtually all debates about the topic (I don't believe that its impossible to write good encyclopedic material about something one is closely tied to, only challenging, and I very publicly avoid doing it myself, as detailed on my userpage; I won't even edit articles about my alma mater or monolithic former employers like Walmart the U.S. Air Force). I do, however, "feel strongly" (why do you use that as if it were bad thing?) about excessively legalistic and nit-picky misinterpretations and misapplications of Wikipedia policy that undermine the project's actual values and integrity. Please see WP:AAGF. I don't have to be assuming bad faith at all to find fault with what I see as such misinterpretations and misapplications. To the contrary, I'm ever mindful of the maxim that "the road to Hell is paved with good intentions". I'm frankly getting a little tired of people accusing me of assumptions of bad faith (which is in itself an assumption of bad faith!) every other time I'm constructively critical. People need to thicken their skin a little and realize that they have no "natural right" to be free from people disagreeing with them and calling a spade a spade. WP needs more of that, not less, as our editorial quality has been continually declining. Anyway, I and others have already indicated clearly that we feel these sources do not pass muster for WP:GNG purposes; I don't see any point in regurgitating that in in an already-lengthy AfD. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ Contrib. 03:36, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought as a part of your unblock requirements, you were not supposed to discuss paid editing. This is just you continuing the same confrontational behavior as prior. Silver seren^C 17:44, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rename and rewrite per GabrielF or delete otherwise or move to projectspace I don't care which: There's no question that the debate is at least marginally notable, but this particular quasi-organization isn't. It's no surprise that PR professionals, whose job it is to cultivate relationships with journalists, can drum up a "maybe just enough" level of press coverage <ahem> almost entirely in PR publications <cough-cough> that happens to mention the Facebook group, but I think we all know here that the coverage is of the "PR industry vs. Wikipedia" issue, not inherently of the Facebook group, which is mentioned incidentally. If tomorrow the group switched sites and became a YahooGroup called PRWiki or [laugh!] moved to Wikia and was a wiki there called WikiComms, the next article on the topic would mention the new location and name and not ever bother mentioning the then-defunct Facebook group. The name and location of the group is entirely tangential to the real issue, which is Wikipedia policy clashing with real-world commercial interests. There's no WP:COATRACK issue here. Keeping an article on the Facebook group itself on GNG grounds would border on wikilawyering, honoring the wording rather than the spirit of notability policy, because no one actually GAFs about the group itself, but rather about the issue they're raising, and we all know that the higher-powered members of CREWE can manufacture press coverage with trivial ease. Our system is wide open to WP:GAMING here. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ Contrib. 17:49, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To quote the Forbes article, quoting Gerry Corbett, chair and CEO of PRSA, "The effort by Phil Gomes and the group he has started on Facebook, is a critical advocacy activity that the Public Relations Society of America wholeheartedly supports." Sounds notable to me. Wnt (talk) 18:26, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can see from the discussions on Jimbo's page that this article and its initial speedy deletion has been a source of major controversy. At the very core of this debate is whether this page is notable. It is not, in my view. It fails ORG, as has been mentioned earlier on this page. It fails our usual policy on Facebook and other social media pages being used as sources. It fails our guidelines on web presence being used as notable. It fails most basic interpretations on POV. Ultimately, this is an organisation which has a very contentious relationship with Wikipedia, and an article which creates a twisted form of 'feedback loop' should not be encouraged by its retention. doktorb _words^deeds 18:02, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So you're essentially saying we can't have articles on any PR related topic. Or really journalists for that matter...or anything in the media. Since they can always create a "feedback loop". This is pure hearsay. Most of the sources I listed above were written by people who are not a part of CREWE or were written before they were a part of it. Just because they are in the PR industry too doesn't make then involved, it just means that they are experts on the subject. Silver seren^C 18:45, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as noted by a few folks above, the sources are tenuous at best. The Forbes article is less a discussion of this group than a discussion of PR pros editing Wikipedia; many of the other sources appear to be blogs and opinion pieces, some written by people involved directly or close-to-directly with this topic. (Good job getting those published, folks - you do your jobs well.) The group itself is a Facebook group, which as far as I'm concerned automatically indicates a lack of notability. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:40, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Perhaps there should be an article on paid editing and Wikipedia, though I'm not sure about that either. However, the Facebook group isn't notable just because the PR folks managed to get themselves a few mentions in the press. It certainly doesn't satisfy our notability guidelines for websites, and passing the general notability guidelines here isn't enough to keep this article. The group really isn't the major focus of most of the sources, paid editing however is, and frankly there's way too much conflict of interest here for me to be comfortable with this article. AniMate 18:41, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's pure speculation as to how the articles came to be written.Rangoon11 (talk) 18:48, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per ASCIIn2Bme, Silver seren, Rangoon11, Wnt et al. Writegeist (talk) 18:52, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete any of the reliable sourced stuff is just trivial, in passing mentions, not actual coverage about an actual organization. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:57, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

or trim and merge to Wikipedia in culture (although after looking at that article, it would require Wikipedia in culture to be massively cleaned up and made to approach something like an encyclopedia article instead of the hot mess it currently is.) -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:02, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One The rule that Facebook groups are non-notable had been overtaken by events--specifically, by their increasingly wide use for serious purposes, The use of media changes, as our very own existence demonstrates, and we have to cover whatever is notable , even if it appears in unexpected places, or is documented in unexpected places. If any organization should be flexible, we should--but instead we're acting like an unaware teacher ten years ago refusing to let students use of internet sources. Two Events and organizations concerning Wikipedia are often notable, and the proof of our vaunted NPOV is that we cover them adequately. To refuse to do so is to admit we can only deal with others, but are incapable of appropriate editing if we're involved. Three In particular, an attempt to delete this looks like the extreme of COI, an attempt at suppression of something controversial in which we are involved. We'd throw out a PR flack who tried to do this for their organization, and I think the analogy holds. Four, I note one of the eds making a particularly long argument for delete has a well-known publicly declared prejudice against the activity that the group represents, and thus all of that long argument, is IDONTLIKEIT at best, or even "let's delete the article so we can put down those in the group, who are doing things I think are wrong" . . DGG ( talk ) 19:12, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well put as always. Based upon my reading of the sources, describing CREWE as simply a "Facebook group" is any case somewhat narrow, it seems more to be an organisation - however informal - which has established a Facebook page as a means of pursuing its goals.Rangoon11 (talk) 19:27, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

and that differs from most facebook groups .... how? -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:29, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many if not most were created and exist purely as Facebook groups.Rangoon11 (talk) 19:34, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do most facebook groups get significant coverage from major news sources? I remember someone comparing CREWE at, I think it was Jimbo's talk page, to the Justin Bieber fan group. But the question is, does his fan group get significant coverage in the news? Silver seren^C 19:35, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Do most facebook groups get significant coverage from major news sources?" there are LOTS of facebook groups that have gotten as much trivial/passing coverage as this group has. And those other groups dont consist of PR professionals who make their living by working the media.-- The Red Pen of Doom 20:57, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see we clearly have very different opinions of what constitutes "trivial/passing" coverage. For example, I wouldn't consider the following to be trivial coverage: "As it just so happens, I coincidentally received a Facebook message last week from another friend in the biz John Cass inviting me to join a new group called “Corporate Representatives for Ethical Wikipedia Engagement” (CREWE), which was started by Edelman’s Phil Gomes, another old pal from the digital PR trenches. Phil penned an open letter to Jimmy Wales...CREWE now has 72 members, including — in the same forum no less — long-time industry chronicler Jack O’Dwyer and his nemesis, PRSA, the industry’s U.S. trade association..." And it goes on from there into a number of quotes. Considering almost all of the article besides the first few opening paragraphs is about CREWE, I would think that to be substantial coverage. Silver seren^C 23:02, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Someone's "I"/"me"-couched personal editorial is a questionable source for notability purposes. If the same author had written "As it just so happens, I coincidentally received a Facebook message last week from my Aunt Edna..." that would not even in the faintest way help establish notability for the writer's auntie. Sorry. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ Contrib. 03:23, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) DGG, This is why I suggested renaming this to be about the issue instead of the pseudo-organization (in which I'm a participant). It's essentially nothing but an off-site wikiproject that uses Facebook to communicate instead of WT:CREWE. Think on that real hard for a minute. It's a gaggle of Wikipedia editors agreeing to collaborate on and discuss issues about a specific Wikipedia editing issue. This is the very definition of a wikiproject. That it happens to be using an off-site talk page does not make it magically special. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ Contrib. 03:23, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It looks like where the coverage is independent, it's too thin. Tony Fox and AniMate above put it well. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:55, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per TonyFox and Animate. ukexpat (talk) 20:25, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pretty much per Animate, as well as the fact that he independent coverage is marginal at best. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:27, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article looks like your typical PR snow job itself. Almost all of the sources are self published sources: discussions in public relations blogs or publications, by or about the PR industry, or representing PR placements. The scope of the readership issue also suggests that these online entries don't have a significant readership outside the PR industry itself. And finally, the nominal subject of the article is a Facebook group, which itself argues powerfully against its historical durability or importance. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 21:00, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notability has never been about importance - common misconception - only about being noted by independent sources. Agathoclea (talk) 21:04, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've always understood notability to mean some sort of lasting significance; if it were only about being noted by independent sources, I could easily write an article about every street in my town. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:17, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's where the term "multiple" comes into play. Agathoclea (talk) 21:33, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'Twas ever thus, that notability in Wikipedia has always meant long term historical notability. Facebook itself just barely qualifies as far as I'm concerned. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 00:23, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- We have identified when others have a conflict of interest in writing. We have one here. As much as we think we are being neutral, our biases are visible to others. This should not be in article space unless another encyclopedia writes it, and we cite them, to avoid hypocrisy on the topic of conflict of interest. Dru of Id (talk) 21:27, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that's a misreading of WP:COI and contradicted by the many valuable articles we already have on the subject of Wikipedia (Wikipedia, Reliability of Wikipedia, Criticism of Wikipedia...). WP:COI is not about never editing when you have a conflict of interest, but about taking particular care to be neutral and non-promotional. This article is both. COI is not a reason to exclude it, only notability, which is a fair debate, but seems borderline at worst and decent at best. Ocaasi^{t | c} 21:31, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - The articles you cited have been covered in depth, clearly passing guidelines. For this, which is still borderline, I'm not saying can't, I'm saying shouldn't, to avoid any possibility of impropriety. Dru of Id (talk) 21:55, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- An interesting opinion, Dru, but not to the heart of the question we are supposed to discussing here: does this article topic meet Wikipedia's General Notability Guideline, which calls for MULTIPLE instances of SUBSTANTIAL, INDEPENDENT, PUBLISHED coverage in RELIABLE SOURCES? There's a Forbes magazine article showing in the footnotes, that's one... "Other encyclopedias have to do it first" is a novel and non-germane argument. "Neutrality" and "Promotionalness" (to coin a word) are editing matters, not cause for deletion... Carrite (talk) 22:21, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - That Forbes piece was written by a PR strategist and member of the Facebook group on what amounts to a blog or op-ed piece ("The opinions expressed are those of the writer"). Just saying... Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:09, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Could be edited past A7, but as yet doesn't claim it's the first, the largest, the only... just says it's a group namedrop notinherited blogquote... if it's notable, we wouldn't be discussing sufficient sourcing; if it's encyclopedic, others will cover it. Here's Citizendium [84]. Dru of Id (talk) 23:12, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, Dru, great new metric for AfD — "Does CZ Cover It? Yes or No?" Here's Citizendium for HAMSTER. I look forward to your forthcoming AfD nomination of Hamster. Carrite (talk) 23:35, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Meant to include ":P" there; humor is lost in text; I'm unaware of a conflict in interest, notability concerns, or a lack of references for hamster. Is it sourced to blogs, too:? Dru of Id (talk) 00:20, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If not kept in mainspace, move to Project space. It is obviously related to the project, and will help inform ongoing debate. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:15, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While reliable sources mention CREWE in passing, the coverage is not significant and is insufficient to pass the general notability guideline. I wonder if some of this shouldn't be merged to the Edelman (firm) article, since this effort seems to be coming from Mr. Gomes' company. Gobōnobo ⁺ ^c 23:28, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. I'm employed by Edelman, but CREWE is not an Edelman effort. It would not have gotten the traction it did if it was. --Philgomes (talk) 14:32, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice to future recreation. I've given this a pretty good scouring. The Forbes piece counts as one, and a good one, but I'm not finding anything outside of a fairly outstanding spread of blog posts by PR peeps, which of course do not count towards GNG. I don't have the slightest doubt that this group will eventually pass muster — but right now sources are lacking and while this piece is written neutrally and sourced out sufficiently to take care of the needs of Verifiability, it is not gonna clear the bar at this time. Userfy to the content creator, who has done a commendable job with this piece. I'm sure much of this material will reappear when so-called "reliable" sources appear at some future date — but that's a crystal ball prediction, so this needs to leave mainspace for now. And Trout for all of you who failed to address sources but instead made some sort of lame variant of IDONTLIKEIT or ILIKEIT arguments here. Carrite (talk) 01:33, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge or move into WP essay. For a Facebook group started in January 2012, remember wp:NOTNEWS and wait (at least) 6 months to see if the group disbands, or receives significant coverage for WP:GNG. Also, the article had multiple sources to Facebook, which seems desperate referencing to wp:primary sources. I would lean towards moving this into a WP essay about Facebook connections to Wikipedia. Others have noted some Facebook groups have millions of "members" which are still considered non-notable. Perhaps add an entry in "List of Facebook groups". -Wikid77 (talk) 02:04, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NOTNEWS is, without exception, misinterpreted in AfD discussions. What it says is that breaking news should not be treated differently from older sources. Wnt (talk) 03:24, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to comment on the notability or otherwise of CREWE, but I feel that NOTNEWS sometimes gets misused at AfD. If a rule required us to keep the encyclopædia 6 months out of date, that rule would be undermining one of wikipedia's greatest strengths. Today's headline stories shouldn't be exempted from the GNG - but if something achieved notability recently, why exclude it? bobrayner (talk) 10:20, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the discussion in independent reliable sources (especially the Forbes source) is sufficient. If a decent mainspace merge target is created, then a merge is also a viable option. Fram (talk) 09:20, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you wanted a merge target, I'd think that one line in Criticism of Wikipedia would be more than sufficient. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:46, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which apparently doesn't exist as a standalone article anymore, as of Feb 1 of this year. Perhaps it could be revived? -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:50, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm frankly more concerned that the best source here is from a Forbes blog where it is stated "The author is a Forbes contributor. The opinions expressed are those of the writer." That makes it fairly clear that it's just a blog hosted by Forbes, rather than an article printed by Forbes. AniMate 20:11, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Already much talked about, only likely to grow in notability in the future. More sources will emerge. -- œ ^™ 10:45, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete because their 'best' source Forbes is a glorified corporate shill. El duderino (talk) 13:37, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. From the standpoint of process, this is extremely thinly-sourced. Most of the listed "references" are blog posts and opinion pieces and the like, which can be helpful when meeting WP:V but do nothing for WP:N. From the standpoint of common sense, it could be sourced much better and still not be worth keeping, because it's a useless nothingburger of an article about a fundamentally non-notable topic. I don't invoke WP:IAR lightly, but this is the sort of situation for which it was written. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:38, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am not particularly impressed with the independence of the sources. Wikipedia might well want to maintain information about this group in project space, but probably not a standalone main space article until or unless it gets more significant coverage, independent of both its membership and Wikipedia. Kilopi (talk) 18:37, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As Silver serene documented with links, the group is central to the Forbes piece, and has been mentioned (at least) in a half dozen other sources. To dismiss the group as "corporate hacks" is really unworthy of MONGO, since the group has a number of members like Carrite and Cullen328 to my left and myself, since we typically write about American social-democracy, labor unions, cooperatives, and occasional syndicalists. I would say that the PR persons were far more understanding of my concerns about manipulating readers with "article quality surveys" that have been proposed and evaluated primarily as recruitment tools. You fellows should spend more time with Marx's "Critique of the Gotha Programme of German Social Democracy" and show some respect for capitalism. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:14, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As an active supporter of the group on Facebook, doesn't WP:COI apply to you, like Ocaasi, Silver Seren and Fred Bauder and any others who have not named themselves on the group so can't be known, in that you should not be !voting in this article's discussion? --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 01:27, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And so have you. Even Jimbo commented on this AFD despite a extremly clear COI - it is HIS project that is affected by that group. Being wikipedia editors actually we all have a COI. Should we protect the 'pedia? Should we whitewash alternate views? or do we want to protect the founding policies like GNG against those who try to ignore them when the subject matter is not to their liking? Agathoclea (talk) 05:59, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:GNG: "'Presumed' means that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article." Even if you believe (as I do not) that the existing sourcing is sufficient to satisfy the GNG, rejecting this article does not in any way imply that we are rejecting the GNG itslef. We are individuals with sense and discretion, and the GNG reflects that fact. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:58, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Selina is quick to wield the tarring brush, but not so quick to identify herself as a CREWE participant. Since she's obviously big on guilt by association, confusing that with economic conflict of interest, she should now scour herself for her severe ethical lapse. (By the way, Selina, wasn't a condition of your unblock a topic ban from this very topic???) Carrite (talk) 21:27, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As Wikid77 says above, so articulatory. Our policy on GNG and WEB works well so as to ensure this sort of article is not retained. Not notable, not important, not neutral, and counter to WP:COI 78.86.102.100 (talk) 20:38, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - why do we consider a social group to be notable?Jasper Deng (talk) 02:46, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe because it has independent sources and passes GNG? We consider a lot of nicknacks notable just because they are in some obsucure books only read by "anoraks" Agathoclea (talk) 05:46, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

April 6 Youth Movement is also a social group. A Facebook group, at that. Should it also be deleted? Silver seren^C 05:48, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WOW. just wow. You really have that little understanding about Notability coverage? That really provides me and I hope the closing admin as well as to how much weight to give your opinions and statements. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:31, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've already made my argument for Notability higher up on the page. Right now i'm trying to combat the ridiculous notion that Facebook groups and social groups cannot be notable. Silver seren^C 19:32, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have an example of a notable Facebook group of a size comparable to this one? -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 20:20, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A notable Facebook group would be one with a corresponding organization, huge size, and extensive coverage to the point that it makes Google News often. This does not cut it.Jasper Deng (talk) 22:09, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is a huge amount of content here and I have not read it all. But I read quite a bit, and I feel like if the article's subject was notable then I would have found indication of notability in the amount of content I read either on the article page or in this talk space. Undoubtedly the article's subject has been mentioned in reliable sources, but it is mentioned for the debate about paid editing and not to feature the group or its mission or ideas. I see no sources which describe the group for the sake of describing the group and its mission; sources mentioning this group do so as a footnote in another topic. I see no evidence of passing WP:GNG. If this group becomes notable then this article can be recreated at a later day when it can pass GNG. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:13, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am not making a formal recommendation to "keep" or "delete" for several reasons: First of all, I have participated in the CREWE Facebook group under my real name, Jim Heaphy, so I have a COI. (Coincidentally, this debate has motivated me to abandon any pretense of anonymity here on Wikipedia. I am who I am - a Wikipedian but not a PR professional.) Secondly, I think that this is a borderline case, and the underlying debate is far more important than whether or not this article is kept. Finally, I said that I wouldn't on Jimbo's talk page.

I trust that the closing administrator will focus on comments about the notability of this specific topic and the quality of the sources that discuss it. This debate is not about the perfidy or virtue of PR people. Its not about what Jimbo thinks or has done. Its not about the deletionist versus inclusionist philosophies. It's not about whether it's possible in the abstract for a Facebook group to be notable. It's not about whether PR professionals (or anyone else who communicates with reporters and editors) can motivate the creation of reliable sources. It's not about WP:COOP or WP:PAIDWATCH. All of those are important subjects to discuss, but not as part of this specific deletion debate.

I endorse the comments above by Carrite, who wants the article deleted for now, and by DGG, who thinks it should be kept. Many others have been constructive here. There are many references, but for the most part, they all have problems and few can be described as fully reliable and independent sources giving significant coverage to this specific topic. All of us may have differing thresholds for quality of sources - I try to be a moderate.

I believe that the experienced Wikipedians participating in CREWE in recent months have conducted themselves, on balance, with integrity and forthrightness. I invite scrutiny and constructive criticism of my contributions both there and here. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:02, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The group includes a lot of notable people so claims about the number of members are an invalid basis for deleting. What we have with the Forbes Article is pretty significant. Though the author did join the group per an invite, I sincerely doubt he writes articles on Forbes about every Facebook group he joins. We also have a significant mention in TechRepublic by someone who appears to have no affiliation with the group, though does have one indirectly with Wikipedia. Cream magazine provides another more than trivial mention by an author apparently unaffiliated with the group. Those mentions alone would mean it meets WP:WEB. We also have some significant coverage of Gomes' letter that is connected with this group. We may discuss the possibility of creating a new article on paid editing and Wikipedia or maybe even one on Gomes as he appears to be somewhat notable, but the article on its own meets the criteria for inclusion, even if people don't like it.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:49, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see a lot of commentary about issues other than whether this article meets community standards. The question is "Does this article meet Wikipedia's General Notability Guideline?" To meet WP:GNG the subject of the article must be the subject of significant coverage. To quote WP:GNG: "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. The group is described directly and in detail in Forbes and Techdirt, and I think that satisfies the criteria at hand. ɳorɑfʈ^Talk! 23:30, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources seem reasonable enough for it to meet the notability guidelines, and even if many are blogs, blogs can be anything in this day and age, rather like facebook pages. Article itself probably could do more to emphasise why these things and this one in particular is notable, but at this point that doesn't seem like enough to delete it over. — Isarra (talk) 01:40, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This article is well sourced by independent groups (Forbes, Techdirt, TechRepublic) and clearly notable.--Stv Fetterly (Edits) 14:34, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As he who helped start and helps maintain the CREWE effort, I want to be very clear that CREWE is a group of people who are interested in exploring the ways that PR and Wikipedia and work together for mutual benefit, defined narrowly as cooperation toward more accurate and balanced entries. The fact that it's on a Facebook group is circumstantial. In other words, the CREWE entry isn't "an entry about a Facebook group" that has the potential to set the precedent of a cascade of entries about Facebook groups. In fact, I foresee many activities taking place under "CREWE." None of this has any bearing on whether to keep or chuck the entry (a topic I'd rather stay out of and, besides, CREWE's mission doesn't change either way) but it does help give context to this discussion. --Philgomes (talk) 17:38, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If this isn't "an entry about a Facebook group", then why does the article start by saying, "Corporate Representatives for Ethical Wikipedia Engagement (CREWE) is a Facebook group..."? I'd suggest that you might want to edit the article and fix that, if it weren't for the fact that it'd be a huge WP:COI for anyone involved in the group to edit its entry at all - not that that stopped Ocaasi or Silver Seren. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 16:01, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^{talk to me} 15:43, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

George Crayton, Jr.[edit]

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

Non-notable individual. Sources in article are primary or passing, WP:BEFORE gives no hits in books or news. Awards list contains nothing of significance, UIKF organization is also non-notable. Fails WP:GNG, WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO and WP:MANOTE Yunshui 雲‍水 10:37, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Aside from an impressive array of self-published and social media sources, the best I could come up with was this one, which seems to be a local online news source and does little to assist in establishing his notability. There is also this which simply mirrors Crayton's own biography. Additionally, the third paragraph is plagiarized from this site and a significant portion of the remaining text is closely paraphrased. No hits on GNEWS or GBOOKS. Pol430 talk to me 19:18, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found no significant independent coverage of him, so he fails WP:GNG. I also didn't see any indication he meets WP:MANOTE. Astudent0 (talk) 17:23, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I put this article up for PROD, so it's clear what I think of it. There's no independent support for any claims of notability. Mdtemp (talk) 22:08, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: User:Mdtemp's edit history consists entirely of spamming MMA related Afds with copy and paste boilerplate votes rather than arguments. The account has made no actual contributions to this website. It is clearly a single-purpose, disruption-only account and a likely sock or meatpuppet. --63.3.19.130 (talk) 01:42, 16 March 2012 (UTC) striking per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/63.3.19.129 Dennis Brown (talk) 00:17, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Editors are entitled to participate in any avenue of Wikipedia they choose. Your accusation of "biolerplate votes" is unfounded; I note Mdtemp (talk · contribs) has used varying rationales in AFD discussions. Your notes however, are boilerplates, and your persistence in adding them to every AFD that Mdtemp has participated in, is borderline disruptive and editor harassment. Pol430 talk to me 14:06, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article appears to be plagiarised from the subject's autobiography. On a brief search, I have not found any reliable sources to support the subject's notability. Janggeom (talk) 08:55, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Plagiarism is impossible when quoting a biography written by the person being accused of plagiarism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KungFuJosh (talk • contribs) 12:46, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Given that there's no evidence that both articles were written by the same person, yes, it's plagiarism. More precisely, it's a copyright violation - tagged for speedy deletion under G12 accordingly. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:52, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source has now apparently been released under CC-BY-SA, so G12 no longer applies. Yunshui 雲‍水 15:15, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Plagiarism for information. Janggeom (talk) 04:36, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 20:52, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

VI Airlink[edit]

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

No additional sources have been forthcoming since the first AfD. The reason given then still applies: Tiny airline, with a "fleet" of only two small planes. Perhaps it will become notable in the future, but at this point there is only 1 independent source in a very minor publication. Does not meet WP:CORP or WP:GNG. Guillaume2303 (talk) 10:22, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A quick Googling turns up additional sources: [85], [86], [87], [88]. Being a "very minor" publication does not matter as long as it is independent and reliable. Size of the fleet does not matter as long as it is a scheduled airline that meets the standards - which it does. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:10, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 1 is an in-passing mention only. 2 is a news release (not even checked for spelling errors by the editors, as noted below the message). 3 does not seem to be a reliable source (in their "about" statement it appears to be ads only, no editorial control). 4 seems to be a good source, but it is barely 1 paragraph long and really does not seem to count as "significant coverage". --Guillaume2303 (talk) 08:58, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It appears to me that source 4 provided by Bushranger is different from reference 2 on the page. As such, that is 2 independent sources, and it passes WP:GNG. Is it a stub? Yes. Do we have sources to make it more than a stub? No. Do we have enough sources to keep the stub on Wikipedia? Yes. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 17:37, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Both are barely one paragraph long and neither count as the "significant coverage" required by WP:GNG. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 17:49, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep significant to operate international services enough to need agreement with the American FAA and significant enough for the ICAO to allocate a code. MilborneOne (talk) 19:53, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. especially after the sources found by Beagle, few have provided arguments to delete Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:45, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Babadag Wind Farm[edit]

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

Non-notable project for a wind farm, of unknown current status. It is referenced with only one blog post. I found a single article in Ziarul Financiar, suggesting that indeed someone intended to build that wind farm, but no reliable information about its later status. - Andrei (talk) 08:54, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Maybe the source is not the best and should be updated, but why would you say is not notable? It is also part of a nice series. I would vote to keep and look for better sources. --Codrin.B (talk) 13:46, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No news since 2007? Probably shouldn't have been an article at all. Dahn (talk) 16:17, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We have a tremendous amount of poor information about small non-notable Romanian wind farms, compiled by one editor. Often it is unclear if the wind farm is proposed, under construction, or completed. Many are speculative proposals I think, which will never be built. Often the articles are supported by only one (often non-English) reference. To add to the confusion, I notice in this case that the Blue Investment Baia Wind Farm is also being called the Babadag Wind Farm. Johnfos (talk) 20:03, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I found this source, which by my understanding is about the same project. The owner is same and the location is same, although technical information varies from that provided in the article (20 X 2.1 MW). As a joint implementation project, it is notable and the UNFCCC documents provides significant coverage. Beagel (talk) 05:44, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some additional sources I found: [89], [90], [91]. Beagel (talk) 05:58, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I updated the article and added sources to establish its notability. Beagel (talk) 14:08, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Windfarms and other power stations are generally notable as they tend to generate significant coverage in reliable sources. Beagel has done excellent work in adding references to such coverage into this article.--Pontificalibus (talk) 20:54, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
VERY STRONG delete - As i am an former professional in windenergy, it seems to me that this project is one of those many which are planed by companies and now is searching for investors. Just advertisement. Tagremover (talk) 19:46, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The wind farm is already operational. Beagel (talk) 20:09, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - references found by Beagel appear to demonstrate sufficient notability.--Kubigula (talk) 19:11, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources provided by Beagel.- Andrei (talk) 09:39, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Highly promotional, if it weren't already time to close I'd be considering speedy G11. . If an article can be written on the basis of secondary references, it would need to be started over from scratch. DGG ( talk ) 02:15, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kedar Joshi[edit]

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

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

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

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

Non-notable pseudophilosopher with Fringe views and crazy theories not found in the sane world. There are lot of references, both in the article and the talk page, that are being used by fanboys to justify notability. Fortunately for sanity, none of them are sufficient, since they typically fall into 9 categories 1. Self-published sources 2. Aggregators and bots like this 3. Unsolicited spam by subject 4. Internet forum posts 5. Non-notable sources like this 6. Only passing mention in notable sources 7. Pure garbage sources like Conservapedia that are not even worthy of attention. 8. Dead links 9. Social networking crap like this (a date site? really?).

Policy violations WP:N and WP:FRINGE Courtiersuitor (talk) 08:43, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.—Ryulong (竜龙) 08:43, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete despite an impressive number of citations, no citations appear to establish notability. Delete as notability not established. --TeaDrinker (talk) 08:45, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. None of the sources on the article show notability and the only thing that wasn't a junk site or something promotional by the author was the Wikiversity page [92].Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:14, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A bad case of citation overkill, but all those links don't come close to the two or three reliable sources needed for the article to be kept. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:52, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject seems to be notable for the following reasons.

A. The subject seems to have been quoted

1. thrice [93][94][95] in The Times of India: Sacred Space, along with highly notable people like M K Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru, Paramahansa Yogananda, Kabir, Prophet Muhammad;

2. in a scholarly paper [96], along with Confucius;

3. on the notable website WriteAPrisoner.com, along with notable persons and thinkers like Frank Zappa, Cyril Connolly, Martin Luther King, Jr.;

4. in the newspaper The Nassau Guardian: Quote in Time;

5. in an article, with praise, in larepublica.net.

B. Philosophical dialogs with the subject seem to have been published in notable journals and online magazines like Philosophy Pathways and Chowk.com [97][98][99][100].

C. There seem to be articles about the subject published on rupeenews.com, with significant coverage [101][102].

D. One of the articles written by the subject, published on Chowk.com, seems to have been discussed in an English book [103].

E. There seem to be claims of news articles published in notable sources, with significant coverage of the subject and his theories and works. (Note: Wikipedia:Offline sources)

F. The subject seems to have been interviewed by MiD DAY.

G. E-archives like CogPrints, SciRePrints do not seem to include crazy works and theories NSTP theory UQV theory .

H. Websites like quoteland.com, decision-making-solutions.com, confrontingignorance.org may not be notable according to WP standards, but they do not seem to quote non-notable people.

Many of the links in the article and the talk page were added by me in attempting to establish notability and improve the article. The article may need some cleanup though. ~ RogDel (talk) 14:54, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Being quoted, even in reliable sources, doesn't make one notable. Newpapers quote many people - are you arguing that every company spokesperson with a soundbite is notable? Furthermore, interviews, dialogues and articles written by the subject are primary sources; notability requires that sources be independent of the subject. That many sources quote him is not in question; these sources do not, however, necessarily have the same requirements for inclusion as Wikipedia. None of the references given above are independent, in-depth coverage. The man has a knack for a pithy soundbite, true, but that doesn't mean that he's automatically granted a pass of the WP:GNG. Yunshui 雲‍水 15:08, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. None of the articles (dialogs) mentioned in point B seems to have been written by the subject; they seem to be dialogs with the subject, not dialogs written by the subject; they thus do not seem to be primary sources. Sources mentioned in points E (and C) could be independent, in-depth coverage. And being quoted as a company spokesperson does not seem to be the same (of the same calibre, with respect to notability) as being quoted as a thinker, along with highly notable people. ~ RogDel (talk) 15:44, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: User:RogDel has the primary editor of this article, and possibly a Meatpuppet of Joshi himself, raising issues of Conflict of Interest. He's just repeating the same medicine-man/voodoo he (or one of his sockpuppets) tooted in the article talk page, linking to poor quality third world newspapers with virtually no editorial quality control, blogs/quotefarms/aggregators and other unreliable sources like Pakistani nationalist propaganda site ruppeenews.com.Courtiersuitor (talk) 15:57, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I’m the primary editor of this article, yes, but I’ve absolutely no conflict of interest. As it can be seen on my userpage, I’m a WP reviewer, a senior editor, and one of the 400 most active Wikipedians. So far I have created 28 articles on the English Wikipedia and have made over 71,000 contributions. Even the article was created a few days after I was encouraged to create article/s by User:Peter Eisenburger. Maybe you yourself, looking like a single-purpose account, have conflict of interest. Being the creator of the article, I’ve been consistently adding links to it merely to help establish notability (though I admit some of the links may not be very appropriate for WP). And it is hard to believe that well-established, notable newspapers like Kesari, Lokmat may be of poor quality with virtually no editorial quality control! ~ RogDel (talk) 17:07, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Um, these newspapers are Indian newspapers based on Indian soil and so are largely garbage. Sadly, a lot of the English language media in India is pure tabloid trash, with little real editorial control. Indian journalists are often poorly trained in fact checking, engage in sensationalist reporting for higher ratings from an uneducated populace, and even prominent newspapers in India like ToI have been caught plagiarising wikipedia content (see User:YellowMonkey/Times of India). You can't find any mention of this nutter in any peer-reviewed academic source or mainstream media in a western country. The best you can do is link to the absurd Pakistani equivalent of Der Sturmer. An Islamist/revisionist/irredentist rag called rupeenews.com. Lol!05:03, 13 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Courtiersuitor (talk • contribs)

Delete per rationale at Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Kedar Joshi in 2010, including but not limited to my observation that "it is hard to take a self-published person seriously; and as more non-serious links are added it only gets harder." Note also that an earlier Wikiquote article was created the day after an earlier Wikipedia article was deleted as "nn-bio", as discussed at Wikiquote:Votes for deletion archive/Kedar Joshi in 2006. Years of industrious promotion of his works and quotes on numerous hosting sites, wikis, quotation pages, &tc. does not appear to have resulted in notability. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:42, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an absurdly self-referencing article and a ridiculous read, pushing some pitiful crackpot theory. The alphabetized rationale above is pure nonsense. For instance, A 1): that is not ToI, it is a page that has spun on its website, clearly marked as the "Opinion" section; and Joshi is not quoted "thrice", but once, and then pinged. A 2): he is apparently used for a motto by one of the speakers at a conference, which is not on any subject that would by relevant to Joshi's work - it's not even an editorial opinion, it's pure junk. Etc. etc. I don't even bother with the faux citations or the junklinks that are included in the summary above, I trust editors are competent enough to note that WriteAPrisoner or whatever are not the kind of stuff that wikipedia could ever take for reliable sources. Dahn (talk) 19:57, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. That is ToI!! Go to [104] > Archives > 8 March 2011 > The Times of India Mumbai, for example > Pg 18. And at the bottom of the page (pg 18), you’ll see a regular column called “Sacred Space” where Joshi is quoted. (Sacred Space: God and I). And these [105][106][107], for instance, are reliable sources, aren’t they? ~ RogDel (talk) 23:31, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, it is important to note that the ToI links you cited are user editable pages where any crackpot can copy-paste quotes from others and interleave his own crap in together. Furthermore, the source philisophypathways.com is not a peer-reviewed journal. It is edited by one dude named Geoffrey Klempner and has no impact factor,Immediacy index, or any measure in any recognized metric of academic attention-worthiness whatsoever.Courtiersuitor (talk) 04:53, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The ToI links are not user editable pages. They appear basically in the ToI print paper. And I’ve given a link to that in my above comment. Geoffrey Klempner seems to have a D.Phil in Philosophy from the University of Oxford and was a lecturer at Sheffield University. He does seem to have some academic standing. And Philosophy Pathways is a peer-reviewed journal, listed in the Directory of Open Access Journals. ~ RogDel (talk) 05:46, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just being listed in a directory is not enough. What is it 2011 impact factor? Why doesn't it have one? All peer-reviewed journals more than 1 year old have impact factors. Furthermore, just having a doctorate degree is not enough to assert reliability. David Duke also has a doctorate, and he's a White Nationalist loon. Finally, it's rather dishonest to claim that user editable pages appear on print paper, since I get daily prints of ToI right on my doorstep and none of this nonsense can be found in them. It's becoming very hard to assume good faith anymore.Courtiersuitor (talk) 12:47, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve seen the subject quoted in 8 December 2011 as well as 13 July 2011 ToI print papers. If you follow the link mentioned in my comment, you’ll see the subject quoted in 8 December 2011 ToI: Sacred Space column; the link to the e-paper is an exact (electronic) copy of the print paper. Philosophy Pathways appears to be a notable, peer-reviewed, philosophy journal, and a reliable source. The Directory of Open Access Journals seems to define open access journals as scientific and scholarly journals that meet high quality standards by exercising peer review or editorial quality control… It doesn’t seem to include unreliable journals/sources. And as previously mentioned, Geoffrey Klempner doesn’t just have a doctorate, he was a lecturer at Sheffield University. And it’s becoming hard for me too to assume good faith on you anymore, esp. when you obviously seem to be a single purpose account! Your words like none of this nonsense, this nutter, etc. seem to suggest you’re not neutral! ~ RogDel (talk) 13:34, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever dude. Until you give me the journal's impact factor or some related metric, it's no different than a random nut with a cardboard box in the streetcorners of Harlem wailing "The end is nigh! Repent and thou shalt be sayyyyved".117.194.194.152 (talk) 15:47, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As of now, I seem to be unable to do that; but for the reasons given in my previous comment, Philosophy Pathways strongly appears to be a reliable, academic source. ~ RogDel (talk) 16:26, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Philosophy Pathways is not a peer reviewed journal. It is self-described on its pages as "the electronic newsletter for the Pathways to Philosophy distance learning program". The program and the International Society for Philosophers are part and parcel of the same walled garden offering tutorial services to undergraduate students and amateur would-be philosophers.[108][109]

Kedar Joshi appears to be an amateur or non-notable pseudophilosopher. If this appearance is incorrect, please identify two (2) English language citations that provide substantial independent coverage in reliable sources. By "substantial" I mean analysis of his theories and/or their influence, not random quotes or puff pieces. Please do not waste everybody's time with mass quantities of spurious links. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:14, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If Philosophy Pathways is not a peer-reviewed journal, how come it’s in the Directory of Open Access Journals which lists quality controlled scientific and scholarly journals? Isn’t DOAJ supposed to be a reliable source? The point is that Philosophy Pathways appears to be a reliable source and philosophical dialogs with the subject, written by someone else, are published in it. None of the subject’s two theories may have been reviewed in any reliable, English language source, but the article is basically about the subject, not about his theories; and the subject appears to be worthy of notice for the points/reasons I’ve given earlier. ~ RogDel (talk) 20:40, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whether Philosophy Pathways is an RS or not is actually entirely irrelevant; the coverage of Joshi there is a couple of imaginary dialogues using him as a fictional character, and in any case is lifted from this blog, which is most definitely not a reliable source. Rather than arguing the whys and wherefores of Philosophy Pathway's academic standing, please focus on finding reliable sources which provide significant coverage (ie. information about the man himself, not one-line quotes or imaginary conversations). I've looked - I can't find any. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:47, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn’t seem to be much reason to believe that this dialog is imaginary; it seems to discuss the subject’s metaphysical views, including his theories; though the source is not reliable. All the three dialogues in Philosophy Pathways seem entirely different from the aforementioned one (i.e. not lifted from the blog you mentioned); though only one of them is mentioned as imagined. The remaining two could be perfectly real. And there is also another one at Chowk.com, which again could be real. And even about the possibly imaginary one/s, they do seem to indicate notability; the subject having received attention in reliable source/s. ~ RogDel (talk) 10:30, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Attention" in reliable sources is not sufficient; I've received attention in reliable sources, and I'm sure as hell not notable. We need significant coverage of Kedar Joshi, not reported conversations with him, real or imaginary. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:55, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Significant, independent coverages of the subject’s (philosophical) views in RS do indicate his notability. ~ RogDel (talk) 12:45, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very true. However, that's not what you've provided here. If these are genuine conversations with Joshi, then they are not independent and therefore do not support notability. If they are imagined conversations, then they tell us nothing about him (they are using him as a fictional mouthpiece for a particular position, but there is no indication that this is in fact a position he takes), and are therefore not significant coverage. There are also doubts over whether this is, in fact, a reliable source. Whichever way you look at it, the articles in PP do not support notability. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:54, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why genuine conversations with Joshi would not be independent? X can have genuine conversations with Y, a philosopher, and publish them in RS, and the conversations could be independent of Y. And there is reason to believe that only one of the conversations is imaginary. Again, DOAJ seems to be a reliable source which lists quality controlled scientific and scholarly journals. PP is listed in it, which indicates PP is a quality controlled, scholarly, reliable journal. ~ RogDel (talk) 13:11, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^{talk to me} 15:44, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BC Soccer Premier League[edit]

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

Contested PROD, original concern was "Unreferenced and unnotable regional junior amateur football league." Cloudz 679 05:48, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Cloudz 679 05:50, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication of notability, fails WP:GNG. Mattythewhite (talk) 13:45, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - youth soccer league, no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 21:44, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unsourced. No indication that this league meets WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:34, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^{talk to me} 13:19, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Leone Cruz[edit]

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

The player has never played at notable level, fails WP:NFOOTBALL, and has not received anything more than routine coverage, fails WP:GNG. Article can be recreated if/when he makes RSL debut. TonyStarks (talk) 03:47, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. TonyStarks (talk) 03:48, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: yet another MLS drafted player who people think is notable just for being drafted. Anyway he fails to pass WP:NFOOTBALL so ya, delete the page. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 04:03, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 13:47, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - never played above the PDL which means he fails WP:NSPORT, and since there no significant coverage he fails WP:GNG as well. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:54, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 21:43, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^{talk to me} 13:20, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Call of Duty: Black Ops 2.0[edit]

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

This article is not supported by any references. A google search indicates all rumors and no official statement by the publisher or developer. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. When more information is available for the game, then it'll be fine for an article, but not now. -- Luke (Talk) 02:10, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Snow/Speedy/Squash delete Duplicate of Call of Duty 9, which is a sourced 'upcoming game' stub with a possible working title. Even if the game does turn out to be 'Black Ops 2' it's unlikely that it's going to be 2.0 as opposed to 2, so a redirect is unnecessary. Someone another 12:11, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Someone another, but I don't think it satisfies CSD A10 as a "recently created article". --Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 14:08, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Yet another instance of it being too soon for an unannounced, future Call of Duty game. Sergecross73 msg me 13:59, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- As per above. Still no official information. Re-create it when the game is announced. Havok (T/C/e/c) 00:54, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:58, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of slap bass players (electric bass)[edit]

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

Unsourced since forever, problems with redlinks. Doesn't seem terribly verifiable. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:53, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A redundant content fork of Slapping in addition to being a non-encyclopedic cross-categorization (bassists (X) who play a bass type (Y) in a certain way (Z)). Details should be restricted solely to reliably-sourced mentions within the greater context of the Slapping article. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 12:31, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just logged in to LOL @ Suriel1981's tortuous reversal of the "not specific enough" rationale. I wish deletionists would harness some of their seemingly boundless creativity constructively. But hey, Suriel, if you can find that rationale in a WP rule somewhere, by all means let us know. Anarchangel (talk) 11:26, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 14:57, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anarchangel, if you've got something useful to contribute to Wikipedia then just go ahead! Any time you feel like it, buddy. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 18:35, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Content is entirely unique to 'Slapping' article; no other rational rationales presented. 10lb is at a disadvantage, having to prove a negative, but I feel certain he is mistaken. Can't really be bothered to go look for more than one citation, but as expected, I found it in seconds. Example: Dave Allen of Shriekback is noted by RecordCollectorMag as playing "agit-slap bass". Anarchangel (talk) 20:30, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 01:54, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A list on a notable topic that includes (mostly) notable entries. Sourcing issues should be discussed on the article's tlakpage and is not the purpose of AfD. Lugnuts (talk) 07:50, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:ATD. Just because it's unsourced doesn't mean its contents aren't verifiable. Maybe the articles on some of those artists include cited references to their technique, which could be copied across. A merge to Slapping would be undue. -- Trevj (talk) 20:59, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^{talk to me} 13:21, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Anthony (evangelist)[edit]

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

Article relies on primary sources. It was deleted after WP:PROD for lack of verifiable/independent sources, then undeleted following this request in which an anon editor stated:

Tony Anthony is a well-known evangelist and author and his Wikipedia page had a removal request from people attempting to harm his story. We are seeking undeletion because there are a number of sources to verify the claims of Tony Anthony and we wish to have those stated on his Wikipedia page. -72.145.180.19 18:29, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

However, judging by the material that was added after the undeletion, these were still just primary and self-published sources. In the eight weeks since it was restored, I also tried to find sources; although I added the best that I could find, they are still not good enough to retain the article. On the article talk page and various user talk pages, multiple editors have questioned the veracity of Anthony's claims about himself. The article is not verifiable as required by WP:BLP and must therefore be deleted. – Fayenatic L (talk) 12:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. – Fayenatic L (talk) 13:03, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Media coverage of Anthony appears to exclusively rely on his own account as a source. The most exhaustive research done on the man is the considerable investigation detailed here (it's a loooong thread to read through, give yourself a couple of hours...), but since it's on an open discussion forum it's unusable per WP:RS. In the absence of any coverage in reliable sources that doesn't stem directly from the subject himself, I can't see this passes WP:GNG. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:09, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reasons stated. His is not, unfortunately, an especially remarkable life and the only suggestion of notability is that he has published a book about his experiences. The problem is that this is the obly source for most of the detail in the article, and is the background to most of the other sources. Emeraude (talk) 13:13, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

His life is pretty remarkable (kung fu world champion, elite bodyguard, murderer, tiger-tamer, desert survivalist etc.), but only if you believe his own account - which most people who've made even the most cursory investigation don't. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:00, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not all sure if i'm editing this correctly. forgive me if I am not ! It is already clear that there is no independent, verifiable evidence of the validity of Anthony's claims about himself. There is a great deal of evidence avaialable that strongly indicates that the claims are implausible. Anthony has been directly challenged with much of this evidence on a number of occasions and I am not aware of any realistic refutation of those challenges. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roundhse (talk • contribs) 17:02, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above comment appears to be in support of the proposal to Delete the page. – Fayenatic L (talk) 16:49, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 01:33, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. – Fayenatic L (talk) 16:43, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. – Fayenatic L (talk) 16:43, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. – Fayenatic L (talk) 16:43, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There seems to be no independent support for any of his many claims. Astudent0 (talk) 17:53, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - evidence is too unreliable. I wouldn't rule out War Cry as a valid source for notability purposes, but I'm not happy with using it as a reference for criminal acts, even if the subject claims to have committed them. If a newspaper reports a criminal conviction, you can be reasonably sure they are reporting on a decision of a court, but in this case they appear to be relying solely on Tony Anthony's own story. I don't like challenging the accuracy of sources, but there is very little in this article I would be confident of as being fact. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 20:17, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(with some regret) delete -- He appears to run one-man ministry, which is unlikely to be notable. Newspaper articles on his convictions are presumably WP:RS. Published autobiographies ought to have eben verified to some extnet by the publisher, unless they are truly self-published. Nevertheless, he appears NN to me. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:55, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The existing article history needs to be deleted;I notice Ravensfire's rewrite still has much of the content marked, correctly, as cite needed--and it's negative material about a LP. No objection at all for Ravensfire or some other neutral established editor to reinsert a sourced article. DGG ( talk ) 02:25, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Samanta Institute of Science and Technology[edit]

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

This page was rewritten today by an editor who was then blocked. I went back through its history trying to find a sourced and NPOV version, but failed.

So far as I can tell, no matter which SPA last edited it, this has always been an article full of accusations and innuendo. At various points, it has included allegations about hit men, US government malfeasance, religious cults, attempted murders, and media conspiracies. There appear to be two groups in a slow-moving edit war, and both sides to want it to be an attack page against the other.

Researching the name, I found a few GHits, but not enough to prove notability. Google News archive only has two hits.

In short: it's a an attack page on a non-notable topic, and should go. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 05:28, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 05:40, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Delete~~ The article as it exist now is not encyclopedic in tone at all. I am familiar with hearing news reports on Green Bay, Wisconsin television stations. So it has been discussed in local media, as evidenced by (unwikilinked) WSAW-TV's citations from the television affiliates in the Wausau television (the other local television market). The group is extremely controversial so I'm not surprised to see an article like this pop up from 2 opposing SPAs. Words like "allegations, conspiracies, and cults" have been thrown around about the group. In summary, the article isn't worth saving as it is right now but I think that there are reliable sources to make an article. I'm not going to spend time on it. No prejudice against someone creating an article later but only if written up to Wikipedia standards. Royal broil 04:00, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep after seeing Ravensfire's rewrite, I am satisfied that the article meets GNG. There is enough verifiable content from reliable sources on this very controversial group. Royal broil 13:16, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is possibly worth noting. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 07:09, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The confusion apparent in this article centres on an ongoing legal dispute involving the new religious movement founded by R.C. Samanta Roy, known currently as Avraham Cohen. Here is one recent report about what is happening.[110] If no reliable sources exist reporting on the NRM and Avraham Cohen himself has no notability (beyond news stories involving ongoing legal proceedings), there seems to be no justification at present for an article either on the institute, the NRM or the founder. Mathsci (talk) 09:29, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Hopelessly slanted and the sources don't appear to meet reliability standards. I see little evidence of notability. EyeSerene^talk 09:32, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nobody Ent 10:19, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep GNews search for "Samanta Roy Institute of Science and Technology" (with quotation marks) gives back six pages of results. I haven't been through them all (don't have time at present), but there could well be a pass of the WP:GNG in there. Running the same search through GBooks provides several legal documents as well. However, the whole article would need rewriting from scratch if kept. Yunshui 雲‍水 15:00, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are also a number of articles at ReligionNewsBlog (which, despite the URL, is a news aggregator). Yunshui 雲‍水 15:04, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Couldn't find any really strong sources for this and the current article is an absolute mess, full of unsourced speculation mixed with badly sourced junk and the occasional decently sourced minor nugget. Ravensfire (talk) 16:07, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've just gone through the article pulling out unreliable sources, POV commentary and unsourced negative comments towards BLP's. WP:RS is a policy that must be enforced, even for articles going through an AFD. Attempts to re-add the information without adequate sourcing will be reverted. Ravensfire (talk) 16:33, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I've been doing some more searches and I think there's enough out there to meet the notability requirements. There's a collection of articles about the group from rickross.com, just realize there is a POV to Rick Ross. The bankruptcy mentioned in the article is under a totally different name, Yehud-Monosson USA, Inc., which turned up some more tidbits. Royal's comment is very on point though - this group has a fair amount of local drama around it. It seems to have been around for a while and while unfortunate for the group, some of their recent filings in the bankruptcy case are getting some wider exposure. Ravensfire (talk) 17:29, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons suggested by WP:TNT. If Ravensfire and Yunshui want to write a decent article about it, I have no complaints, but the current content and all its history are too far gone. Let's say that they write a decent article tomorrow — they'll still have to start over 100%, so the current content won't help at all. Nyttend backup (talk) 05:06, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Nyttend - non-notable and biased history - no gscholar hits either 7 05:11, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Interestingly enough, here is an article from Russia Today talking about what it is even like to grow up and go to school in that town. It isn't surprising there is so much drama. The human rights issues in Shawano, WI are finally going international, and its about time. Maybe we can really get this wheel spinning and bring some justice to that community. It has been too long in coming already. Schoolgirl banned from playing basketball for speaking Native American language — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kerev HaEmet (talk • contribs) 05:35, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kerev, your link isn't not related to this topic. It's about a misunderstanding related to children from nearby Menominee Indian Reservation about 10 miles (15 km) north of Shawano. Royal broil 13:10, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If SIST is going to be a page on here, then the human and civil rights issues in the community are going to be a topic. Here is the fist sentence of the article "And what did we learn today, class? At Sacred Heart Catholic School in Shawano, Wisconsin, a recent lesson plan revealed to students that saying “I love you” in one’s native tongue is something worthy of disciplinary action....." As you can see this is not 10 miles from Shawano, it is right in Shawano. If WP is going to reference slanderous articles, then I am going to be forced to add relevancy from other sources to the topic with factual articles regarding the human rights abuses in the community so the average reader from a different community becomes educated that SIST and civil/human rights issues go hand in hand. Kerev HaEmet (talk) 18:32, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Unlike the nom said, this page was not created by a single purpose account. It was created by myself, a veteran editor with thousands of diverse contributions. It has been significantly modified from the last version when I first created it, and few of the sources I placed in it from then are still in it. This is the version from when I last worked on it, and it clearly seemed notable then. I have not paid much attention to editing ever since. Shaliya waya (talk) 16:28, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Got a diff for where I said anything at all about the creator of the article?
If you're referring to my statement "this has always been an article full of accusations and innuendo," keep in mind that one side believes that referring to the group as a "cult" is itself an attack, and that your version used "cult" five times in its four paragraphs (not to mention that of its two categories, one was Category:Cults). Also, I never said that every editor that's touched it is an SPA, just that a lot of SPAs have been involved here—and I think that that's fairly obvious. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 02:44, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is important to realize that if a certain word such as "cult" is a problem, all it takes is an edit to change that, not deletion. Also, SPAs are not always a bad thing. It is perfectly acceptable under Wikipedia guidelines to edit only one article in one's life or make just a single edit if it is productive. Shaliya waya (talk) 21:10, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A Google search finds no evidence that a "Samanta Institute of Science and Technology" exists. The (bankrupt) SIST organisation seems to be notable in Shawano, Wisconsin, but not outside the town. Fails WP:N and WP:V. -- 202.124.72.39 (talk) 09:09, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 01:31, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment Relisting due to article rewrite late in the AFD.--v/r - T P 01:31, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nothing in the rewrite (which largely consists of unsourced -- and, in some cases, defamatory -- material) suggests a reason to keep. The only reliable references are in a local newspaper, The Shawano Leader. -- 202.124.74.142 (talk) 06:27, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are a number of sources relating to bankruptcy cases of various Shawano-based companies, under different names, that seem to be affiliated with SIST. However, these companies appear to be for-profit companies operating retail outlets, rather than "an educational non-profit 501(c)(3) organization." -- 202.124.73.67 (talk) 06:42, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
— 202.124.73.67 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment Although there is no "Institute" run by SIST, SIST does seem to be or have been some kind of religious organisation, as well as a collection of retail outlets. However, any article about SIST as a religious organisation (assuming it is notable as such) would have to start from scratch: there is nothing here worth keeping. -- 202.124.73.67 (talk) 07:00, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment With all due respect to Ravensfire and other editors who have attempted cleanup, still think this is a non-notable org. 7 07:01, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Same here, personally. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 03:03, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Although this is a notable topic in some ways, the Shawano Leader that 202.124.73.67 speaks of has never bothered to interview the founder of SIST nor any of the board members. Neither have they interviewed a single SIST employee. This article from 2004 is the only non-slanderous article ever printed in Shawano Leader. Since that time, there has hardly ever been any reference to the school in the news anywhere in the United States. Until there is more information that a WP editor can use regarding the actual school, it is a non-notable topic by every WP standard. The local newspapers have a lot of 'alleged accusations' 'insinuations' etc...none of it proving anything as solid fact backed up with evidence. The slander and lies need to go. Local bias against the Indian immigrant founder of SIST has no place in WP except as a lesson for humanity world-wide that the core mentality of white supremacy still exists.... in the United States. Tax documents prove SIST is a school. Why has there not been any mention of it since then? Obviously something is amiss in Shawano. Kerev HaEmet (talk) 16:39, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
— Kerev HaEmet (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment Just for everyone's information, all of the Shawano Leader articles have been written by a reporter named Tim Ryan. Here is the link to an article about this reporter. In the article, he is pictured 3 times flicking off a previous SIST board member in the Shawano Courtroom and outside the Courthouse. With that kind of documented evidence, he is obviously not an unbiased reporter. Shawano Leader should not even be used as toilet paper, let alone an unbised reference. Kerev HaEmet (talk) 18:17, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable topic Digging deeper into the history of SIST you will find that this page is missing a large portion of factual evidence. I personally believe that it is slanderous and must be taken down. I am sure that when I say this I am speaking for not only my self but the employees of SIST, And the students that are enrolled in the school as well. Fearless Mountain Goat (talk) 18:48, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
— Fearless Mountain Goat (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete Non-notable topic I personally believe that this is slanderous and must be taken down. I am only seeing one side of the story, therefore i would like to see that no more slander is being done to the school and its employees. Jailbird30 (talk) 21:04, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
— Jailbird30 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete non-notable topic - Lack of creditable sources. For the most part the news has been very much against this organization and almost never use facts or documented facts in their stories. It seams the author takes an undocumented story and use it for creditable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fightforright (talk • contribs) 23:31, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
— Fightforright (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment As anyone would notice, there are several "deletes" above that are accounts or IPs with few edits. And as anyone would notice, there is a {{not a ballot}} note at the top of the page. I am not saying that accounts with few edits should be excluded from participation here. But the real problem is that this article is being judged negatively based on the way it appeared when it was initially proposed for deletion, which is radically different from the originial version, and based on the fact it has been edited by many SPAs. The nom even stated inaccurately that it was created by an SPA. The reality is that I, a veteran editor, created the article after seeing a segment about it on the news, and this is my original version. It contained plenty of sources, enough to meet the general notability guideline. Many of those links have rotted since, but LINKROT is not a reason for deletion. I have not really paid much attention to editing of this article since then, and I have actually edited Wikipedia very little in the past several months. Shaliya waya (talk) 23:57, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As I wrote earlier (over a week ago), "Got a diff for where I said anything at all about the creator of the article?" You haven't yet come up with that diff, but you still continue to make the same false accusation about me. Please stop.
Which makes me wonder: why do you think the {{spa}} editors are !voting for deletion based on the way the article looked at the time I nominated it? I think that that's highly unlikely myself, as those accounts weren't even created then. Got any basis for this new accusation?
And while I'm thinking about it… no, you aren't the only one who's noticed a slew of SPAs; that's why User:7 added the {{not a ballot}} template, and why I've been adding {{spa}} tags after certain !votes. I'm sure that the closing admin will give them all the weight they're due; no more, and no less.
And lastly—didja notice that I didn't add the {{spa}} tag to your !vote? Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 03:03, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not convinced by that "original version" of the article, which is largely concerned with a WP:SINGLEEVENT that doesn't seem to have resulted in criminal charges. And "Neighbors reported that the house had always appeared dark at night" doesn't seem to contribute to notability in any way. -- 202.124.74.221 (talk) 08:46, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete 'non-notable topic' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serina2004 (talk • contribs) 01:58, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
— Serina2004 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

delete 'non-notable topic' Lack of credible resources. The media and news need to stop bringing out one side of the story...if you can even call what they say one side of the story. This is a biased page and a lot of information is skipped over. If there is to be a page about SIST it needs to have the correct information. Enough of the slandering and false accusations against SIST. "12:12, 14 March 2012 (UTC)~" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peacetous (talk • contribs)
— Peacetous (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

delete. non-notable topic. there are no credible sources cited in this article and most of the information is completely missing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peaceandtranquility (talk • contribs) 17:03, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
— Peaceandtranquility (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment: Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kerev HaEmet. WilliamH (talk) 00:47, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shocking. Wait - no it's not. From everything I've read, this group is extremely agressive at trying to hide negative information, attack critics and exhibits some really odd behavior. Allegations of a "hit list" from the group even hit the CBS Evening News (note that no charges were filed by the FBI after the investigation). I've given up trying to trace through the maze of bankruptcy filings for them. Ravensfire (talk) 01:07, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Put me down as also unshocked (although unlike Ravensfire, I don't think the article is worth keeping). Now that they've been confirmed, I've indented and struck the !votes of the socks. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 02:47, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am an SPA, who's sole purpose was to edit-and add-to this page, awhile back. At first, I painted it with my views, but then added the opposition's (those who are stating that this is a business and a legitimate school, only). Despite the fact that it would be great (in my opinion) to have a site up for this group, either under this name or another, my view now is that unless it's locked down and managed by expert editors, let's not bother with it. For those who cannot find much on this group, go to rickross.com and type "rama behera" in the search field. I can add refs for many articles from the late 70's and early 80's to that list. This is one side of the story. You've heard plenty from the other--as noted above. There will *always* be this continuous battle. It doesn't help that the individual in charge has changed his name over the years, and that the business is not the same name as the religious group. They have a point--the business is different from the religion--except, the religious members run or work in the businesses that are supposed to be raising money for the school supposedly, and the man in charge, Behera/Samanta Roy/Cohen manages all of it. It's a real-life circle-circle intersection. Religion--businesses--school. As to being notable or not--it's not such a big deal to some, but to others it is--and who gets to "win"? Read my comments on the "talk page" about this issue. Let me know if you want what I have. Junipersophie (talk) 14:34, 19 March 2012 (UTC)junipersophie[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. henrik•talk 08:06, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Corey Smith (artist)[edit]

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

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

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

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

Does not meet notability guidelines for WP:ARTIST UnQuébécois (talk) 18:32, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The subject is notable with multiple citations from reliable sources.^[1]^[2]^[3] Please review the subject and help Wikipedia expand the new media artists Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts Alice0000 (talk) 19:08, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The questions of notability of an artist:

Is the person regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors?
Is the person known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique?
Has the person created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews?
Has the person's work either (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums?

I do not see any of these as being answered yes.--UnQuébécois (talk) 19:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The questions of notability of an artist:

Is the person regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors?

Yes the subject is highly regarded in the snowboarding/art scene, I wouldn't be wasting my time making this wiki (and soon other visual artists pages) if I didn't respect him and his contributions to our community.

Is the person known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique?

The subject's art creation technique is very unique, especially in the type of hand-made display. The subject has created a new concept in hand-built wooden snowboards contributing to the free ride movement.

Has the person created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews?

There have been countless print and online articles/interviews of the subject concerning his entire body of work, individual series, photographic work, film/video contributions, and more recently his hand-made snowboards/art.

Has the person's work either (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums?

The subject's work has received international acclaim and notoriety. The subject has permanent residency at several public and privately held galleries.

Does this help answer your questions...there is countless references that are being accumulated and added simultaneously. Any contributions you might have will be greatly appreciated. Alice0000 (talk) 20:21, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide Wikipedia:SOURCES#Reliable_sources.--UnQuébécois (talk) 20:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please take time and review the current third-party sources, non of them are self published... "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" a majority of these online sources are taken from their own mass globally 'printed' articles Alice0000 (talk) 20:45, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reliable third party sources that support any notability of this artist. Wikipedia:Third-party_sources#How_to_meet_the_requirement. Are you connected in any way to this artist?--UnQuébécois (talk) 20:51, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but I think you have little to no knowledge of this subject. Please present me with a source that will satisfy your requirements on this topic The subject is notable with multiple citations from reliable sources including peers.^[4]^[5]^[6] Please review the subject and help Wikipedia expand the new media artists thank you Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts Alice0000 (talk) 21:01, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to quote your page "1> "NO! You can/must not do that." This type of interaction fosters an environment of Confrontation between the parties involved, especially in situations where people of dissimular backgrounds are involved. Example: What is wrong or forbidden in one culture might be completely acceptable in another, it is not anyone's place to judge another's background.

2> "It might be better if you do it this way." Following this way of interacting with people nourishes a much more cooperative and friendly surrounding. Example: While one might do or say something that is not viewed as correct by others, the impact might not be known to the "offender" and should be educated as to the issue, allowing the "offender" to proactively be aware."

Please do not judge and help expand this topic you are not currently satisfied with - Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts Alice0000 (talk) 21:04, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not able to find any reliable third party sources, I have tried to. I do not have requirements on this subject, Wikipedia has policies outlining what meets notability criteria. I have assumed good faith, but this looks more and more like self promotion. Please see Wikipedia:Civility before things get heated up.--UnQuébécois (talk) 21:19, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a confusing article, its main claim is that Smith is a notable artist (hence the long list of exhibitions) but there are no independent, reliable sources to support it. If independent and reliable sources are added I'll happily change my 'vote'. Unfortunately Smith has a common surname so its not easy to identify good sources online. Note that the galleries are not independent because they have a vested interest in promoting Smith and his exhibitions. Sionk (talk) 22:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable per WP:ARTIST. Most (if not all) of the sources cited are either promotional pieces or blogs, nothing that counts as a reliable source. No claims of fulfilling any of the notability criteria listed for artists, and not really even anything that meets the general notability guideline. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:34, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please advise about improving this topic, do not be deconstructive or negative in your opinions.- thank you

Comment: the contents of inline citations will only display with a {{reflist}} or {{reflist-talk}} template on the page. I am posting one so that others can more easily see the sources provided by Alice0000. Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 02:34, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://artmiami.tv/articles-2/corey-smith-coral-canyon-gallery-red-dot/
^ http://graeterartgallery.com/otherIndex.php?otherContent=artistsGallery.php&title=Graeter%20Art%20Gallery%20-%20Corey%C2%A0Smith&artistId=5
^ http://shredonmag.com/news/interview-corey-smith/
^ http://artmiami.tv/articles-2/corey-smith-coral-canyon-gallery-red-dot/
^ http://graeterartgallery.com/otherIndex.php?otherContent=artistsGallery.php&title=Graeter%20Art%20Gallery%20-%20Corey%C2%A0Smith&artistId=5
^ http://shredonmag.com/news/interview-corey-smith/

Delete - Lack of reliable sources proving subject meets any of WP:ARTIST criteria 1-4. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 12:16, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - None of the refs convince me of notability heaving had to read each one twice in apparently different sources. Agree with nom - does not meet WP:ARTIST Velella ^{Velella Talk} 20:20, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, none of the sources appear to satisfy WP:RS and I find nothing to show how WP:GNG is met. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:29, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:ARTIST is notorious difficult to implement. References as provided by user:Alice0000 demonstrate coverage and notability. The nominator seems to have very little understanding of the concept of notability. Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:52, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This does not satisfy WP:ARTIST] nor WP:GNG. The sources provided are either blogs, press releases or images of flyers. There are a couple of online publications that may go beyond that but they do not provide anything beyond the trivial. Basically there's one interview that can be used to establish notability and it just doesn't do it at this time. This is a young artist and this may change in the future and the article can be rewritten then when more substantial sources are available. freshacconci talktalk 03:46, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with Barney the barney barney This article covers WP:ATH and WP:ARTIST. I thought this would make it easier because it has more coverage and notability. Here is another recent interview/article i found by Vans ^[1]. In the snowboarding + art community this is considered highly notable content. I want to add correlating articles, but I am starting to feel like this is a judgement from a society that is losing touch, and enjoys discouraging others from contributing. Alice0000 (talk) 07:54, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://wearelookingsideways.com/artists/corey-smith-profile/

Please don't feel persecuted. It isn't society loosing touch nor do the great majority of Wikipedia editor want to be discouraging BUT all articles must conform to the notability guidelines that the population of Wikipedia editors have agreed by consensus. If you think that the guidelines are wrong then please join the debate at the appropriate location. From my perspective, the guidelines as they affect Artists are less stringent than those affecting many other individuals such as Scientists or Engineers many of whom live and die in Wikipedian obscurity despite contributing enormously to society and the well being of society. Nobody is picking on you or Corey Smith but notability can be tough to attain. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 13:25, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment WP:ATH does not apply as his career as an athlete not appear to be notable. Where he approaches notability would be as a designer and businessperson and the only useful source currently available is the interview in Snowboarder magazine. All other sources provided are brief mentions, product promotions or press release-type coverage. Any claim to notability should rest on the business side of things and if you could find real sources, independent, non-trivial sources that go beyond a brief mention or which sound basically like an ad, that would go a long way towards saving the article. But as it stands, there is very little here and he simply does not have any verifiable notability as an artist or athlete at this time. freshacconci talktalk 12:15, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This seems to be a silly argument. The artist seems to have a lot of shows and there are a lot of articles to show his work is being seen by many. Also, he has a long history as a professional snow boarder.184.91.185.100 (talk) 01:17, 27 February 2012 (UTC)— 184.91.185.100 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Bilby (talk) 04:51, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I Google news archive search for his name and the word "gallery" to see if they mentioned his art and got 90 results, some of which were about him. He is interviewed about one exhibit at Transworld Snowboarding [111] which has other articles about him as well. Mention of him at [112] with the translation found [113]. It says he was once a professional snowboarder, so that's something. Mentions his art. So he was a professional in his sport, so passes WP:ATHLETE and some of the museums he has been featured at are surely notable so he passes WP:ARTIST. Dream Focus 16:46, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B music ian 07:47, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources dug up by Dream Focus seem to be of dubious reliability, ditto the We Are Looking Sideways source. The only sources dug up otherwise look like routine, tangential sources — one-off interviews, parenthetical mentions, etc. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 08:42, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dubious reliability? Transworld Snowboarding is the most widely-subscribed snowboard magazine in the world with over 1.3 million copies sold annually. If you doubt if something is reliable source, take a few seconds to check the article for it. They give him coverage at various times. Dream Focus 01:02, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Being interviewed about one's own exhibit is publicity. There needs to be multiple independent, aka non-biased non-self promoting, sources to show notability. --UnQuébécois (talk) 21:44, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Every time someone does an interview, its almost always to publicize something they wish to promote. The multiple interviews done in Transworld Snowboarding count towards notability. Dream Focus 10:23, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:GNG " Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability. " Also: ""Independent of the subject": excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator. For example, self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, the subject's website, autobiographies, and press releases are not considered independent."--UnQuébécois (talk) 03:39, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 01:30, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep ~ on the condition the article is drastically improved (requires a lot more sources; wikifying etc.). If the article has not been updated, and article is renominated, withdrawal of my support will be unfortunate, but appropriate. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 05:56, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per Hammer Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 16:47, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It seems folks definitely should have looked at Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Basic criteria as well. It appears to me that there is enough between the two areas for Corey Smith (artist) to pass the notability criteria. I will spend some time Saturday 3/24 HST reviewing sources in the article & from Google searching, then get the references into citation format. I think some of the confusion about notability may have arisen from the relative newness of snowboarding as a sport. Peaceray (talk) 08:16, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have converted a lot of references to citation templates & along the way re-verified the most of the sources & usually swapped in better sources as I found them. I have been tweaking the categories & stubs to get more granular, added Wikipedia:WikiProject Sports & Wikipedia:WikiProject Skiing and Snowboarding to the talk page. Re-ordered some sections, e.g., put Interviews down under External links. Next I will tackle expanding the career sections. Peaceray (talk) 02:58, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - In reviewing the sources, Corey Smith is obviously an important contributer to Snowboarding culture, and seems to be an active member of the contemporary Los Angeles art scene, contributing both art & work as a curator. He contributes design to snowboard companies & has established his own company to produce one-of-a-kind snowboards, some functional, some solely as art. He is significant enough that Vans is exhibiting his stuff in Austria. I do not particularly like his art, but then I can think of a number of notable artists whose work I dislike as well. I think that his notability within his niche (skateboarding, LA & Northwest Pacific art scenes) is pretty well established. His article may not be up to snuff yet, but then there are a lot of notables with substandard articles. Peaceray (talk) 02:58, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The quite numerous interviews in my opinion show that he is "regarded as an important figure" in the skateboarding/art scene, thus fulfilling WP:ARTIST. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 16:09, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sources that I consider WP:RS quality don't establish notability. Shadowjams (talk) 02:34, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources do not establish notability; so fails WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST. Mt king ^(edits) 03:33, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:57, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I.O.U. (hip-hop group)[edit]

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

Unsigned music duo with dubious notability, who may not meet the Wikipedia:GNG. While there are references, and they do get hits on websearches, none of them appear to be Wikipedia:RS, as most of them are from youtube, unnotable blogs, or college newspapers. PROD was turned down by page creator, so I brought it here as I don't believe the article meets the criteria for Wikipedia:Band. Rorshacma (talk) 22:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've found out about those guys because they were supposed to open for Kid Cudi in my town in WV. Instead they opened for Rick Ross and before that for Far East Movement. ^[1]^[2]. I think they fit Wikipedia:RS and the article should not be deleted. These guys might be on the rise, and might not be but they should have their own page. The article surely needs work and maybe fans will start contributing. So my final word is let's keep them! Abdelkweli (talk) 18:44, 22 February 2012 (UTC) -They've also performed at the Six Flags FrightFest Festival ^[3], were at the Third Rail Jam in Maine ^[4], digital and online editions of the Rutgers paper ^[5] and finally are in the process of going to Bamboozle (all from online search).Abdelkweli (talk) 18:55, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steven Zhang ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 02:13, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are a couple of relible independent mentions, like in this local paper and PR Newswire. DoctorKubla (talk) 11:21, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Poor sources really: home town local paper has article about home town band - big deal; press release says they will open for another band - big deal. An editor above rather gives the game away: "These guys might be on the rise, and might not be.." i.e., they're not there yet, and might never be. Delete (at least until they finish rising, or not). Emeraude (talk) 12:29, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Still a keep for me. Wanted to add this link as I just saw these guys were performing at Webster Hall in NYC and apparently still are on the list to make it to Bamboozle. I just feel like at this stage they might be Wikipedia:RS. Abdelkweli (talk) 22:49, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Webster Hall? Is that a major venue? Hardly. None of the other booked artistes have Wikipedia articles, not even the headliners, so IOU is not exactly moving in exalted circles. And a price tag of $10 a ticket (to see four bands) is not exactly an indication that this band has finished rising. Or falling. And they haven't even played this $10 NY gig yet. Emeraude (talk) 10:16, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you were to read the Webster Hall wikipedia article, you would see how "major" it is and how much of a landmark it is. Not many venues can boast the same history. Abdelkweli (talk) 00:02, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have read it and it is indeed a notable venue. But it's not a major auditorium in size, is it? Regardless, peformers cannot inherit notability from the venues they (have yet to) perform in. Emeraude (talk) 09:16, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

True. But it's a matter of days. Granted they're not huge but they have more notoriety than countless names on wikipedia. Abdelkweli (talk) 21:22, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 01:24, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Still a keep for me. I'm out of arguments besides following their evolution. Abdelkweli (talk) 15:26, 14 March 2012 (UTC). Until more members comment obviously. Abdelkweli (talk) 14:18, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BAND [114][115][116][117][118]. -- Trevj (talk) 22:09, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. After three weeks of being listed here, the discussion never really got around to discussing whether or not this organization is notable enough for a Wikipedia entry. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:46, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Safe Creative[edit]

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

Page is basically an ad for an ineffective (at vis-a-vis US rights) private "copyright registration" service that seems to be seeking legitimacy. Sources are all either from the company itself, lists of similar companies, basic reviews, or from corporate partners. This is perhaps a close call, but I just don't think it's there yet. Mgcsinc (talk) 05:14, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Dear Mgcsinc, Thanks for reviewing and pointing there's improvement to be made. I have tried not to create an ad like page, but to inform about an online private registry that based on technology, rather than authority can create a valid iuris tantum evidence as the Berne Convention and International Treaties suggest. I have some ideas and issues to point out like a) While US resident citizens do need to use the US Copyright Office to sue in the US, they might use private registries evidence to sue in other countries and legislations. b) The article does not seek legitimacy, there's the critic you state. It has been marked and highlighted thanks to the archive.org and that is the reason Safe Creative allows people to use a simplified wizard to send their registrations to USCO in the US, and outside. Also non US citizens use this system to register works in the Library of Congress c) Keep in mind that other English language users, such as UK residents, might find private registries valid. Also the article can be read by people from India or China, for instance. d) Some of the earliest endorsers, and some of the links, come from Creative Commons, not a partner though have collaborated in several projects together. Some of the earliest meetings of Safe Creative have been together in events with members of Wikimedia, Creative Commons and the MIT. I think can provide more links to this, true. d) There are being proposals to arrive at WIPO (Safe Creative has been invited to events at WIPO) will add those links too. e) Most important for me is the fact that the role of any registry is to provide information rather than only generating full evidence to sue. By providing up to date information of the situation and authorship of works, many infringements might not even take place. This is a key role, I believe. An example is wikipedia with images. If the page linked from Wikipedia pointing to the authorship claim dissapears, the validity of the first inclusion can be questioned, while having a point (or group of points sharing information in the future), public or private, providing this kind of information migh help to lower the uncertainty. Also there is in general a consensus, as proposal proposal from some countries arise, to have an back active registration system again so that ARR (all rights reserved) option must be and opt in. --Oneras (talk) 13:27, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello again. Have added some relevant links from the invitation from WIPO for Safe Creative and some links to declarations of Media Photographers Assoc. and Creative Commons. Any suggestion to improve the wording or structure of the article will be more than welcom. Maybe I could act an "issues at stake" section to comment the issues here stated? Cheers!--Oneras (talk) 14:34, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- After talking with some friends I have decided will refurbish the article to make it more about direct information of the company. Give me a few days to make the changes, please. --Oneras (talk) 09:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:32, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If you're going to clean it up, I suggest that you do it as soon as possible since at the moment this could be speedied because it's pretty much an unambiguous advertisement for your company. Also, I want to direct you to WP:COI. It's not against the rules to edit an article for a company or product you're involved in, but it is heavily frowned upon because it's so easy to write it as an advertisement without meaning to. Definitely do a cleanup, but also look into getting someone from Wikipedia:WikiProject Companies to help you if possible. If the article remains, you'll definitely want to get someone else to do the editing for you since that would help take care of many of the concerns of COI and neutrality. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Comment I've cleaned up the worst of the advertising and weeded through the sources to get rid of anything that didn't mention the company or was a primary source. (For Oneras: a primary source is anything that is released by the company, such as their website or their press releases. Even if a press release is posted on another site, it's still considered to be a primary source. You also cannot use things that merely state dates of meetings or gatherings.)Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:51, 1 March 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Hi Tokyogirl79 Thankyou very much for the editing. It goes in the line I was talking with some colleagues. Sorry for not writing sooner. I've been sick. Yes, I think this way it looks much better. As you mention, someone might not really want to look like an advertisment, but does it so anyway. I was wondering if it would be a good idea to add some direct company information, like who invests, date of public beta and the involvement in other projects such as communia and WIPO studies on private registration services. Also some milestones could be added. --Oneras (talk) 10:59, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 01:22, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Although it took a while to be made clear, it appears this article consists mostly of original research if not stuff (like the episode titles) that is just made up out of thin air. Verifiability is important enough to be considered one of the five pillars of Wikipedia, and it seems that this content cannot be verified. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:58, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Iss Pyaar Ko Kya Naam Doon Episodes[edit]

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

There is no need of such article, because it's incomplete and it's almost impossible to list and summarize 192-odd episodes (still counting). Titles are fan made, very unlikely that summaries have any sort of correctness. Main article is victimized by a troop of fans. Non-maintainable. — Bill william compton^Talk 05:42, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fan-made, unreferenced plot-only summaries edited mostly by a handful of editors who only ever edit this article and the article about the show itself. Wikipedia is not a fansite or the TV listings. JIP | Talk 07:19, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This may be appropriate for some other wiki sites, but not Wikipedia. To editors of this article: Please look into wikia.com This may be a better fit there. The Determinator p t c 19:00, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Crap! -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 12:34, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:17, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. I do not see any real arguments for deletion here. ("crap" is not a deletion rationale) Can somebody please explain why this episode list can't be fixed through the normal editing process? --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:21, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The serial itself is not extremely famous as such. The name given to the episodes are just someone's imagination. Its a Hindi Soap which will most likely last for years. Given its 5 days per week schedule its gonna gather episodes in few hundreds. If the list continues, it might as well be called Script of Iss Pyaar Ko Kya Naam Doon. And its crap in not the sense you linked but in the sense that it is "Something that is rubbish; nonsense" -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 10:13, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I know that "there's other articles like it" isn't a good rationale, but it's no worse an argument than much of the debate. And there are a lot of articles on not particularly well-known TV shows, like (chosen purely at random) List of Boy Meets World episodes (which has citations for some ratings info but not to any of the plot summaries). These lists can be hard to reference, although plenty of publications and websites do publish episode summaries of certain shows. But in the absence of someone pointing to actual Wikipedia policy against it, I don't see grounds to delete. Being complete or easy to update is not a requirement for a list. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:27, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indian television shows don't have any ratings, directors, writers, viewership, etc for any particular episode. You'll never find any reliable source to cite. There's no need to point any specific Wikipedia policy as this article is unencyclopaedic, what possible knowledge you gain from this? even these summaries are not correct. Please mention those "plenty of publications and websites" which publish episode summaries of this show, you won't find anything. I'm repeating my point that this article is unencyclopaedic because it doesn't add anything to your knowledge. — Bill william compton^Talk 17:50, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

adds nothing to your knowledge.??..what does this [here] or [here] adds to your knowledge or is it just that this are english language shows and this being hindi show does not meet your criteria--Brat tariq (talk) 15:52, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It has nothing to do with English/Hindi or any regional bias. Article like List of Friends episodes has ample of content, like it has DVD release dates, original titles of episodes (not the imagination of any user), directors and writers names, production numbers, and Nielsen ratings. Article has plenty of references. So, this article adds much to your knowledge. Actually, this article is an explanatory example of an ideal list. — Bill william compton^Talk 16:25, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The example which Colapeninsula gave of Boy Meets World has official episode titles. This show doesnt have that. As Bill william compton said, Indian shows will not have episode wise ratings or viewership rates. Believe me, Indian shows go on & on & on & on. This fan who is maintaining this page will some day loose interest in this show & this list will just stay as it is. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 18:14, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unnecessary, unsourced fancruft. Sparthorse (talk) 07:03, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There are many comments here that are off topic and/or offer no argument with a basis in WP policy, instead appealing to emotions or making unverifiable claims about phantom sources. Some sources have been found, the article has been improved somewhat, but there is doubt as to the value of those sources. We've got self-identified "weak" arguments from both sides. I can't see any consensus for any particular course of action here. By the way, I haven't really looked into it, but this "boot hockey" sounds very similar to Broomball, maybe a redirect is in order... Beeblebrox (talk) 00:38, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Foot hockey[edit]

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

Fails WP:VERIFY. Probably original research. Llama's Koala (talk) 20:49, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also fails the WP:GNG. Jared Preston (talk) 21:12, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL - I've verified it exists and there are a few sources online, but nothing significant, and nothing at all before 2002 or in 2012. I wouldn't salt it, because it could catch on, as did touch football. Bearian (talk) 23:14, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Foot hockey (also known as Boot hockey) is extremely popular in Canada. It is played in about every school yard in Canada and has been for decades. Touch football would be a perfect example of what it is like in terms of popularity. Definitely not a crystal issue, but will take some searching for sources. Not a source towards notability clearly but an example that it is a very old game here. -DJSasso (talk) 19:25, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:55, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I've PRODded this in the past, and my rationale then still holds; it may be popular (in Canadian schools, at least) but there aren't enough reliable sources that have been written about it, leastways not that I could find. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:28, 1 March 2012 (UTC)downgraded to a weak !vote per new sources in article. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:12, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Big problem is that it goes by a few names. The other common one (probably the most common one) is "Boot Hockey" which yields a few more pages. -DJSasso (talk) 12:46, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Boot hockey appears to be a different game; according to at least one source (p.364), boot hockey is played with sticks and a puck, rather than with the feet and a tennis ball. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:56, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I feel really sad when I see such comments (the one made by Yunshui above) in a deletion discussion about an article that has been around Wikipedia since 2006 and has had well over a hundred different wikipedians contribute to it. The article was started by a Wikipedian who made 12 contributions to it between 2006 and 2008. Since then hundeds of others have made small contributions, but seems like no one took "ownership", a concept that is frowned upon at wikipedia, but unfortunately necessary to keep an article alive. See contributions[119]

I am sad, even though this is not a topic that I care about or have contributed to. I am sad because so many others will be disappointed. I am sad because this article is only the tip of the iceberg, tens of thousands of other articles at Wikipedia are sure to follow into this black hole.

As I said this particular topic holds no interest for me personally, but there are hundreds more that do, none of which will stand up to the scrutiny of the deletionists who seem to have taken control of all the AFD discussions here. These deletionists spend their wiki-time lawyering almost exclusively in these deletion discussions and their only contributions are their DELETE votes together with a set of nicely mastered wiki-acronyms that only wiki-lawyers are familiar with. Ihave yet to see these people actually contribute anything to the articles they are voting to DELETE.

Countries such as Canada will be the sure losers of this wiki-deletion movement, because the press in Canada is not in the business of providing free access to knowledge. Few articles survive on the web in Canada once the topic becomes less news-worthy, and with the way copyrights law is nowadays, most information becomes unavailable in very short order after publication. As a result it is not that easy to find reliable secondary sources to support articles.

Sorry to intrude on this discussion. Ottawahitech (talk) 13:35, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it makes you sad, there's an easy way to make yourself happy again: find some reliable sources and cite them in the article. That's a surefire way to get any nomination based on notability grounds overturned. Personally I'm happy to change my !vote in the event of sources coming to light, and I believe any other Wikipedian would be as well. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:51, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

True I could spend hours educating myself on a topic I know nothing about, and have no interest in. However, I suspect this will not help anyone since this article seems to be doomed. If, on the other hand, I could figure out how Gene93k (who seems to be the only wikipedian providing this great service) sends notices to wikiprojects to alert them of deletions I would send a notice to WikiProject Canada... Ottawahitech (talk) 15:22, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did it for you. For future reference, go to the appropriate WikiProject's deletion discussion page and follow the instructions there. Yunshui 雲‍水 15:31, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Yunshui 雲‍水 15:31, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've found a few resources that mention foot hockey, though in passing instead of as the theme for the respective resource. Comprehensive school health : an ethnographic case study (page 83 of linked PDF, numbered 75 in doc), The Atlanta Thrashers hold a Foot Hockey Camp at the Andrew and Walter Young YMCA at examiner (on spam blacklist), The social dimensions of learning disabilities: essays in honor of Tanis Bryan (page 196). Mind matrix 21:05, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: there is another sport, similar to this one, that is sometimes referred to as foot hockey or Manipuri hockey. It is played in the Indian state of Manipur, and is usually referred to as Kangjei ("cane stick"), with variants known as Mukna Kangjei or Khong Kangjei. (See Manipur#Mukna Kangjei (Khong Kangjei) for more details.) The origins for this game are distinct from Canadian foot hockey, but because of the similarities in the game it may warrant mention in foot hockey, or at the very least a hatnote or "see also" mention. Sources for this game include: Khong Kangjei ( Hockey on Foot ), Khong Kangjei at indianet (on spam blacklist), Khong Kangjei (Manipuri Hockey), Khong Kangjei Hockey on Foot, Kangjei (used as a metaphor - see last two paragraphs of article), Manipur, past and present (page 185), and several photos of the game: pic1, pic2. Mind matrix 21:05, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've added two anecdotes from books published by Brian McFarlane and Sally Manning. Mind matrix 21:05, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Whilst I'm deeply impressed by Mindmatrix' research, regrettably I still don't see anything in the sources provided that meets the "significant coverage" requirement of WP:GNG. (It was fascinating to learn about the Indian equivalent, though.) Yunshui 雲‍水 21:45, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Ottawahitech (talk) 23:53, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 01:17, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There's another Google Books reference in Breaking the Ice: The Black Experience in Professional Hockey by Cecil Harris: it's described as "more like a form of soccer with a tennis ball", and a player's transition from street to ice is described. Note that it shouldn't be confused with khong kongjei/Manipuri hockey/"hockey on foot" which is like polo without the horses but still with the mallets. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:48, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I added that source as a reference yesterday, but to cite that Anson Carter's introduction to hockey was via foot hockey. I can't access the Google Books archive for that page of the book - can you provide more context? Regarding Manipuri hockey, I was just noting that it is similar to and sometimes referred to as foot hockey; I don't think it deserves anything more than tangential mention or disambiguation in this article. Mind matrix 22:07, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a real thing, as clicking on the Google news archive search results does show. Look! [120] There is even a picture of some kids playing it in one news article. I see one result which is unfortunately hidden behind a paywall.

SUNRISE DEBUTS NEW 3-RINK HOCKEY COMPLEX Pay-Per-View - South Florida Sun - Sentinel - Sep 15, 2002 The Foot Hockey program is designed for youngsters with no skating experience. ... The registration cost for the Foot Hockey and Roller Hockey programs is ...

They even have places built for foot hockey to be played. Dream Focus 20:23, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It exists. Your point is? Yunshui 雲‍水 08:36, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article does have multiple reliable sources and therefore does meet WP:GNG. Stedrick (talk) 14:03, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Adair article looks like significant coverage, but the other sources (which are definitely reliable, I'm with you there) are passing mentions. GNG requires significant coverage in multiple sources, not one significant source and a host of passing mentions. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:09, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That said, I'm starting to believe that sources probably exist, even if they haven't been found; the Adair article is proof that the subject is written about. I've downgraded my !vote to a weak delete, and will strike it altogether if I find another source which provides decent coverage. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:12, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article is unverifiable and cannot be justified under GNG. I have made a diligent effort to locate significant mentions in reliable sources – but with no success. The term “foot hockey” appears to be a colloquial term used to refer to any sort of game played (usually by school children) which involves kicking something - usually a ball - into a hockey net. There does not appear to be any official rules, or even any unofficial rules, which can be used to define this game further. The comment made that “sources probably exist, even if they haven't been found” cannot be taken seriously. If the sources exist then produce them, otherwise it must be assumed that they do not exist. Those sources that have been found are not significant (i.e. passing mentions only) and are not from reliable sources. Git2010 (talk) 01:14, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

it seems to be like kick the can, another very popular kids' game in some parts of the world. See, e.g., [121] ("a popular Canadian schoolyard game in which two teams of players kick a ball (usually a tennis ball) in an attempt to score on the other team’s net.").--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:13, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've expanded the article even further, with refs regarding rules, variants, and safety, and referenced anecdotes about childhood play from future NHL players, NFL players, and a US politician. Please inspect the article again, and possibly re-evaluate your !votes. (The article still needs cleanup though.) Mind matrix 02:39, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sweet sassy molassey, Mindmatrix's work helped me finally opine here.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 02:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The effort is appreciated, but I can't see any of these new sources providing anything beyond passing coverage. Many are just mentions of "foot hockey", without any attempt to define the term or even give it context, and a number are about "boot hockey", which, at least as they discuss it, is a different game to that described in the article (played on ice, and involving sticks). (Incidentally, there's enough here to convince me that an article on Boot hockey, as described by Tator and Timberland, is warranted). Most of these are things I found on Gbooks whilst doing a WP:BEFORE check; given their minimal coverage, this smacks of WP:OVERCITE.Yunshui 雲‍水 09:04, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many sources (whether citeable or not) seem to describe boot hockey as not having sticks.[122][123][124].--Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:51, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:IAR, WP:BUILD. AIUI most of the keep !voters have been seeking out reliable sources to include here. The fact that they've not yet been found by people here does not necessarily mean that the game isn't notable and documented somewhere. I've probably added all the refs I can, without access to the library of a specialist sports college or similar. Original research is not a reason for deletion: cleanup is the way forward.

Does this have to be repeated for Shinny too? Where is a researcher of traditional children's games to start, if not Wikipedia? Merging all the non-notable games into that article would be undue. -- Trevj (talk) 12:59, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep it has a lot of references proving some notability, but the topic itself does not seem particular notable. However overall, I would say the references are enough to keep it. JDDJS (talk) 16:43, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:52, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wallace C. Piotrowski[edit]

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

Non-notable person, fails WP:GNG Sudo Ghost 05:36, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:16, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable. This has been deleted numerous times and was actually salted for a while. Hairhorn (talk) 03:26, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Minor local official - nothing significant. noq (talk) 10:39, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - One term local government official; I'm not seeing much on the Google machine beyond that. Fails GNG. Carrite (talk) 18:34, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Incubate. v/r - T P 23:59, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Smiley (2012 film)[edit]

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

There's a complete lack of reliable sources about this on the internet and the article itself only has two sources, both of which are brief blurbs about the trailer. I've tried to find sources but other than a small flurry of activity centering around the movie's trailer, there's no concrete release date and no other information about the movie. Article was DE-PRODed with the claim that once the movie comes out, it'll be big, which is WP:CRYSTALBALL. Nominating for deletion because while I do think the movie will be big once it comes out, there's no release date and the film does not pass WP:NFF in the here and now. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:22, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: After posting this there were two more sources added to the article, one of which was a link that was already on the page, so I changed it to a repeated citation tag. The current links on the site are as follows:

An IMDb link. This cannot show notability in any form and at most, is a trivial link.
An article about the trailer. It's incredibly brief, mostly recycling the same content that was posted in link number 3.
Another article by Dread Central. Another incredibly brief article that states the same stuff that was posted in link 2.
This is a BD article about the trailer. Like the others it is only the briefest of articles about the trailer and is not really what is needed to show that this passes WP:NFF.

So far there's no indepth coverage of this film and in order to show that a future film has notability it must have a lot of coverage, which this film lacks. Trust me, I did try to look for sources before nominating this and there's juts nothing out there. While I believe it might be big, there's no guarantee that it will be.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:31, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Timing of release is currently vague, but filming has been completed and promotion is in full swing for the eventual release. Sourced good enough for an upcoming release, and more sourcing will come undoubtedly. Nate • (chatter) 15:49, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We can't keep articles because they may or may not get notability later on down the line. The coverage so far is pretty thin, mostly comprising of brief articles about the trailer that seem to be mostly comprised of press release information. There's no in-depth coverage and unreleased films must have a lot of coverage to really qualify for an article before being released. Even if we were to go by WP:NFILM the lack of in-depth coverage would end up causing it to be sent to AfD.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 12:26, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One source suggests it's going to be video-on-demand not cinema release.[125] Director Michael J. Gallagher doesn't have a WP article (not to be confused with bishop Michael James Gallagher), and has never directed a feature film; his previous work, the tv show Totally Sketch, isn't on WP either. The lead actors aren't well-known either. So it's not certain the film will get significant press coverage or a big release. It seems marginal to me whether to delete (obviously not prejudicing re-creation after release). --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:41, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have no problem with it being userfied or incubated, but so far the only reliable sources for the film are insanely brief articles that all state the same thing: that there was a trailer released and that it'll come out sometime this year. Some of them seem like they were more taken from a press release than written on their own, as the two links to Dread Central say almost exactly the same thing about the movie with only the first paragraph being slightly different. The Bloody Disgusting page is almost identical, with the last sentence about the film's availability being the same as the other articles. I just think that an article for this is premature since the only reliable coverage of the film is a handful of brief articles about the trailer release. There's no other coverage of the film such as talking about the actors being signed or the production being underway, and none of the present articles are really in-depth about the movie. Since we can't guarantee that this will end up getting a lot of coverage since the current coverage for a movie that's finished filming is pretty scant, I think it's just too soon to say that it absolutely will get noticed. I think that we'll probably have to wait for it to get released and see if anyone reviews it.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 12:21, 6 March 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Comment Actually, Totally Sketch is a YouTube channel that has surprised 800,000 YouTube subscribers to date, and one of lead actors, Shane Dawson is the 6th most subscribed person on YouTube, internationally, with nearly 3 million subscribers. Gallagher has stated on Twitter that he is in the process of finalizing the release date, so that will likely be confirmed within the coming months. Shooting has completed and promotion is currently taking place, and of course, the information used is all backed up by reliable references, so I think that the article should stay. Keep.Navystardust12 (talk) 23:00, 9 March 2012 (EST)navystardust12 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.97.90 (talk)
Comment Notability is not inherited by anyone that stars in or directs the film. Dawson might be notable, but his being notable does not guarantee notability for this film. WP:NOTINHERITED The other issue is that there's nothing here to show notability right now in this place in time. All of your arguments are based around the idea that the film will eventually become notable and that the promotion will eventually catch the eye of enough sites to get more than an article that's 99% a reproduction of a press release. As far as Total Sketch goes, I don't see where that was ever used as a source. If you're remarking that the channel is run by someone who is involved in the film, then WP:NOTINHERITED works here as well because not every project by a notable person or group is automatically notable. To qualify for WP:NFF you have to have a lot of coverage and the only reliable coverage we have here are a handful of articles that mostly reproduce 2-3 paragraphs from a press release and show a trailer. To be honest, I feel that a lot of the arguments here stem from WP:ILIKEIT and not because the film actually passes any guidelines. I like the trailer for the film too, which is why I kept from nominating it for so long, but this just doesn't pass notability guidelines. Saying that this film will become notable or that the promotion will get it more visibility is just WP:CRYSTAL. Here's one of the qualifications of WP:NFF: Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines. There has been ZERO coverage of this film apart from a few articles about the trailer, which again- is mostly relisting of information from the press release. This just doesn't pass notability guidelines.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 18:35, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:06, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy or incubate. Unreleased film. Not notable, but could be soon, so userfy till it gets a release. Tigerboy1966 01:15, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate We DO have enough reliable genre sources speaking about this upcoming film,[126] to consider placing it in the incubator for a short while. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:26, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 23:55, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greece Digital Songs[edit]

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

From what I could tell, there is no Billboard or any other Greek Digital Songs chart. Billboard sources IFPI Greece, the official chart provider of Greece, for the Greek singles and albums charts it publishes, which would be like calling the UK Singles Chart a Billboard chart. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 10:32, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also at List of Greece Digital Songs number-one hits of 2012 and List of Greece Digital Songs number-one hits of 2011. The author has been notified of this discussion, which didn't appear to have been done. There are other similar articles, referenced in tha same way. The author has been around since 2010, and has made a reasonable number of edits, and so isn't a newbie. I agree that the reference given does not support the information, as it came up on my visit to the site. Peridon (talk) 12:01, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While IFPI does provide the album chart information, the digital songs chart for Greece is provided by Nielsen SoundScan International. Nielsen provides all the international digital songs charts that appear in Billboard's Hits of the World section and on billboard.biz. These sources are listed in print edition. There is no physical singles chart for Greece. The link here seems to be viewable for everyone (a bug?), even though these charts appear in the subscriber area of billboard.biz. Widr (talk) 22:20, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:30, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, looks like a hoax since the sources make no mention of such a chart. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:50, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:55, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Append: I still find no reference to "Greece Digital Songs" on billboard.biz, although there is some chart of Greece that this is probably using, but even on billboard, it is not adequately sourced. I also don't find this chart being covered in independent, reliable sources. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 08:52, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I don't see that the discussion addresses the other two articles in this AFD at all. Discussion seems to treat this AFD as a singular AFD. I suggest renominating them at another AFD. v/r - T P 23:54, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maren Knudsen[edit]

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

Amateur female footballer who plays in Toppserien and have represented Norway at youth level. Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. PROD was contested with the rationale "This article should not be deleted for lack of asserted importance because Maren Knudsen plays in one of the top European women's football championships according to UEFA's coefficients and she has played in the UEFA Women's Under-19 Championship, a notable UEFA-sanctioned international competition. Sources are provided for both statements." Mentoz86 (talk) 12:23, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After some discussion on the article-creator (User:Pakhtakorienne) talk page about the PROD's, he felt that women footballers should have other notability guidelines then men. I asked him to remove the PROD on all three article so that we could reach a consensus through an AfD, and that's why I'm nominating these three articles for deletion together. All three are playing in Toppserien and represented Norway in 2011 UEFA Women's U-19 Championship. Only difference is that Cathrine Dekkerhus also have participated in UEFA Women's Champions League. Mentoz86 (talk) 12:33, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Mentoz86 (talk) 12:41, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Mentoz86 (talk) 12:41, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. Mentoz86 (talk) 12:41, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep From a quick google search, I found evidence of non trivial coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. [127] [128] [129] Therefore passes WP:GNG. Nom might consider WP:BEFORE in future. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 15:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it passes WP:GNG, therefore football notability is a non-issue. Cloudz 679 17:57, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - having thought about this some more, I believe the article would need some kind of WP:NFOOTBALL "pass" to exist as an article. At the moment, WP:NFOOTBALL is geared towards male footballers, so this makes it difficult to have notability for any women's footballers other than those who have played for national teams. But I do believe that playing for an under-19 team and not at the full international level does not establish notability, male or female. Whether players from top European womens clubs (which are not professional) should have pages should be discussed somewhere, preferably at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women's sport. Cloudz 679 18:44, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - So basically one article at Football Association of Norway's website + coverage in the local paper + some coverage at a user-generated site is enough for GNG? Mentoz86 (talk) 18:22, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough for GNG, I'm afraid, and also fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:25, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say that women's football is a largely non-professional sport and should maybe have other guidelines than men's. Geschichte (talk) 21:27, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that other guidelines may be useful, particularly if the mainstream media cover the topic less than men's. However, the players taking pat in the many competitions would probably disagree with you about being largely non-professional. -- Trevj (talk) 21:28, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fail WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:11, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:53, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I don't know Norwegian, but she has been mentioned in Norwegian news sources. here , here, here, here, here, and other sources here. These 43 references in a Norwegian newspaper seem like the qualify her for WP:GNG for me. --LauraHale (talk) 09:13, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - WP:GNG states: ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." The three first sources you've listed names here in a starting line-up, the fourth is a match-report which states that Maren Knudsen made a penalty and the fifth article is about Tina Algrøy but mentions Knudsen in one sentence. The 43 references in "a norwegian newspaper" is infact 13 different newspaper's cooperation "100% fotball" (100% fotball facebookpage), and of the 13 papers you have 5 of the 8 biggest in Norway. Melissa Bjånesøy gets 39 hits in the 13 newspapers ([130]) and Cathrine Dekkerhus gets 21 hits the 13 newspapers ([131]). Neither of these three are close to pass GNG, but if there exist different notability guidelines for women than for men these articles could be kept. If not the WP:FOOTY project have a huge cleaning job to do, deleting all non-notable female footballers.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mentoz86 (talk • contribs) 12:14, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you trying to rebutt every single !vote that you disagree with? You've already expressed your opinion, please let everyone else express theirs. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 11:45, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 23:49, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Zezeran[edit]

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

With greatest respect to Mr Zezaran, I cannot find references that establish his notability, following WP:ANYBIO. Shirt58 (talk) 11:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:28, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added some new citations, is that enough? What else should there be? --82.131.15.69 (talk) 22:12, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete simply being a comedian or founding a minor event does not make one notable. LibStar (talk) 23:58, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Louis was the first ever stand up comedian in Estonia and his company, Comedy Estonia runs 6 shows a month and are the promoters for the biggest comedy events in Estonia, events of up to 1700 seats. Also Louis himself has starred in several commercials and had guest parts in several Estonian TV shows --193.185.223.3 (talk) 15:03, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:52, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He's not on Estonian Wikipedia, which counts against him. Has anyone read the Russian or Estonian articles cited? Based on my non-existent knowledge of Estonian, the latter seems to be primarily about Dylan Moran, a significantly more famous comic. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:56, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So how does the cycle go then, if he gets added to Estonian wikipedia then its more valid here? What if that is just a translation of this? Also you should get the articles properly translated — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.50.158.81 (talk) 13:20, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or userfy) per WP:BASIC. Online translations of the foreign language articles show they're not specifically about Zezeran but Comedy Estonia. If anyone wants to write Comedy Estonia, the article could be userfied to retain the content and refs. -- Trevj (talk) 21:41, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. After discounting the socks/SPAs. Sandstein 18:35, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eurocantera[edit]

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

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

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

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

I was unable to find enough reliable sources about this Honduran mining company. Most of the sources I found were either press releases (I don't know if they can be considered reliable sources) or were about Cartier, a company they work with. However, feel free to establish notability or find reliable sources, and I will gladly withdraw this AfD. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:30, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, for sure it is possible to spend more time finding more sources EccellenzaItalia 16:06, 24 February 2012 (UTC)— EccellenzaItalia (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

~~I have in mind a couple of sources to be added Metalsfan 16:33, 24 February 2012 (UTC)— Metalsfan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.~~ [reply]

~~It's enough? What do you think? EccellenzaItalia 17:35, 24 February 2012 (UTC)— EccellenzaItalia (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.~~ [reply]

~~Now it's better than many others mining companies articles... Metalsfan 17:38, 24 February 2012 (UTC)— Metalsfan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.~~ [reply]

Ok, anyway I will continue to improve the article. Now I expect the end of the process with "KEEP" ;-) EccellenzaItalia 17:42, 24 February 2012 (UTC)— EccellenzaItalia (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Good Job!! I put a reference to an important website specializing in information and analytics on diamond and jewellery markets. In the next days I'll continue to investigate for others references Metalsfan 17:33, 24 February 2012 (UTC)— Metalsfan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

"Keep" Eurocantera extracts alluvial gold in Honduras deposits using an innovative process which requires only water. It is part of an important group that operates in Honduras, with many employes Metalsfan 11:40, 01 march 2012 (UTC)— Metalsfan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

~~"NOT DELATE"~~ In my opinion, we have to maintain Eurocantera. There are lot of external authoritative links, for example Cartier Metalsfan 11:41, 01 march 2012 (UTC) — Metalsfan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Please do not "vote" twice. These discussions are not decided upon the amount of people voting "keep" but on the arguments posed by each side.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:40, 2 March 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Keep Eurocantera is also a very important company for its ethical appraoch. In fact, many newspapers and website talk about its way to extract materials cleanly and not harmful. Superargento 11:56, 01 march 2012— Superargento (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep Infact Superargento. Also one of the most important No-Profit organization, Pact, explain the Eurocantera project. http://www.pactworld.org/cs/cartier EccellenzaItalia 12:13, 01 March 2012 (UTC)— EccellenzaItalia (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Eurocantera has links to Goldlake Group and their company website, another reliable source. Goldfinger305 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goldfinger305 (talk • contribs) 18:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC) — Goldfinger305 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:55, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article's sources are dubious at best and do not show how this company is ultimately notable outside of their partnership with Cartier. Cartier is undeniably notable, but that notability does not extend to Eurocantera. A search for sources brought up a mere 2,030 hits, none of which were anything that could be used to show notability. Many of them were links to this AfD, to primary sources, or to "junk" sites. (I know ghits doesn't automatically mean one thing or another, I just want to stress that there's just not anything out there about this company that would show it passes WP:CORP.) The company isn't a complete unknown, but they just don't pass the guidelines for notability on Wikipedia at this point in time.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:10, 2 March 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

KEEP I found others connections with others companies:

Italpreziosi www.italpreziosi.it - italian trading precious metals company; Soltera Mining, is a gold exploration company concentrating on Latino America Ebehte (talk) 11:11, 2 March 2012 (UTC)Ebehte — Ebehte (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

"KEEP" I know quite a lot about Eurocantera; I run a Environmental Management Company and therefore have been involved in researching ethical and environmental standards in this very industry; I have also visited the mine myself and the results of my team in depth assessment confirm the outstanding social performances of the mine; ; You can also find relevant information in the following report compiled by leading experts http://www.lifeworth.com/consult/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/UpliftingTheEarth.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicola1981 (talk • contribs) 13:19, 2 March 2012 (UTC) — Nicola1981 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment. I want to stress to all of the single purpose accounts that have signed up to say "keep" that this is not decided on a vote and that accounts that sign up only to vote on an article up for deletion can and usually is seen with a high amount of suspicion. If you are the same person or the company itself signing on with different accounts in the hopes of keeping the article, be aware that making multiple accounts very rarely accomplishes this and that it would be better to have one account making solid arguments for the retaining of the article than to create several that make weak ones. It's possible that you might be separate people who do not know each other, but I wanted to voice that this amount of accounts signing on with the sole purpose of "voting" in this AfD looks a lot like sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 13:26, 2 March 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Is it likely that they are sockpuppets or at least, people from a forum or something who were informed that this page was up for deletion? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:43, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The way they're talking makes me more inclined to suspect off-wiki canvassing for some reason. Not sure, it's just an impression, and it could just be some slight nuance difference between this and the last time I saw an AfD with socks. That said...yeah. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 20:51, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A sockpuppet investigation showed that Metalsfan, Superargento, and F.manuali were sockpuppets of EccellenzaItalia. The other SPAs were unrelated, but as said above, it's likely that it's off-wiki canvassing, possibly via a forum or through the workplace. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/EccellenzaItalia Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:07, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENTBold text I'm very disappointed by the last comment. This is my last comment. I'm not the sockpuppets of anybody. I know Eurocantera and its business, that's it. Moreover, there are many evidences about Eurocantera: many important websites and many important international journals and newspapers and ONG organization talk about Eurocantera. This is not my opinion. Thank you for your attention.Metalsfan 08:55, 5 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.101.48.218 (talk) [reply]

If that is the case, then why did I not see enough reliable independent coverage of the company in neutral, news websites? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage is available. I'll collect it EccellenzaItalia 17:01, 01 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.101.48.218 (talk) Um, you just gave yourself away. If you'll note, your post-block post by Metalsfan and your post-block post by EccellenzaItalia were signed by SineBot...as the exact same IP. At the very least, this means that the two of you are posting from the same shared network. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 18:39, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am in good faith. If you are in good faith, as I think, take care about Wikipedia, look at facts and save articles that improuve the project. EccellenzaItalia 17:40, 09 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is my email address <redacted>, write me and I'll will explain you all the articles I wrote in the past, from music to history of wars. EccellenzaItalia 17:40, 09 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:50, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~"keep this article so useful for us, luxury professionals" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.197.127.15 (talk) 12:53, 19 March 2012 (UTC)~~ [reply]

Delete Firstly, I have struck all of the single purpose account/sockpuppet !votes. There is no evidence suggesting that this subject meets the notability guidelines for organizations, as the subject lacks a significant amount of coverage in reliable third party sources. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 00:32, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please check all the articles concerning mining companies. You will find many articles with less coverage and no reliable third party sources. Thank you. EccellenzaItalia 09:55, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. We don't abstain from deleting an article just because there are non-notable articles in the same topic area elsewhere on the project. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 14:23, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm pretty much just here to concur with what AQ has said. Saying that other articles exist in poorer or similar states does not justify your article being kept. All it means is that those articles haven't been found and nominated for deletion. If you want to WP:BEBOLD and nominate them for deletion or point them out here so someone else can nominate them, feel free to do so. But we will not keep articles just because another page has fewer quotes and has thus far missed detection.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 17:41, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep, nomination made by a sock puppet of a banned user in violation of ban. --MuZemike 14:02, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rabinder Lala[edit]

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

Flagged for notability issues since 2010, no significant coverage to be found. Minor diplomat. Impotency leads to avarice (talk) 14:55, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:49, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete With the best will in the world, I'm not finding anything significant, and one of the links on the article doesn't work (I tried a site search on washdiplomat.com, but there's nothing). None of the websites in the ".sr" domain seem to mention him (this is a small subset - Google reports 99,200,000 hits globally for Lady Gaga and 801 in Suriname). He comes from a tiny Dutch-speaking jungle-covered land most people don't care about or even know; he may now, even with this AfD, be the most famous person in Suriname. But he's still not quite famous enough. Sorry. --Colapeninsula (talk) 18:06, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 23:47, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Third Avenue (Brooklyn)[edit]

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

Article is completely unsourced and we have no proof at all that this street meets General notability or Notability Guidelines for streets. The "Route description" section, while true based on my experience, appears to be entirely original research, which is clearly not allowed on Wikipedia. Almost all of the information appears to have been added by people who add what they see with their own two eyes, which is not a reliable source for Wikipedia. The only thing that is sourcable is that the a few bus routes run on this street, which clearly does not make it notable enough for Wikipedia because almost every street in New York City has a bus route running on it. No one can explain what is so "important" about this street that it has to have an article here. I am also nominating the following related pages because it has almost the exact problems with lack of reliable sources proving its importance and original research information:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—based on my searches, there does not appear to sources about the street, just tangential references to places on the street. Imzadi 1979 → 02:23, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: When was third avenue laid out? We can't assume its non-notable because its a shitty article in is current form, by that standard we could delete 1/3rd of wikipedia tomorrow. AfD is not for cleanup. Is it true that its a major thoroughfare?--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:14, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The article has been like that since its creation 3 1/2 years ago. No one monitors these street articles because very few people know anything about them and we cannot have these articles containing short, unsourced or original research information forever (the fact is many Brooklyn street articles are like this, which is why I also nominated Fifth Avenue for deletion). Based on the numerous times I have drove down Third Avenue, it may be a major thoroughfare since the Brooklyn Queens Expressway runs above it at a certain point, but we have no source for that (what we see with our two eyes is not considered a source for Wikipedia). Even if we did, however, that does not make it notable because many highways around the country run alongside or above local streets. For example, the Belt Parkway runs alongside a residential road called "Shore Parkway" when it travels through Coney Island, Brighton Beach, and Sheepshead Bay. Searching Third Avenue on any Search Engine comes up with no information from the NYC DOT or any other reliable website confirming the history and notability of this street, just yellow pages for random businesses there. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 14:24, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: How come Fourth Avenue (Brooklyn) seems to be more notable, hence a deletion notice was not implemented on it? It doesn't really read that much OR but it could still use work, as all of them could. Tinton5 (talk) 03:46, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, 4th Av is a much bigger deal; former parkway designed and administered under Brooklyn Parks Dept, with buildings now landmarked, and hosting a major subway line. Starts in Times Plaza, now a big shopping district and soon to be Bklyns answer to MSG. First leg of NY Marathon, and probably a bunch of other distinctions I don't even know about. 3rd & 5th have my affection, but I'm short of reasons why they ought not be reduced to entries in a table. Jim.henderson (talk) 13:45, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: I am reluctant to nominate Fourth Avenue for deletion because it has an active subway line running underneath (there has to be a significant reason why it was kept while the Fifth Avenue Elevated was closed). This might cause some inexperienced editors to vote to keep it in an AfD just like they did with 20th Avenue (Brooklyn), which clearly is not notable enough to have its own article even though there are two subway stations serving it. As a heads up, if nothing happens to the 20th Avenue article by next month, I will renominate it for deletion and hopefully this time, people will get the picture that it has no significance in New York City history. We have an article called List of Brooklyn avenues, 1–28 where all the confirmable contents from the avenue articles can be put there and redirected to. I am also considering merging the three Vanderbilt Avenue articles together being that they are all relatively short and not likely to be expanded because I have not been able to find anything significant about these streets except that they were named after a notable family. To the person who commented above me, type in proper English please. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 14:08, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:41, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Street does not appear to be special, just one of many numbered avenues in Brooklyn. Dough 48 72 00:33, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - The street may not stand out that much, even if it runs near a major train line (or used to, per last sentence). I can't tell if the first sentence is opinionated or factual, claiming that "Third Avenue is an important avenue", which is about 5 miles in length, mostly parallel with I-278. If there are sources for historical significance or any claim of notability established, then I am not against keeping this. However, based on the lack of sources, it seems to me that the author used some OR and states that this street is important for his morning commute. I don't know. But for now, I am saying a weak delete. Tinton5 (talk) 03:41, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Jay Sean. v/r - T P 23:45, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Sean's fourth studio album[edit]

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

WP:HAMMER and WP:NALBUMS apply here. There's no confirmed title. There's no confirmed release date. "Confirmed" tracks consist of WP:OR and speculation. Remainder of article is useless gossip. —Kww(talk) 19:21, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I looked at google for Freeze Time (the suppose previous album title) and found a quiet a few results. Even if it doesn't have a comfirmed title and release date, It looks like Jay Sean is still working on the album meaning the album is going to be out in the not to far future. Also on various sites Jay Sean says he is working on the album TheDeivantPro (talk) 10:02, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No valid sourced content, and of course WP:HAMMER. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:05, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:42, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing worth keeping that couldn't be contained on Jay Sean's article. The sources that there are don't reliably prove independent notability. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 10:34, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. (listed 19:23, 24 February 2012‎ (UTC)) — Frankie (talk) 14:49, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:40, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Jay Sean, per WP:CRYSTAL. -- Trevj (talk) 13:22, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 23:45, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Foote[edit]

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

Here's a tricky one. The unsourced article was originally about Foote the British saxophone player. Someone tried to speedy delete it, but then found info about Gary Foote the US bass player (with Smokey Robinson/Blood, Sweat and Tears), thought they were the same person and decided against deletion. I've removed the info about the American bass player. We are left with a 2 line, unsourced stub. It is not in dispute that (UK) Gary Foote plays with Pentangle, but there is no evidence they have released a notable single or album on which Foote contributed. As such, considering the stub has been awaiting sources for almost 4 years, I think it should go. Sionk (talk) 18:37, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I agree this one is tricky, especially with the repeating attempts by User:Ydanese to hijack the article. However, I believe the British Gary Foote is notable due to the many credits he lists here (among them Pentangle's Feoffees' Lands). Indeed, none of them is very notable (only one I could find has a Wikipedia article), but I think they add up to notability. --Muhandes (talk) 20:30, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:36, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MUSICBIO. -- Trevj (talk) 13:28, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 23:44, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jelix[edit]

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

sources are not reliable, falls short of notability. Dennis Brown (talk) 22:19, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:30, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: my search revealed some coverage in blogs and forums, but no reliable sources. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 08:06, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

May I Ask you what reliable (kind of) sources : do we have to provide or do you need ; to avoid this deletion ? -Foxmask (talk) 21:22, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Read notability to understand the criteria on what is and isn't notable, then WP:RS sets the basic guidelines for what is and is not an acceptable reliable source. A short (but not complete) interpretation would say that virtually all blogs, all forums, all self published sites are not "reliable" for our purposes. The New York Times, books that have been reviewed by major sources, national news, etc. are reliable sources. Or my own silly test: If a website told you "The world is ending" and you believed them with no other information, that might be a reliable source. If you went to a bigger source of news to find out if it is true, then that bigger source is reliable, but the other one isn't. Reliable sources are those that are professionally vetted by multiple people, not personal projects. Dennis Brown (talk) 21:30, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

like all the sources I have given you, you have removed them, i dont see any other solution that dropping the article - thus we wont loose more time - kind of regards--Foxmask (talk) 22:00, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I removed them because they were self published websites. I gave you links above to read, about what is and isn't a reliable source. If it doesn't meet that criteria, it will get reverted back. Dennis Brown (talk) 22:02, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks reliable third-party sources. Promotional tone. Tigerboy1966 01:34, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:55, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John Dicks (politician)[edit]

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

Finishing incomplete AFD by IP. Doesn't seem notable. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:35, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - somewhat notable Florida politician and ran for U.S. Congress. Jccort (talk) 00:31, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:POLITICIAN, being an unsuccessful candidate for office is not grounds for notability. Similarly Mayor of a small town (34k) would only be notable if they had been covered in reliable secondary sources and a search doesn't turn up anything. Valenciano (talk) 20:11, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN as a small city mayor and unsuccessful Congressional candidate. Description of legal issue presents WP:BLP concerns. No other claim to notability is made. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:15, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Politicians. I don't see any sources that support beyond than his terms as mayor and run for congress. -- Donald Albury 12:23, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Dell Dimension. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 05:09, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dell dimension 2100[edit]

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

I see nothing notable in the article, it's orphaned, and most of all, the "dimension" in the article title isn't even capitalized. Otter Mii-kun (talk) 00:25, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No need for a page just for a specs for a desktop, even if the specs are noted on the Dell Dimension page, it just unnessary. TheDeviantPro (talk) 09:02, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:40, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dell Dimension since the specs and other relevant info is there anyways.--Lenticel ^(talk) 05:34, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dell Dimension. This particular module of the Dimension series does not seem to be particularly notable among Dell computers. Even this article does not make a case for notability. This page is nothing more than a spec sheet. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 17:06, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 23:44, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mark A. Studdert[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:BIO; had various staff appointments in the Bush administration including chief of staff to a cabinet deputy secretary, but that does not give him automatic notability, and a search of Google News found nothing. Article created by an WP:SPA. MelanieN (talk) 00:34, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MelanieN (talk) 00:39, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unreferenced biography of a non-notable mid-level former U.S. federal government official. No convincing claim to notability is given. Wikipedia is not Facebook or LinkedIn. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:19, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found that he also runs The Studdert Group, a government affairs and public policy firm.[132][133]. -- Trevj (talk) 21:56, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So he and his dad set up a consulting firm together - that doesn't exactly make him notable. The Studdert Group's only presence online is in social media; it doesn't even seem to have a website. Oh, and here's why: it doesn't exist any more. Mark Studdert is "past" president of the Studdert Group; he is now a midlevel executive at Actualize Consulting. --MelanieN (talk) 22:57, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 23:40, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John Bedini[edit]

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

Not notable. Only one valid source, and at best it indicates only local notability ten years ago. Rklawton (talk) 14:37, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A biography of a non-notable inventor who holds a number of patents and has been promoting a "free energy" device for decades. I have been unable to find significant coverage of this individual in independent reliable sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:29, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Bedini may be notable for his free energy claims and involvement in establishing some companies/products. But if so, I've been unable to find any reliable sources concerning him specifically. -- Trevj (talk) 14:03, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Userfying v/r - T P 23:01, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Musical B@man![edit]

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

Aaron Booth (talk) 17:45, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article only has one source, which is a primary (YouTube video) source. Does not meet criterion for Notability as there seem to be no third party sources, much less significant coverage. The subject already has inclusion in the Team_StarKid article (the artists apparently creating the work). The rational by the article's author is that the subject is not notable now, but may be notable later. "Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources" -Aaron Booth (talk) 17:52, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As quoted above, it is not notable now, but will definitely be notable in less than three weeks time. I have also said on the article's talkpage that by keeping the article, we prevent the future re-creation by over-exuberant fans with little wiki experience. A minor argument would be that the other four 'StarKid' musicals have pages, so HMB should have one too. Right now, I have just found much more significant coverage in the form of a Skype interview with exclusive preview footage here], which I will try to incorporate once I find my headphones. Eladkse (talk) 18:12, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you can find third party, reliable, and substantial coverage, then by all means add it to the article and I will withdraw. And precisely as per above: "the existence", not possible future existence". Citing: WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. -Aaron Booth (talk) 18:18, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Query First of all, what's the minimum time for discussion before deletion?
Comment Due to an incident involving a cat and my headphones, I'm afraid I can't add info from that source. Having now read WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL, I can see that it may not be an appropriate article yet. However, I feel that deleting it at this stage is bordering on pointless, as it will likely be recreated in a two weeks time when the reviews start appearing. I still feel it should be kept, but I can't argue with the policy. Eladkse (talk) 19:31, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Answer Discussions can be closed by an uninvolved admin after seven days. See: WP:CLOSEAFD -Aaron Booth (talk) 19:34, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here is a link about the musical by Broadway World.[134] --Muppet321 (talk) 20:33, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That is clearly a re-posting of a press release and not independent coverage of the topic. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:12, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources. The article's creator can ask an administrator to userfy the article; that is, have it moved to a sandbox. If and only if the show become notable and references to reliable sources are added, the article can then be moved back to main space. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:10, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or userfy. Definitely does not meet notability atm. Userfy so it can be moved if it attracts some third party coverage. Tigerboy1966 01:18, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment LeakyNews did an interview with Matt Lang, Nick Lang, Brian Holden and Joe Walker, and they spoke about the show. Does LeakyNews count as third party? --Muppet321 (talk) 01:48, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not as LeakyNews seems to be a fan site, with much of the content apparently generated by users. Tigerboy1966 02:37, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep According to an announcement at StarKid's YouTube account [135], it sounds to me like the video is going to be released this week, rather than previously announced April. Regardless, like a list of episodes of a TV series, this article inherits notability from its parents StarKid and Batman. It will certainly gain independent notability as fans of the previous StarKid and/or Batman works inevitably watch it and talk about it. You don't need a rulebook to decide this. Deleting it now, only to have it pop right back up again a week or month later, is bound to make Wikipedia look foolish and petty. If the decision is not to keep it, at least userfy it rather than deleting it.24.57.210.141 (talk) 10:01, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply I am sorry, but it is well-established that notability on Wikipedia is not inherited but must be shown independently. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:16, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As this show is opening this week it seems a bit pointless to delete it now. Within 7 days we will have a lot more information including cast list, musical and production credits, reviews, and perhaps even bios for new members of the acting troupe responsible for it.It might have been posted a little prematurely, but at this point it's best just to leave it.(UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.56.216.71 (talk)

Comment It probably won't be released this week because they haven't performed it yet. --208.105.17.74 (talk) 15:40, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As above, we are now a week away from the performances. It seems trivial to delete the article at this stage. Eladkse (talk) 20:23, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply We don't keep articles because someone predicts that the topic will become notable in the future. We create articles only after something is proven notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:13, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment It's notable now. It's highly anticipated musical by a group with a very large following. Sure, it isn't in the Broadway Times (yes, I made that one up), but it is still popular. To use an example, if J.K. Rowling were to announce an eighth Harry Potter book today, would the article be created and kept? Yes. 1) Because the series is notable; and 2) It prevents people who don't read deletion notes from recreating the article half a dozen times. Eladkse (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:21, 15 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
    - Comment The problem with your analogy is that with the Harry Potter series, there in fact were numerous sources reporting on it prior to each release. This article is a prime example of why articles such as this should be created in a user subpage, or sandbox rather than just creating an article before it meets notability guidelines. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, it is an encyclopedia. Information is to be added if it is notable, not if it is speculated that it may be notable at a later date. -Aaron Booth (talk) 17:50, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate until it's available and reviewed in some reliable sources. -- Trevj (talk) 13:55, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this stub per WP:CRYSTAL, there are no professional reviews of this. You can ask it for undeletion if there's press coverage in the future. Incubation is a good idea. Diego (talk) 07:32, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 18:32, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

George Hirschboeck[edit]

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

I'm sure he did some great work, but one write up from the local paper isn't enough to establish notability. Dennis Brown (talk) 20:10, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There was a second substantial article about his work, also in the Milwaukee Sentinel, July 23, 1966 (5 years after the first one),[136] and a similar piece appeared in the St. Petersburg Times[137]. There's a few GBooks snippet hits that also look like they'd back up the content of those articles. On the other hand, I haven't found any independent verification for the assertion in the first article that the church he was credited with building in Kyoto is a landmark. It's possible that some of this content might be relevant to a broader article such as History of Roman Catholicism in Japan or Roman Catholic Diocese of Kyoto.--Arxiloxos (talk) 23:32, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would be interested to see if there was better sourcing. Two local papers may not be enough, particularly since he isn't the subject of the article just mentioned in them. His name is pretty easy to search, being somewhat unique (although I did find hits on FB for someone of the same name). Part of the issue is that I didn't really a really strong claim of notability, sources or not. Dennis Brown (talk) 00:51, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- It is very difficult to judge notabiliry from such a short article. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:06, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not if you take the time and try to research the individual, per WP:BEFORE. If you can't find anything in gbooks, scholar, web, news, then a person can claim so in good faith. Notability is never about the article's contents, it is about the subject matter as a whole, and we assume someone tries to research before making a decision here. If there were good sources to be found, I would have added them or just tagged for refs. The material may be merge worthy (per above discussion) but I haven't seen definitive evidence it passes WP:GNG for a stand alone article. Dennis Brown (talk) 16:36, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Correct me if I'm wrong, but the three papers (Milwaukee Sentinel, Milwaukee Journal, St. Petersburg Times) that have covered Hirschboeck seem to be quite large ones with a circulation in the hundreds of thousands and with several Pulitzer Prizes (in the cases of Milwaukee Journal and St. Petersburg Times). That in combination with Hirschboeck being refereed to as a "significant observer" [138] along with some additional coverage not mentioned above [139][140][141] pushes me over the keep fence. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 09:25, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:10, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Andre Barnett[edit]

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

Non-notable. Fails WP:BIO and WP:POLITICIAN.-JayJasper (talk) 21:36, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:52, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I favor a low threshold for inclusion of articles about actual candidates for U.S. president. Barnett is recognized here on the website of the Reform Party of the United States of America, a party that received over 8 million votes in 1996, as one of their four officially recognized presidential candidates. Although he is clearly not a major candidate, we ought to have an article about him. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:08, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I am in agreement with Cullen above that candidates for President of the United States should have the lowest of all possible barriers for inclusion. This is the sort of material that SHOULD be in an encyclopedia. The fact of the candidacy is sourced out in the footnotes, that is sufficient for me. Carrite (talk) 16:48, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/merge to United States presidential election, 2012. I'm afraid I have to disagree with Cullen and Carrite and, in fact, would say that their keep votes have no basis in policy. I would be strongly opposed to US Presidential candidates having any special treatment or lower notability threshold. Ah, but you might say, the US Presidential election is the most important one in the electoral calendar. Well probably, but it's for that very reason that candidates for President don't need any special treatment. It's precisely because the election is so important that we don't need anything other than WP:GNG. The importance of the election means that there will be far more written about it than other elections. As a result there will already be thousands of English language sources dealing with the election. If in all those sources, there is not enough to scrape together an independent biography, then we can say with near certainty that the candidate is not at this time notable. That situation may change later in the year and for that reason I'd go for a redirect, so that the article can easily be recreated if the subject does meet notability criteria later. Valenciano (talk) 13:07, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If we are going to Redirect/Merge this, a move that I as the nominator am agreeable to, it should be redirected to Reform Party of the United States#2012 presidential candidates given that he is already listed there. Not to mention that the current standard for United States presidential election, 2012 is to list only candidates that meet the notability threshold and have a stand-alone WP article. I am in agreement with Valenciano's reasoning for not lowering the notability threshold for all presidential candidates. I have no problem with a "lowest of all possible barriers for inclusion" for candidates who become the official nominee of a notable party (however obscure) or for independent/non-affliated candidates who attain ballot status in multiple states in the general election. In fact, this appears to be the existing de facto policy per longstanding consensus. However, consider there are 350+ declared candidates in the 2012 race, and such a figure is typical in recent election cycles. If we were to have an article for every candidate that (at best) had only a small handful of articles written about their campaign in relatively obscure sources (and that had no evident claim(s) to notability outside thier candidacy), we would easily have hundreds - and eventually more than 1,000 - articles on candidates who were either (for lack of better terminology) one-shot also-rans or perennial candidates who never managed to be so much as a blip on the radar screen of reliable sources. Certainly this would defeat the purpose of having notability standards. In Barnett's case, he has only one reliable secondary source in which he is given "significant coverage" (and just barely at that) and another in which he is given only brief mention in two sentences. The other citations are primary sources or blogs. He clearly does not meet the crieria of either WP:BIO or WP:POLITICIAN. That said, in light of the fact that his candidacy is recognized by the Reform Party and has received minimal coverage, redirecting as suggested would seem a fair and reasonable alternative to deletion.--JayJasper (talk) 18:29, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional comment In the event that this is redirected, no objection to keeping the edit history intact for ease of recreation later if the subject should draw enough coverage in reliable sources to establish "standalone" notability.--JayJasper (talk) 20:35, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If this were a new party formed by himself, I would possibly agree with the deletion. But it is an established party--it's the one that was founded for Ross Perot's presidential run in 1996, That's an important enough minor party to make its candidates for President notable,even if he's only running for that party's nomination. DGG ( talk ) 06:25, 18 March 2012 (UTC) .[reply]

Comment: I don't think its too hard to run for the Reform Party nomination.[142]: "It's easier to sign up as a candidate for president than it is to apply for a job at McDonald's. Just ask Andre Barnett or Ken Grammer or Samm Tittle. They're among the 259 Americans who have filed as 2012 presidential candidates ..." But there's no need to delete content, Reform_Party_of_the_United_States#2012_presidential_candidates is a good merge target if no kept.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 12:47, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/merge to Reform Party of the United States#2012 presidential candidates per JayJasper. There is no policy basis for a specially low notability threshold for the 350+ candidates for this election. Granted that the Reform Party is not a new or fly-by-night one, the fact that they are fielding four candidates for the same post suggests that they are not serious, and tips the balance for me. JohnCD (talk) 09:55, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They are just running for the nomination; the rough equivalent of the current Romney, Santorum, Gingrich, and Paul race, except none of them have six-pack abs like Andre.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 12:49, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. If the film should generate more coveage in the future, the article can of course be re-created. JohnCD (talk) 09:20, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1313: Cougar Cult[edit]

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

Non-notable direct-to-video film with little to no significant coverage by notable sources BOVINEBOY2008 21:46, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Even direct-to-video films can meet notabiliy requirements if they are recipients of commentary and analysis in reliable sources. This one was only just released last month, is available on VOD, and its production is spoken about in Fangoria [143][144] and even such as Lexington Herald Leader [145] My thought here is that while we do not yet have quite enough to satisfy WP:NF, this is likely to change as the film spreads. I note that incubaton is a viable alterative to outright deletion as we wait. No prejudice against recreation when more sources become available. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:37, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough coverage to satisfy WP:GNG right now. It might be true that the film will generate more coverage in the future, and in that case the article could of course be recreated. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 08:53, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Feel Free to modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. In view of limited participation, this is a WP:SOFTDELETE - as with a PROD, the article will be restored on request, though it may then be re-nominated. JohnCD (talk) 09:23, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dell 2407WFP[edit]

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

Tagged as unsourced for more than a year and orphaned for more than three years now. I cannot find any reliable source to verify the "This model was largely responsible for large, widescreen flat panels becoming 'mainstream' in the desktop PC market" claim. Otter Mii-kun (talk) 21:56, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sign of significant coverage, fails WP:GNG. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 08:47, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please modify it, if you feel like it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:56, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kamal Laldas Singh[edit]

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

For the most part, the references in the article for this person are not references at all. For instance, the first reference reads, quote: "As a member of the Participation Group of the [Institute of Development Studies], working with Robert Chambers and others, Executive Director of ACORD and CEO of Khanya-African Institute for Community driven Development" which is certainly not an actual reference, but more of a comment from the author. Most of the references read like this.

Web searches from multiple search engines bring up no hits for this name from reliable, secondary sources independent of the subject. News search, books search, and scholar search all return no results. The creator of the page, and virtually the only editor (besides bot edits, minor edits, disambiguation linkers, etc.) has a WP:SPA. Fails WP:GNG. Fails WP:BIO. MisterRichValentine ^(talk) 22:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing on books or news, only wp mirrors on google. The article has major problems, and given the lack of any online coverage, I can't see it improving. This is not just an editing issue. Tigerboy1966 01:23, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 13:55, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

^ :http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/far-east-movement-takes-the-stage-at-tanger-outlets-129731123.html
^ http://goodfellamedia.com/2011/11/i-o-u-lo.html
^ https://www.facebook.com/events/182368105172730/
^ https://www.facebook.com/pages/3rd-Rail-Jam/186189847524
^ http://www.dailytargum.com/news/university/getting-down-for-charity/image_4c2ea016-470e-11e1-9d3f-0019bb30f31a.html/?mode=gallery

[1] ttp://artmiami.tv/articles-2/corey-smith-coral-canyon-gallery-red-dot/

[2] ttp://graeterartgallery.com/otherIndex.php?otherContent=artistsGallery.php&title=Graeter%20Art%20Gallery%20-%20Corey%C2%A0Smith&artistId=5

[3] ttp://shredonmag.com/news/interview-corey-smith/

[4] ttp://artmiami.tv/articles-2/corey-smith-coral-canyon-gallery-red-dot/

[5] ttp://graeterartgallery.com/otherIndex.php?otherContent=artistsGallery.php&title=Graeter%20Art%20Gallery%20-%20Corey%C2%A0Smith&artistId=5

[6] ttp://shredonmag.com/news/interview-corey-smith/

[7] ttp://wearelookingsideways.com/artists/corey-smith-profile/

[8] :http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/far-east-movement-takes-the-stage-at-tanger-outlets-129731123.html

[9] ttp://goodfellamedia.com/2011/11/i-o-u-lo.html

[10] ttps://www.facebook.com/events/182368105172730/

[11] ttps://www.facebook.com/pages/3rd-Rail-Jam/186189847524

[12] ttp://www.dailytargum.com/news/university/getting-down-for-charity/image_4c2ea016-470e-11e1-9d3f-0019bb30f31a.html/?mode=gallery

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]