Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 March 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 5 March 7 March >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Amazon Forest Combat[edit]

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

No notability asserted or cited. Contested PROD. Unremarkable non notable organisation with only one primary source. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:45, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. TreyGeek (talk) 01:57, 7 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. SilkTork ✔Tea time 19:19, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Tait[edit]

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

This article was already deleted in 2010 (with a miscapitalization) per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Douglas tait. Because this article offers no new facts or reliable sources to indicate the subject meets WP:NACTOR, I tagged it for speedy. That was declined, so here we are. The creator has repeatedly added youtube clips, wikis, and blogs as sources. Looking past that material (which should be deleted immediately, but I'll leave that to others so as not to edit war), I can only see two Canyon News articles ([1] & [2]) and an Inkless Magazine posting ([3]) that could even possibly qualify as contributing to WP:NACTOR/WP:BIO. But I don't think the Inkless Magazine, especially, qualifies as an RS; it seems to be a blog. And the Canyon News "coverage" doesn't seem to qualify as the type of coverage or source required to meet notability guidelines. Novaseminary (talk) 23:07, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This article was deleted prior, and rightfully so, because at the time it was not properly sourced or formatted. Not because the subject lacked notability. As the article now clearly indicates, the exact opposite it true. It is equally noteworthy that, while this article has been up for almost an entire year, the only reason we are here now is because an editor elected this process over prior discussion and consensus on the article's talk page even after that option was offered. The article as it currently stands is well-sourced from multiple reputable sources, including the film distributor American World Pictures, Disney | ABC Television Group, Cinefantastique, Fangoria, Metal Life Magazine, The Film Franchise, and the Friday the 13th (franchise). These sources are well-known within the genre where the subject has established notability and in many cases, their own notability has already been established here. The subject's notability is also established in both #2 and #3 of WP:BIO/WP:ENT, which says notability is established if the subject: "2) Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following." and "3) Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment." While some may question the blogosphere, it is often invaluable in determining the "fan base", "significant 'cult' following, and "unique, prolific or innovative contributions" to this field of entertainment. I believe notability is clear to anyone who reviews the article. So I oppose deletion for all these reasons. X4n6 (talk) 23:57, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is also noteworthy in my view, that the editor who initiated this action continued to delete sources in the article after requesting this review, rather than waiting for any final resolution or consensus. So also please review the article's log. Thank you. X4n6 (talk) 00:32, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Our own survey of the blogosphere itself is not how we determine "fan base", "significant 'cult' following, and "unique, prolific or innovative contributions"; we use reliable secondary sources for that. What you describe would be original research and is not permitted on Wikipedia, let alone to establish notability. Can you point to reliable (per WP:RS), secondary sources not affiliated with Tait to support his notability? And because X4n6 finds it noteworthy, here is the last version of this article before I came along, and here is the diff to show the "sources" I removed since listing this article here at AfD. It is not any particular version of this article that fails WP:N, it is the subject of this article that fails N. Novaseminary (talk) 00:37, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response I believe my original statement already answers your question regarding Tait's notability at WP:ENT. Putting the blogosphere issue aside, the reliable sources in the article include sources who's own notability has already been established here. Cinefantastique and Fangoria are notable magazines. Friday the 13th (franchise) is a notable film franchise. While the notability of both Disney & ABC are obvious. Together they establish Tait's notability, while WP:ENT, as already noted, confirms it on two levels. There is really no actual need for the blogosphere to confer anything here. It simply adds yet another layer of notability and given that they are all readily available on the internet, I fail to see how they constitute original research in any event. Finally, while your linking to the last version prior to your edits is useful, perhaps in an exercise of good faith, you will voluntarily revert those edits until this is resolved here. Thank you. X4n6 (talk) 01:11, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Among the sources currently in the article, cast listings, photo captions, and blog posts, and similar sources don't come close to meeting any version of WP:N. Rather than pointing to the article, why not list here three or four of the sources you think establish N (without resoprting to WP:SYNTH)? I would happily withdraw the nomination if you can bring up something new, but the sourcing in the article now (or as it has ever existed) fails N. Novaseminary (talk) 01:19, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Let's review shall we: The cast listings you reference are from a film's official website. Certainly there is no rule-based objection to that. The photo caption is from TV.com, a reputable website owned by CBS, that used a photo licensed for their use by Disney & ABC. And what you called a blog post is actually the online component to Cinefantastique, a notable magazine in this genre. So in each case, I fail to see the basis for your objection. To the contrary, as each are notable in their own right, I also don't see how you might claim they don't inherently confer notability. You also excluded Fangoria magazine, as well as other links not even mentioned here, like Inkless Magazine, Canyon News and Dreadcentral.com. So what we have is an article that links to several sources owned, operated and/or using content by CBS, ABC, Disney, Cinefantastique, Fangoria, Dreadcentral.com and the Friday the 13th (franchise) itself, among others and your concerns are on notability? If you have not, please read WP:ENT. I'm confident that this article contains far more reliable sources and it's subject clears the notability threshold far easier than a great many other articles on this forum. In fact, if this article could be removed, those same questionable grounds could be used to remove articles on other well known performers in this genre as well, like Andy Serkis, Doug Jones, Brian Steele, Kane Hodder and Derek Mears, many of whom use the identical or similar sources. I don't believe it is productive to travel down that road. This genre has value to a great many people worldwide and these individuals are their recognized stars. That's undeniable. The article and it's subject don't just meet the WP:N bar, they exceed it. I had also contemplated adding additional reliable sources, when I was interrupted by your review request. Therefore, hopefully you will consider all this and withdraw your nomination, so that we can work together to further improve the article. X4n6 (talk) 02:11, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What I called a a blog post (with only a brief mention of Tait anyway) is just that, whether it appears on the website of a now-defunct print magazine (per that magazine's WP article) or not. And I am not debating he is on certain casts or that this can be verified, even in RSs. But that sort of non-substantive mention in an affliated source doesn't meet WP:BIO, even if the cast list is reliable; and his presence on the cast doesn't meet WP:ENT. And are you really arguing that this photo caption establishes notability? I do object to many of the sources you added that violate guidelines (youtube, wikis, fansite, online fan forum posts even if on official movie websites, etc), but even the sources that don't inherently violate guidelines do little to establish notability. As for the other articles you mentioned, that sort of argument is rarely convincing (WP:OTHERSTUFF). You can say you are confident this subject meets NACTOR until you are blue in th face, but that doesn't make it so. And you can keep referencing the same sources I have already highlighted and act like they meet BIO or NACTOR, but that doesn't make it so either. Acccording to the article lead/you, his first "notable" role (and the only one mentioned in the lead which along with the rest of the article suggests it is his most notable) is playing a major character in one scene of a movie as a stuntman, not as the main actor playing the character. That does not meet WP:NACTOR #1, and the other two prongs are not even close. Novaseminary (talk) 03:02, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What you called a a blog post is actually an article. It is a full article on a website called Cinefantastique. Not only is it attributed to a writer, but the page even carries that writer's bio. A "blog post" is an anonymous comment in an online forum. This is a "blog post" in the same vein that Time.com, People.com and other online incarnations of magazines write articles you would call "blog posts". Before attempting to disparage the source, you would have done well to have read about it's history. I also note with interest that you have now undertaken an attack on that magazine's Wikipedia article as well, an article that, by the way, has been up since 2005 and yet you now feel the need to tag with WP:ELNO and WP:ELOFFICIAL challenges, despite the fact that the article already links to the magazine's current incarnation. Also what you claim is Mr. Tait's "brief mention" in the article, is in fact the cast list, which lists him among the leads of the film. A film lead, "noted in multiple independent periodical articles", constitutes notability. I suggest you read Element #3 and #4c under WP:ARTIST. I have just quoted it. And while you claim the subject fails the threshold of WP:ENT, I suggest you review Element #1 of WP:ENT. In fact, throughout the article, Elements #1, #2 and #3 of WP:ENT are each individually satisfied. As to your question if I am arguing that this this photo caption establishes notability. No. But taken in tandem with this photo caption, this photo caption, this photo caption, this photo caption, this photo caption, this photo caption, these photo captions, these photo captions, and this photo caption, including countless others that could be included, I am confident notability is well established. Your claim that only an actor and not a stuntman is notable is not only illogical, but in this case, factually inaccurate. It is a well established fact that prominent members of every aspect of the film industry have established sufficient notability for articles on them to be included here. But more to the point, the roles the subject of the article is notable for playing are not stunts, they are characters. As the article notes, in the film industry they are a specialty called creature characters because of the heavy use of prosthetics, makeup, wardrobe and other effects in the fantasy, horror and sci-fi genres. But it isn't necessary to argue this with you, as you have made your own WP:POV biases and inflexibility very clear. Ultimately, standards of notability as specifically defined by #3 and #4c under WP:ARTIST, as well as the first 3 elements of WP:ENT, prevail. As those standards are met here, that alone is sufficient to establish notability and defeat any notability challenge to either the subject or this article. X4n6 (talk) 10:21, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure you unddrstand what a blog is. The blog or online magazine or whatever is a bare mention of Tait in a list of who is in a small film, so it is not enough regardless. And a series of online photo captions as establishing notability? That is creative, if not compliant with ENT or BIO. I admire your tenacity if not your judgment. And my POV is merely to keep WP from being uses for promotion. Let's not turn a disagreement about notability into a personal attack. Novaseminary (talk) 15:02, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It would appear that you didn't read the very definition of blog that you provided. It's very first sentence calls a blog a "personal journal". While it's second sentence calls one "usually the work of a single individual, occasionally of a small group". Both fail to provide you the definition you need. For the last time, an article is written for a notable source and carries a byline. This is not a blog. Nor does your repeated mischaracterization of the length of his mention make any sense whatsoever. The leads in the film include Tony Todd, an internationally recognized actor, most known for his work in the Candyman series. Note, I did not say "exclusively known", but "most known". The film also stars, with Mr. Tait, Academy Award nominee Sally Kirkland, as well as one of the stars of Stehen King's Dead Zone, Chris Bruno. But using your logic, since their mention, as fellow stars of this "small" (your words) film, are as brief as Mr. Tait's, their notability cannot be established or inferred? Is that really your best argument? The size of a mention, not it's context? Don't you see you are grasping at straws and chasing your tail here? I'll grant you no single entry establishes notability, but a succession of different entries, not all pointing to the same thing, certainly do. One photo may not establish notability. But a succession of different photos, establishing a notable pattern clearly does. In the end, you have not successfully challenged the subject's notability. All you have really managed is an attack on the SHEER VOLUME of sources that DO in fact establish his notability merely by their sheer volume. The subject's "collective body of work" establishes notability and these sources from "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" establish that "collective body of work". Those are not my words. They are Wikipedia's. So the endgame here is simple. Unless and until you are prepared to attempt a rule-by-rule refutation of, not only that rule, but all the other Wikipedia rules I have repeatedly cited that undeniably apply to this article and/or it's subject, there's really no reason to continue this ad infinitum. Finally, it is entirely counterproductive and inappropriate to try to turn a legitmate observation about your tendentious editing of this article into a personal attack. They could not be more different. X4n6 (talk) 21:26, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you realize your filibustering is unlikely to convince anyone. Anyone can read and give their take on the blog/online magazine post/bylined article which does nothing more than mention the role this actor (along with the other actors) plays in a non-notable film (One by One: Death's Door). And maybe you will convince some folks that "a succession of different photos, establishing a notable pattern" including (and I paste from your post above) "this photo caption, this photo caption, this photo caption, this photo caption, this photo caption, this photo caption, these photo captions, these photo captions, and this photo caption" (2 photos from another actor's 137-photo TV.com gallery, 2 IMDB photos, 2 blogspot blog photos, and 1 fan forum posting) meets some prong of some notability criteria. I doubt it. Novaseminary (talk) 06:38, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you now realize you cannot defend your specious speedy request. The fact that the article has existed for a year, with contributions from numerous editors, none of whom felt the need to question it's notability, is itself notable. Even if not to you. Equally notable is your failure to refute the fact that the rules and guidelines I cited at #1, #2 and #3 of WP:ENT and #3 and #4c of WP:ARTIST do prevail. Instead you ignore them completely. While your newest complaint of filibustering is little more than your latest attempt at gaming the system and is consistent with your decision to file this speedy before first even seeking consensus on the article's talk page - which was offered to you and ignored by you; or going through the many steps available before even attempting this speedy reach. If you had reviewed WP:BLPPROD, you would have seen the criteria for proposed deletion of BLPs and understood it only takes one reliable source to defeat it. You have already conceded the article contains more than one. Which leads to the fact that a review of WP:NOTCSD would also have informed you that all your Notability challenges are specifically cited as Non-criteria for speedy. So as you must now realize you have no real grounds for speedy, perhaps you will finally exercise the wisdom of withdrawing it voluntarily, before it is formally rejected. As by the rules and guidelines, it must be. X4n6 (talk) 09:24, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We are at WP:AfD, not discussing speedy deletion. Welcome. (Though I do think the article should be speedy deleted under G4, that's not why we're here.) And WP:BLPPROD is irrelevant; I never suggested it be deleted per BLPPROD. Novaseminary (talk) 15:35, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I inadvertently referred to your equally failed speedy attempt. Oops. But WP:AfD has standards as well. You should have followed WP:BEFORE BEFORE jumping the gun. You did not. But it really doesn't matter, because what you still don't get is that you don't get to forum shop. You have already failed at speedy, yet you can't take no for an answer. That is textbook WP:TE,WP:GAME and WP:FORUMSHOP. This article is a BLP. The rules for BLPs apply "anywhere on Wikipedia". Likewise the rules for deleting a BLP also apply here - whether you want them to or not. You present nothing that supports a BLP deletion. X4n6 (talk) 21:48, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did every step of WP:BEFORE before listing here. AfD is the appropriate forum for contested deletion nominations. WP:BLPPROD is a special lower-bar deletion mechanism for BLPs. It does not apply here, though WP:BLP certainly does (and doesn't support your position, though it does call into question some of the material and sources you have added to the article). Novaseminary (talk) 22:04, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLPPROD applies to all BLPs created after March 18, 2010. This BLP was created April 5, 2011. So, hello! We have already discussed ad nauseum how your WP:BLPPROD fails because the article contains more than one reliable source. By your own admission "WP:BLPPROD is a special lower-bar deletion mechanism". If you cannot reach even that low bar, the rest of your AfD is moot. The End. But as a footnote, regarding the applicability of WP:BLP, I'm delighted we agree. Suggest you review both WP:SOURCES and WP:NEWSBLOG before making more unsupportable claims. Finally, purely out of curiosity since you will not voluntarily desist, do you ever intend to answer #3 and #4c under WP:ARTIST, or the first 3 elements of WP:ENT as related to this article? Your continued silence on them is telling. X4n6 (talk) 22:36, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also I simply can't let your claim that you "did every step of WP:BEFORE" go unanswered. You did not. I suggest you review the section C. "Consider whether the article could be improved rather than deleted." You failed to comply with #1 and #3. Those failures are why we're here. X4n6 (talk) 22:44, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
From the lead of WP:BLPPROD: "This proposed deletion mechanism is intended to augment, not supersede, other Wikipedia deletion processes or content policies" and later "Nothing in this policy should be understood to affect the core content policies or existing deletion processes." By lower bar, I meant the bar to survive a BLPPROD is very low. And as for BEFORE, I did consider whether the article could be improved rather than deleted. I am arguing that this article should be deleted because the subject fails Wikipedia notability (WP:DEL-REASON: "Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline"), not any other reason that I can fix. So, unless I could get Tait some coverage that meets WP:BIO or roles that meet WP:NACTOR, I can't improve the article enough to pass N. As for ARTIST 3 or 4c, I can't find any evidence he has done anything close to this. As for WP:ENT (which is the same as WP:NACTOR which I discuss above), he has not had the sorts of roles that meet ENT 1. And we have absolutely no independent RSs to suggest he meets 2 or 3 (your WP:OR highlighting fan forums notwithstanding). Novaseminary (talk) 04:32, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First line of WP:BLPPROD: "(BLP) created after March 18, 2010, can be proposed for deletion using a special proposed deletion process." "augment, not supersede" is logical since the cutoff is "BLP created after March 18, 2010." This BLP was. WP:BLP applies. And: "BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages, edit summaries, user pages, images, and categories." Since the BLP passes BLPPROD and a failed speedy, nothing's left but this AfD on WP:N. On WP:BIO, see WP:BASIC #1 and WP:ANYBIO #2. Either is enough, both apply. On WP:ARTIST, 1, 3 & 4 apply. On WP:ENT/WP:NACTOR, all 3 apply. Kill WP:OR: If it's "attributable to a reliable published source", no OR. Finally, "unless I could get Tait some coverage... you can't improve the article enough to pass N" says one thing: you never tried. Your log is deletion only. See new adds. N is clear. Every policy proves it. X4n6 (talk) 13:34, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I never BLPPRODed this article; we agree that this article would survice a BLPPROD. Passing BLPPROD in no way means an article ipso facto survives all other deletion processes. And you are right, I never tried to "get Tait some coverage that meets WP:BIO or roles that meet WP:NACTOR". That is for his publicist and agent (who should read WP:COI before editing this article). I did check to make sure that there was not such coverage or roles. And please stop adding IMDB and fan forums as references, WP:IMDB and WP:BLPSOURCES (part of BLP), as you did in your recent onslaught of edits. Unless this article is actually kept, I won't bother removing them again. Novaseminary (talk) 19:17, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We do agree BLPPROD would fail. We also do agree speedy has already failed. As to your claim that "unless I could get Tait some coverage... you can't improve the article enough to pass N", I took "coverage" to mean sources. It seems you did not. However, since I did, it now has abundant reliable sources. Quibbles with IMDB notwithstanding, IMDB is just an additional tertiary source, always accompanied by a reliable source. While this forum has a problem with that source, most readers do not. But now they have the choice to link to it or to the New York Times or to the Screen Actors Guild Awards, or to the Hollywood Reporter for the same info if they prefer. And so can you. You see, not everything is so easily dismissed as IMDB or a fan forum anymore. Suggest you actually read the links instead of just skimming the References. This AfD is done. X4n6 (talk) 21:53, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: he seems to pass not only WP:ENT but also (more weakly) WP:GNG. Not all the sources in the article are reliable, not all are necessary, but ie this Canyon News-article sounds reliable and significant. Cavarrone (talk) 11:53, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - He's a stunt man, but so is Kane Hodder and Derek Mears for the most part. The GNG requires significant coverage from third party reliable sources. I'd say that he is on the edge of that (the sources do not provide a lot of "significant" coverages, as defined at the GNG, but a partially decent amount), and for me that's just on the side of keepable. It could use a lot of improvement an expanding, but that isn't a deletion issue.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:42, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: He passes on both WP:GNG (In some of the sources) and WP:ENT. He has had notable roles as a stuntman and an actor according to his IMDB page, and seems to be getting more significant roles to date. If we choose to delete his article then we are stating that the above mentioned Derek Mears Kane Hodder and others of his genre of work are not significant to be a part of Wikipedia. I think there fans would argue different on this subject. I found some articles on Tait that were not on his page. [4] [5] and an article in French [6] ScifiGenius (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:48, 11 March 2012 (UTC). — ScifiGenius (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment It appears that Canyon News sells articles (or at least gives them "free" with the purchase of an ad), at least according to their current "Specials page" here (at the bottom of the page) and one dating back to at least 2008. I no longer think this is an RS, at least the "profile" articles. Those are the only in-depth news coverage he gets. And his SAG nomination was as one of an ensemble of more than 130 people who did stunts in the movie (here). Novaseminary (talk) 02:11, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response While it is never pleasant to address, sadly it is embarrassingly obvious that Novaseminary's newfound challenge on the "Canyon News" article, is a retaliatory RS attack - just because Cavarrone mentioned the source was "reliable and significant". I don't pretend to buy the basis, but using the same link, at best the source notes: "All articles will feature your business or personal profile in an unbiased and honest manner." Not really sure what that means (nor is the complaining editor); but if, in addition to the stories they'd normally cover, you may suggest/request/pay for a write up? If that is some alleged ad-for-article quid pro quo, then it's a pretty lousy one! You'd get the privilege of an article that only reports the truth?? Frankly, I'm missing the problem. But more importantly, I also note that the BLP carries many other RS that are beyond reproach and provide the same basic info, with several also in an interview format. But for those unaware of Novaseminary's history, this is the same editor who recently attempted - and failed - a speedy on this same BLP. This is also the same editor who, realizing this AfD also had the chance of failure: 1) attempted to marginalize the BLP by suddenly discovering and adding a stub with the same name; 2) To further dilute and confuse easy access to the BLP, suddenly created a "disambiguation" page consisting of entries of questionable worthiness and even homophones; 3) suddenly edited and then challenged the RS of "Canyon News"; 4) suddenly stalked me and my past edits at another article I contributed to, and made several counterproductive and wholesale edits: [7], [8], [9], diff blatantly appears to have tendentiously edited it, simply for opposing this BLP. 5) Also note the number of attempts, [10], [11], in just the last couple days where the same editor has obviously edited the BLP to attempt to negatively impact notability by deleting sources and making NPOV edits while editors are reviewing the article for this AfD. Which suggests that even that editor realizes the BLP is notable and the AfD will likely not succeed. Otherwise why delete N and not add any? The editor also attempts to retaliate with 3RR threats when those repeated efforts are exposed and addressed. Editors are advised to review the BLP log and not simply the article in whatever may be it's current incarnation before voting on the AfD. But it is most instructive to note: 6) this same editor recently just survived an ANI for the exact same behavior, just 3 months ago - simply because the originating editor, even after enormous feedback supporting the ANI, was gracious enough to elect not to pursue the ANI to conclusion - but not before stating:"Due to the cleverness of this individual, an RFC/U that communicates what this individual has been doing to other people would take me at least 20 hours. Possibly/probably/hopefully this process here will have caused some change. I am amenable to considering this here to be closed with no resolution here but no action requested at this time." I will leave it to other editors reviewing this record to determine the effectiveness of that decision. As well as the motive - and substance - of this AfD. X4n6 (talk) 13:05, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also the Screen Actors Guild Awards are major awards that help establish N. See WP:ANYBIO #1. Try as the editor might, the Award enhances Notability. The Award's organization determines rules of eligibility and the number of nominees. A nomination is a nomination, regardless if there are 2 or 2,000 nominees. Contrast the number of nominees to the number of eligible people in a category in the hundreds of other released films that year who were not nominated. X4n6 (talk) 14:37, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tait has not garnered deep coverage anywhere except the Canyon News profiles (possible RSs, as I mentioned in the nom, though now I don't think so at all) and a few blog "interviews" (as wonderful as they may be, clearly not RSs for WP purposes). It is significant in analyzing coverage if the only possible RS significant, in-depth coverage was bought by the subject or his publicist or could have been. And stop with the personal attacks. I brought this here because the speedy tag was removed, as I noted in the nom. My motive for trying to cleanup the article was to prevent WP from being used for promotional purposes. (I wonder if X4n6 would be willing to state s/he is unaffiliated with Tait and following WP:COI?) In cleaning up the article, it became pretty clear to me that the real coverage of and roles by this person fail N. That is why I think the article should be deleted, X4n6's efforts at obscuring through adding every tangential mention of Tait in a blog or fan forum that he can find notwithstanding.. Novaseminary (talk) 18:29, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Deep coverage" is a rather nebulous term. Is an abundance of coverage from various difference sources considered "deep"? Clearly most think so. How about unquestionable RS like the New York Times, or authoritative film industry publications like the Hollywood Reporter? Again, it appears so. Or a litany of film industry specific sources knowledgeable on the subject? Again yes. Could "deep coverage" even be defined by the results of a Google Image search? Quite likely. A long listing of industry-specific credits Certainly. How about personal appearances at conventions where autographs are so coveted that attendees pay a fee for them? Again, pretty strong. But taken altogether - "deep coverage" seems pretty convincingly established. X4n6 (talk) 20:27, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also it is certainly not a personal attack to note one's editing pattern. That claim is obviously just a diversionary tactic. Surely the evidence speaks for itself. As does more deflection claiming/questioning WP:COI where no evidence corroborating it exists. It's all just a smoke-screen designed to obscure the facts of your editing history and techniques. X4n6 (talk) 20:35, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No. That is trivial coverage. Read Wikipedia:BASIC#cite_note-note5-5. And IMDB is not an RS, (WP:IMDB). The Canyon News articles are "in-depth", but as a pay-for-coverage source, cannot be considered for N purposes, no matter how riveting or accurate. Novaseminary (talk) 20:32, 11 March 2012 (UTC)t[reply]
To the contrary, read WP:BASIC. And WP:ENT. And WP:ARTIST And WP:ANYBIO.X4n6 (talk) 20:38, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't understand why Douglas Tait is even brought up for deletion. He is a notable figure on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScifiGenius (talk • contribs) 18:15, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You might want to read WP:AfD. You don't get to !vote twice; this isn't a vote anyway. Novaseminary (talk) 18:18, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • ScifiGenius, on just the question of voting, Novaseminary is correct. One vote per editor please and thank you for yours. However you may certainly comment as much as you'd like on this AfD - just no more votes. :) Thanks and Welcome to Wikipedia! X4n6 (talk) 21:57, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- I see three ways this actor could pass notability via WP:BIO-- 1) WP:ENT; 2) WP:CREATIVE; 3) or WP:BASIC--but I do not think he quite does. 1) For WP:ENT, I do not see anyone arguing he passes No. 3. I do not think he meets No. 1 because his most significant roles were minor characters in notable movies, stuntman parts playing major characters--but not being the actual actor credited with playing the part--in notable movies, and major roles in non-notable movies. I do not see that as the same as "significant roles in multiple notable films". For No. 2, I do not see any reliable sources that say something like "Tait has a large fan base". Many fan sites or discussions of fan sites is not the same as a reliable source saying so, even if that would be enough to support a journalist to say so. 2) For WP:CREATIVE, I do not think anyone could argue for Nos. 2, 4, or 5. For No. 1, I do not know whether this applies at all to this sort of filmmaker. It does not look like he is well-known yet for his filmmaking or that others reference his work. For No. 3, I do not see his film being reviewed as this one requires to pass. 3) For WP:BASIC, he needs to have received coverage in "multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." Moreover, "trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." I see a good deal of trivial coverage--not to say unimportant coverage, but lists of cast members, even in a reliable source do not pass it in my opinion. I do see several Canyon News articles that undoubtedly have "the depth of coverage" WP:BASIC calls for to pass. In fact, I see one more than mentioned in the nomination. They were both written by Tommy Garrett. I am not sure if this is the publicist Tommy Garrett described in this biography or this news article, but this Canyon News piece makes it seem so. Even if not, I do not think we can consider the Canyon News pieces to be "intellectually independent of each other" because they were written by the same person. I also do not think we know whether the stories meet the independent sources criteria to help pass WP:BASIC as stated in WP:IS, especially if one can write their own article and have it published (however true it may be) if they buy a certain number of advertisements. Also related to this criteria, I see many blog or fan articles and interviews that do not meet the "reliable" criteria of WP:BASIC, not because I think they are lying or anything, but because they would not meet that criteria as described in WP:RS. The Inkless Magazine article is a close call. Ultimately I do not is meets WP:RS either. Even commenters to the articles seem to refer to it as a blog. Its publisher describes it on this webpage, but I can't find much else to support it as a reliable source as described in WP:RS. Conclusion, because I do not think any of the WP:BASIC criteria are fully passed, I do not think this actor passes notability, though it is a close case. This is not to say he will not in the future, but this may be a case of WP:NotJustYet. Hoppingalong (talk) 04:06, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- For WP:ENT No. 3, he is a stuntman mostly. He does not seem to have "created" the minor creature characters he has played that were not stunt roles, either. I'm not sure what his unique contribution is. You sure do sound like his publicist! Regardless, I stick with my analysis. Maybe some day he will pass notability, though. Hoppingalong (talk) 13:35, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response -- Re: WP:ENT #3, if you read through all my comments, I noted that the subject has 44 credits as an actor vs. 16 as a stuntman, so in fairness that really doesn't equate to calling someone a stuntman "mostly"; nor can you fairly call them "minor" roles if the actor playing them gets billing and named in articles, interviews and other publicity. However, I do agree that some of his most notable work is as a creature character actor but that's still really not a stuntman, despite the easy confusion from labeling it as such. Also re: WP:ENT #3, actors as a rule are routinely credited with "creating the roles they play". Also remember, notability and celebrity aren't the same thing. I believe the sheer volume of material indicates the subject clearly has one, but who knows if he'll ever attain the other? Although among fans of the horror film genre, there's probably a strong case that some would make that he already has the latter too! I certainly wouldn't spend £15 for a non-celebrity autograph - or even a celebrity one for that matter! As for me being a publicist? Ha! I wish I could get paid for contributing on WP, like I'm sure we all do! But no, I'm just defending an article I helped to start, against what I feel is just the latest unwarranted attack by one editor. Your WP:ENT #3 view notwithstanding, I guess all the other applicable WP policies also weren't enough. But I asked you to review and very graciously, you did. So I really can't ask for more. Many thanks again! X4n6 (talk) 20:10, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Douglas Tait is an actor with major and minor film credits. He has a few stunt credits and won a SAG award with stunts. Hoppingalong calling him a stuntman shows that he didn't do the proper research on his career and it is unfair in my opinion to speak on this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.206.131.74 (talk) 01:00, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment He did not win a SAG Award. He was nominated for a stunt ensemble award along with over 130 other coworkers who were members of the ensemble. They lost. Novaseminary (talk) 01:31, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response The IP made a pretty valid point that can't be ignored simply because the comment was unsigned. Win or lose, a nomination for a major award IS a nomination for a major award. It really doesn't matter if there is just 1 nominee or a million. This isn't a counting contest. This IS a nomination for a major award, given by their peers in the industry. But since there is still apparent confusion about the Award, the organization which sponsors it gives the best explanation for it than anyone else here could:
"Lauded by critics for its style, simplicity and genuine warmth, the Screen Actors Guild Awards®, which made its debut in 1995, has become one of the industry’s most prized honors. The only televised awards show to exclusively honor performers, it presents thirteen awards for acting in film and television in a fast moving two hour show which airs live on TNT and TBS. The awards focus on both individual performances as well as on the work of the entire ensemble of a drama series and comedy series, and the cast of a motion picture. These honors are fundamental to the spirit of the Screen Actors Guild Awards because they recognize what all actors know – that acting is a collaborative art." [38]
So it's complete and utter nonsense to prattle about how many times someone is nominated or with how many other people in their ensemble they enjoy a nomination or if they "lost". Bottomline: they were still NOMINATED, were they not? Ask Susan Lucci[39]. Ask Meryl Streep[40]. X4n6 (talk) 02:37, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response Your broken-record, straw-grasping response continues to miss the point and you willfully along with it. Suit yourself. It doesn't change the facts: 1) Subject was nominated. 2) Award is significant and notable. 3) Subject was nominated. The End. Are you saying whether the Award airs or not makes it less of an Award? Seriously? But by the way, Streep has also been nominated for this Award: won twice. But... "Lost" 10 times. "Lost" 4 times as part of an ENSEMBLE.[41] Ouch. So you were saying? X4n6 (talk) 03:41, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You sure do pivot on a dime when your point goes up in flames. But not so fast! First it was general hand-wringing and teeth-gnashing because the subject was (gasp!) nominated in an Ensemble for a major Award - that he "lost". Oh the humanity! But your claim got no traction. Then you discovered that no less an artist than Meryl Streep [42] suffered the same fate - with the same Award - also in an ensemble - 4 times! - and suddenly we hear only the crickets on that argument. But now just as suddenly, it's the end of life as we know it that he promotes his own BLP in social media?? I'm sure you'll share your knowledge of just what WP policy that violates. Perhaps WP:DONTEVERGOOGLEYOURSELF? X4n6 (talk) 05:34, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - This BLP and it's subject achieve WP:N in the following policies: WP:ENT #1, #2, and #3, WP:BIO, WP:BASIC #1 & #2, WP:CREATIVE/WP:ARTIST #1, #3 and #4c, WP:ANYBIO #1 and #2, and WP:GNG #1 and #2. Several sources meet WP:RS. A review of all the sources: in so many different areas and for so many different things, all equal N., despite the dogged efforts of a single-minded editor, who brought this forum shopped [43] AfD with no support or consensus. Conclusion: Obviously, no article/subject ever needs them all. But per WP:PEOPLE, any policy or combination of these policies establishes notability and justifies the "Strong Keep". X4n6 (talk) 06:31, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It has become clear that this isn't an issue about Douglas Tait's notability. Novaseminary obviously has a personal issue with the actor. Did he bully you in high school? If you stepped outside the world of Wikipedia, you might realize that SOCIAL MEDIA sites like Facebook and Twitter are used to talk about, and promote oneself. Bringing up issues like that is clearly a personal attack and you sir are a "single-minded editor with dogged efforts". ScifiGenius (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:08, 13 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]

  • Comment -- I just reverted the non-admin closure of this AfD. While I may not agree with everything Novaseminary has written, having reviewed all of the sourcing (as I noted above in my delete !vote), there is very little in the way of reliable sources cited in the article. What reliable sources are cited have nothing but minimal mention of Tait. The !vote itself is 4 to 2, with one of the "keepers" having had no unrelated edits and a minimal grasp of Wikipedia policies. One of the other "keepers" created the article and is, at the very least, somewhat invested in it, though there is no shame in that, of course. Another of the "keepers" did not address whether it matters whether the primary source of "in-depth" coverage of Tait "sells" articles (however accurate those articles might be). The other "keeper" was a "weak keep". I think this AfD could benefit from a relist to allow others to actually review the sources. Hoppingalong (talk) 21:54, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response -- Respectfully, just a couple things I'd like noted. First, is that this AfD was initiated on March 6th and discussion is supposed to remain open for 7 days. This discussion wasn't closed by a non-admin until March 15th, a full 9 days later. No additional comments have been made on this board prior to that closure since March 13th, two days ago - and the 7th day. So it would reasonably appear, in defense of the non-admin closure, that discussion has ended. I would also note that a 4-2 still represents a clear consensus, and whether you're discussing a "Weak keep" or a "Weak delete", we still have to respect the eds decisions. As I did when Hoppingalong reviewed additional material, per my request, but elected not to vote differently. So be it.
However, my second concern is that this BLP continues to be edited and sources removed by Novaseminary, in what could be characterized as part of an effort to either delete or weaken, then delete the BLP. So if a relist is ultimately decided on, despite all the discussion that we've already had, I would simply request that we at some point tamp down edits during that period, so that eds can actually review the whole article on the merits - not whatever hacksawed version might appear at any particular time. If they deem a source doesn't meet RS or determine that it does, so be it - but they can't make that judgment in a vacuum. It can only be made IF the source has not been removed during the process. X4n6 (talk) 03:38, 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 delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of United States Air Force bombardment groups assigned to Strategic Air Command[edit]

List of United States Air Force bombardment groups assigned to Strategic Air Command (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is an old article created by a contributor when wikipedia was in a much less developed state. It lists (inaccurately) the ten first bomb groups of Strategic Air Command. Since it was created, well-referenced articles have been created for all the groups in question. At the main article, Strategic Air Command, there is now a well-referenced in-text list of the groups in question sourced to a reputable historical work. Thus this article is no longer necessary, and it is not an obvious search target, which is why I have not considered reducing it solely to a redirect. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:37, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support.--Reedmalloy (talk) 14:46, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Buckshot06. W. B. Wilson (talk) 16:18, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:45, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 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, DGG ( talk ) 22:42, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete—Buckshot's reasoning is sound, the article is redundant to content already (properly) placed in other articles. Livit⇑Eh?/What? 03:10, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral - Needs to be renamed List of 1946 Strategic Air Command Bombardment Groups] and rewritten, although probably could be deleted and a sub-category made of the individual unit pages created instead. The first 10 SAC bombardment groups in 1946 already have that historical honor noted in their introductions on their unit pages already. Bwmoll3 (talk) 03:30, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning delete If this has been wrong since it was started, never fixed and is covered elsewhere, then we may as well delete this per the essay WP:TNT. I note that the SAC article links to several other lists in similar states of disrepair. Nick-D (talk) 09:21, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete on the grounds that a better treatment of the content exists in another article. GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:25, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete SAC inactivated all its groups in June 1952 (they had been paper units since February 1951) and the groups at Andrews AFB in 1947-1948 were also paper units, even if all eligible groups were included, it would be a short list, and many of the groups would not be notable for their time with SAC. Lineagegeek (talk) 00:48, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Very narrow cross-section that's not of much encyclopaedic value and would appear to be so specific that it's not really a viable list. I'd say merge, but if there are factual errors and the content is already adequately covered in potential target articles, there'd be little point in that, and it's such a specific title that it's unlikely to be of much use as a redirect. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?
  • Delete. The factual errors, the over-specialised usage, and overlap with alternative lists that do this job better already makes this a poor addition; nothing will be lost if it is just dissolved completely. Kyteto (talk) 13:19, 9 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) 00:24, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sphere of Power[edit]

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

Previously Prodded with rationale "No evidence that this meets the notability criteria for books.". Prod removed by article creator after adding a reference to Goodreads, which is user-generated content rather than a reliable source. So I'm bringing this to AfD on the original Prod rationale. AllyD (talk) 22:08, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for misunderstanding whether the sources I used were acceptable or not. This was the first article I started, and I wasn't aware that the sources I had were not considered valid. I will continue to edit the page, and do my best to make it to the required specifications.Thelais.sm (talk)15:19, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. It seems fairly certain that the above contributor is the author of the novel in question. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 02:44, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Please delete the page "Sphere of Power". The author was informed at the time of writing that the book would not meet the acceptability guidelines.Shanon216 (talk) 08:17, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete possibly by SNOW, but it meets no speedy delete criterion. Obviously non-notable self-published novel DGG ( talk ) 02:40, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Book fails to meet notability requirements. On a related note, the article on the book's author should also be reviewed for possible deletion, as the only claim of notability is that she wrote a book that is itself unnotable. Rorshacma (talk) 22:19, 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Canley way[edit]

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

This is currently little but promotion, and since the path does not yet seem to exist there is little evidence of it being notable by our standards. Drmies (talk) 22:08, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I considered a merge into Canley, but have checked the sources this appears to be an unofficial path set up by a local group. That doesn't automatically make the path non-notable, but when the coverage in reliable sources amounts to two sentences in two articles it's a long way from being notable. Should this path be covered in reliable sources once it's adopted, we can look at this again. Good luck anyway. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 16:49, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- The current coverage does not pass WP:GNG. There is also an element of WP:CRYSTAL, but better coverage would overcome it. That is not to say this won't pass WP:GNG in the future. More detailed coverage in newspapers after it opens, or coverage in a travel or geography book at that point, would most definitely pass it. This might be a case of WP:NotJustYet. Hoppingalong (talk) 03:16, 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) 00:29, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Gregory DeLange[edit]

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

Non-notable plastic surgeon. Claims of "representing the cosmetic surgery industry" amount to local press seeking out DeLange article quotes. Appearance in PG Lifestyle magazine is basically an advertorial. And while the claim of inventing a device called a "microvascular anastomosis system" are borne out by the related patent, there is no verification that this device is widely used. There is some evidence that a similarly-named device sold by 3M has been used, based on a few published journal articles, but it is not at all clear that this is the same device as invented by Dr. DeLange. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:19, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Run-of-the-mill plastic surgeon in private practice. Google Scholar finds only two publications, one of which is a patent - nowhere near enough to meet WP:SCHOLAR. I could find absolutely no verification for the claim that he "developed the first documented standing liposuction procedure using local anesthesia" which is "used by countless surgeons throughout the world." Although the article claims he is "often asked to represent the cosmetic surgery industry", I could find only one such citation - the one from the local paper cited in the article - and nothing at all ABOUT him, so he fails WP:ANYBIO as well. --MelanieN (talk) 15:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WikiDan61 and MelanieN cover it. It's also not encouraging that the first google hit on the follow is to ripoffreport.com. Google scholar, books, and news reveals nothing of substance, while google reveals someone who knows how to use the internet for self-promotion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:01, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Obviously promotional/commercial and not notable outside his office building. Gamarz (talk) 06:48, 8 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) 00:30, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

B-Goth and Steamfunk[edit]

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

A new, and unnotable, subculture and style of clothing. There are no sources available that help establish any sort of notability for the concepts. The PROD was removed by the page creator, who made clear that they have a legitimate desire to improve the article with sources, but having searched myself, I can find absolutely no reliable third party sources, so I have doubts taht they will be successful. Rorshacma (talk) 19:53, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - utterly non-notable. A Google search on "B-Goth and Steamfunk" shows only 10 returns, all connected to this article. Only other mention is on this Facebook page, where the author even admits that it is new, and hopes "This is going to float." MikeWazowski (talk) 23:07, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No substantial coverage from WP:RS is offered or can be found. Appears to be two parts WP:OR, one part WP:PROMOTION for what one assumes is the author's brand-new company and clothing line. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 03:04, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:23, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In addition to the above, this appears to be a fairly clear case of COI noting the author's username and the name mentioned in the article. —Darkwind (talk) 16:59, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Joaquin008 (talk) 20:53, 9 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) 00:31, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Bairden[edit]

Ken Bairden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:39, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:39, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Apparently a memorial article for this "veterinary technician" (not a veterinarian? not a professor? his position at the university hospital is quite unclear), written in 2007, the year he died. Nothing found at Google except this article and mirrors. Google Scholar shows only a few articles, minimally cited. Unreferenced since its inception. Clearly does not meet WP:SCHOLAR or WP:ANYBIO. --MelanieN (talk) 18:46, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's odd, Google Scholar shows me 109 articles, top citation counts 233, 96, 77, 58, and an h-index of 20. None of the top 20 are first-author though. Qwfp (talk) 19:01, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I get similar results on the Web of Science. Normally speaking, enough citations for a keep !vote here, but no first authorships, which is a bit strange. As he was a "veterinary technician", one possibility is that he worked with a notable PI, who put him as a co-author on her/his papers. Another possibility is that he worked for several PIs, contributing enough to be a co-author on their papers, but not enough to be first or last author on them. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 19:05, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see! You searched for "K Bairden", I searched for Ken Bairden. So my search result was just a few articles, none cited more than 10 times, with one (apparently a thesis) where he is the sole author. Some of the articles you found have a lot of citations, but 10 or 12 authors. Hard to find notability in that crowd. --MelanieN (talk) 23:11, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the newspaper reports. I agree they don't establish notability in themselves, but they do clarify his position - apparently he was a Research Fellow and a PhD - and I see that you have updated the article to reflect that. --MelanieN (talk) 15:40, 8 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 per consensus after 2 relists. However, since there was no comment on Geek2003's last comment about adding sources I'm userfying this to User:Geek2003/Avaya ERS 2500. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:38, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Avaya ERS 2500[edit]

Avaya ERS 2500 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Already counted in election for AFD. - Geek2003 (talk) 14:03, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Utterly fails WP:N (the only ref is WP:PRIMARY and therefore is not WP:RS). Ipsign (talk) 09:56, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Agree page needs work, and then re-evaluated if AFD is appropriate, also no reason given for not doing a merge. - Geek2003 (talk) 14:03, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I tagged page underconstruction to be expanded. - Geek2003 (talk) 14:59, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 19 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, BusterD (talk) 19:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notable company, non-notable product. Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The page is still under construction/expansion and was only last edited 20 hours before getting relisted. - Geek2003 (talk) 02:32, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Major additions and citations have been added to this article. - Geek2003 (talk) 17:50, 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, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:00, 6 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.  Sandstein  19:40, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Glossary of South Asian economic terms[edit]

Glossary of South Asian economic terms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Delete. It has not progressed far in it's seven years of existence - but that is not a reason for deletion in itself. It is not likely to contain may terms - but that is not a reason for deletion in itself. Anyway, lets get rid of it and let Wiktionary do the work for us. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:19, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:32, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Its not a dictionary definition but a glossary of useful terms. The article was formerly much longer. [44] Even being short now, is not a valid reason to delete it. This is like the 13 other list of slang articles. Category:Lists of slang Having an article for this sort of thing is far easier than going through the wiki dictionary which no one ever uses anyway. Dream Focus 20:40, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep per WP:SK "The nominator ... fails to advance an argument for deletion" and says himself that his comments are not reasons to delete. Warden (talk) 20:26, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I request that this page not be kept speedily. I've advanced an argument for deletion above. If it gets kept, that should be done only after the AfD discussion has run its course. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:11, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ummm, is improving WP an argument for deletion?? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:00, 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) 18:55, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The scope of the list is too vague, and while a list of wiki articles or potential wiki articles would be ok, a simple list of terms from languages other than the one this encyclopedia is written in does not appear to have a realistic chance of becoming a valid article. --Michig (talk) 21:23, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is not a suitable entry for an encyclopedia, and as stated above, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Clearly no real notice needs to be paid to yet another of Colonel Warden's disruptive attempts to avoid actual discussion and speedily close an AfD through bureaucratic means.--Yaksar (let's chat) 06:09, 7 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 prejudice against recreation as an appropriate redirect. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:19, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dithyrambos (album)[edit]

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

Does not suggest notability or qualify under WP:NMUSIC JayJayTalk to me 02:43, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 20 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) 00:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as there's no evidence that the album has independent notability. It may be that reliable sources in Japanese exist but that would need to be demonstrated. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 10:55, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per my comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Room Girl. Most of MEG's albums are clearly notable, I'd rather have consistent coverage, since everyone agrees the artists herself is notable. Having articles on 2/3rd of her albums doesn't make a lot of sense.--Milowent • hasspoken 16:49, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment First of all not all of her Albums are notable, and not everybody thinks they are. Peaking at 290 on the charts and selling less and 1,000 albums really constitutes as notable? I don't think so. JayJayTalk to me 17:52, 12 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) 18:38, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Funny that some are surviving AfD then. I never even heard of Meg before these AfDs, but its clear she is quite popular. This album has the least coverage of any, hence my comment above.--Milowent • hasspoken 13:09, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One survived AFD through "no consensus" and one survived because the closing admin overlooked the fact that the only comments correctly referencing actual policy were for delete. I guess he missed the whole "AFD is not a vote" thing. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 06:31, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A collection of Oricon chart notes and Amazon and HMV retail listings does not constitute the level of third-party coverage required by WP:NALBUMS to justify a self-standing article like this. The notability of the artist, Meg, is not in question here, so WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments are not particularly persuasive. --DAJF (talk) 01:36, 10 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. Poorly sourced BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:45, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Constantinos Isaias[edit]

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

Non-notable autobiography. I looked for sources, but couldn't find any. Doesn't appear to meet WP:ENT or WP:GNG. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 03:02, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 03:10, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Delete Aside from the one source used in the article, I have been able to find no others about this actor/assistant director. I might have suggested returning it to its author, but the apparent WP:COI of the article's author, User:ConstantinosIsaias is of a concern. I have pointed the author to the relevent policy and a couple essays that may be of value to his future edits.[45] Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:51, 27 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) 18:31, 6 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) 00:46, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AttoBasic[edit]

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

Created by SPA. Can't find anything remotely independent and reliable to demonstrate notability. Borderline A7, but more eyes would be better for this technical article. Dennis Brown (talk) 18:23, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:21, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:22, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Any 21st century BASIC is going to have to be pretty exceptional to justify itself. This article looks more like an individual's lab book than an encyclopedic article based on 3rd party sources. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:28, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: this software seems to be pretty significant in its field, though I can't find anything mentioning it that I could call a reliable source. It seems too niche-specific to attain general notability. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:57, 7 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 but let's not break out the salt shaker just yet. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:48, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Call The Helpers[edit]

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

No claim to importance or notability made. Author has repeatedly created this article and the cast members (most A7'ed). Nolelover Talk·Contribs 18:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Have left friendly nudge message on creator's user page, hopefully this will help them without going any further. matt (talk) 18:59, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no indications of notability for either the production or the actors, no references. MikeWazowski (talk) 23:21, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and SALT. The user has constantly recreated the account and that there's multiple different accounts with variations of User:Shay1080, User:Shay10100, User:Shay1070 and potentially more shows that this is not going to stop anytime soon. I recommend that if possible, that an admin salt any actor profiles that were created by any of these accounts as well. I know they're already deleted or aren't created yet, but it's obvious that it's going to be an issue.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:09, 7 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 WP:SNOW delete, WP:CSD#A7. matt (talk) 18:47, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shay Stone (actor)[edit]

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

Completely non notable person. A7 was removed by an IP. PROD will get removed too, so may as well come to AfD. Multiple articles of this type have been created by the editor, as well. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 18:10, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It shouldn't be. It is an A7, certain.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:28, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, do you know any bold admins who would be okay with an early snow? Nolelover Talk·Contribs 18:40, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You rang? ;) matt (talk) 18:48, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You should never take a clear A7 article to AFD! If somebody removes the speedy tag then you report them or wait for the bot to revert them!♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:42, 6 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 redirected to Azonto Dance. A10 doesn't apply as this is a plausible redirect. Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBriTalk 18:10, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Azonto[edit]

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

Unsourced, seems non notable. Puffin Let's talk! 17:39, 6 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) 00:49, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Cunningham (soccer)[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was have not played a match in a fully professional league, or a cup-match between two fully professional teams, thus failing WP:NFOOTY. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Mr. Cunningham has played three matches in the Norwegian Cup. However, all three of these were against lower division teams, meaning they do not confer notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:11, 6 March 2012 (UTC) .[reply]

He already played at youth levels in US national teams and is one of most promissing players in Molde squad. He have been loaned and will problably play in a few days in Tippeligaen. User:SirEdimon (talk) 00:28, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NSPORT explicitly excludes youth internationals and claiming he will make his debut is speculation which is never grounds for notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:44, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:11, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:11, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Though it should be noted that Cunningham have been loaned out to Stabæk, and will probably meet the notability criteria after the Norwegian season start in 3 weeks. But until then, this is not notable. Mentoz86 (talk) 17:25, 6 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'm sorry Christopher but the information we need for the article needs to be in independent reliable sources. We can't just take your word on it. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:52, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dueling Network[edit]

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

Only sources are forums and primary. Though about A7 (and I guess it could qualify) but decided to bring it here instead. Non notable site. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 16:54, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete A7 can't apply because this is software, but supplied sourcing is all unreliable (in this case, all either primary or unverifiable). ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 16:57, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lacks RS.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:08, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unnotable, lacks sources. Rorshacma (talk) 18:58, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:06, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:06, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: the only reference that conforms to WP:IRS I found is Game Informer's staff blog. Given some blog coverage, quite a lot of forum threads, and non-English native language of the game this may indicate that the topic is indeed notable and more reliable sources could be found. Still the articles relies on primary sources and forum threads, which is very bad practice and feels promotional, so the current version of the article does not have a snowball's chance in hell and can be deleted right away (without waiting for 7 days of AfD) IMHO. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:10, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Joaquin008 (talk) 20:55, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I am Christopher Salvarani (Black Luster Soldier), creator and owner of the Dueling Network. Some of the information in this article is inaccurate (for example, Ray Dumont just runs the social networking side but is not the creator). I can provide you with any information you need for this article. My e-mail is listed on the front page of the website, feel free to contact me. --DNBls (talk) 03:26, 11 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 redirected to Sega AM3. A10 does not apply because this is a plausible redirect. Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBriTalk 17:31, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SEGA-AM3[edit]

SEGA-AM3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not an article Écrivain (talk) 16:22, 6 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 a place to be decided. Merge into a list of UFC events, and do similarly for all future events (If there isn;pt a suitable one, make one, perhaps by year) . Before they take place, the articles will come much too close to promotion to justify separate articles. It seems the clearest basis for deciding. I admit I have no idea what to do with them after they take place--the discussion below gives the relevant factors, but does not reach any clear conclusion; but for future events, the added factor of CRYSTAL and promotion are sufficient to rule out separate articles. DGG ( talk ) 01:24, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UFC 149[edit]

UFC 149 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC on FX 4 was, not notable, not announced, not sourceable by a reliable source, crystal balling. Dennis Brown (talk) 15:40, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • UFC 148 and UFC 147 - I would also include these, which have a couple more unreliable sources, but is still not being covered by mainstream outlets thus notability isn't firmly established. Th rush to create these articles before anything is announced isn't helpful. Dennis Brown (talk) 15:44, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. TreyGeek (talk) 15:57, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this and UFC 148 and UFC 147, and frankly almost all of them, these just fail WP:EVENT they are not historically significant, they are covered by only routine coverage; WP is an encyclopaedia and not a sports results service. Mtking (edits) 23:54, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Because lets be honest, we know they are going to happen, its not like the UFC is going to go bankrupt tomorrow, or stop doing MMA events and only doing ballroom dancing :P. Besides, all the needed GNG standard articles will come out very soon anyway so we are just wasting words here. BigzMMA (talk) 11:10, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment It's true these events will happen, but it's also true that it's hard to see how these events will have the "lasting significance" required by WP:EVENT. That's true of pretty much all MMA events, but good luck trying to get rid of UFC events. Mdtemp (talk) 15:32, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well the fact is that MMA events simply cannot be compared to other sport like American Football a but more like Boxing as separate promotions that hold events as regularly as possible. Just because a title isn't on the line or something out of the ordinary is happening at one of these events doesn't mean it isn't significant. For example an new major promotion in a country that has never held an MMA event which is hold its first event in the country's capital and is getting a very high number of news sources covering them, both independent from the promotion and the sport itself, the event was being headlined by two very notable fighters. I would consider that a notable event personally, in the same way that UFC 1, Pride 1, BAMMA 1 and many others are notable as par how Temporary for Bonaparte describes it.
  • Keep due to their historical notability per WP:EVENT. Encyclopedias and almanacs do indeed cover sports results, especially ones that do not have paper limitations. --Temporary for Bonaparte (talk) 16:44, 9 March 2012 (UTC) Note: Temporary for Bonaparte has been blocked for Abusing multiple accounts (diff).[reply]
  • Keep This event was announced by credible sources and is notable. Also a fight between Fabricio Werdum and Mike Russow is in the works for UFC 147, so deleting that would not be helpful at all. Glock17gen4 (talk) 23:09, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all UFC events as inherently notable, because not a single UFC event is not covered in multiple sources or does not have historic significance. Period. --63.3.19.1 (talk) 14:25, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No they are not - have a read of WP:MMANOT. Mtking (edits) 20:56, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lol! If you do not think all UFC related events are notable then you do not know what you are talking about and should not be commenting in MMA related discussions. UFC is THE preeiminet MMA promotion. Their events are part of the larger history of MMA. There is even a printed publsihed UFC specific encyclopedia for Christmas's sake! That's right a book! What's worthy of devoted an entire book encyclopedia too is worthwhile for a paperless one as well. --63.3.19.1 (talk) 22:07, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unless that encyclopedia is about UFC 149, your comment has no bearing on this discussion. No one has argued the UFC article should be removed, only that there's no indication that this event is notable. Papaursa (talk) 18:17, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are you kidding?! --The Bachmann Editor Overdrive (talk) 22:00, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Papaursa, if that was the case then why is this under a Articles for Deletion debate? If you want to prove notability, wait a week or two instead of trying to run this thing under the ground until the next time, which ain't likely for these pages based on their votes. BigzMMA (talk) 09:49, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No reason is given why this event is notable. Papaursa (talk) 18:17, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, because barring robocalypse or carmegeddon or something, these events will happen, so deleting them now is just a waste and would mean unnecessarily having to start over again. These are article that again barring Raganarock ;0 or something will exist because they concern the leading MMA promotion in our solar system and will have lasting relevance in that ever growing sport's history as a consequence. If anything, over the coming weeks, more sources will continue to be written about these events. Their notability is only going to increase! --The Bachmann Editor Overdrive (talk) 22:00, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Technically, the notability can't go lower, since it hasn't been established by anything but a rumor. So if the notability changes, it can only go up. That doesn't change the fact that notability doesn't exist now. Dennis Brown (talk) 22:21, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all three: per MtKing Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 22:31, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Just because an event will occur doesn't make it notable. This will be another article giving just the results and failing WP:ROUTINE and WP:EVENT. Astudent0 (talk) 17:12, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete UFC 148 and UFC 149, Keep UFC 147 I am extremely hesitant to make this !vote because of the amount of flak I have taken on my user talk page in the last week, which has me very close to becoming an inactive editor as far as the MMA WikiProject is concerned. UFC 147 is the finale of TUF Brazil and I think there is sufficient sources to keep the article (even if it isn't sourced in the UFC 147 or TUF Brazil articles. I'll provide them if necessary). UFC 148 and 149, while are all but guaranteed to happen the date, location, and specific fight cards are completely WP:CRYSTAL. --TreyGeek (talk) 04:04, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is there really any point to this AfD, when you think about it you can set up one for every single UFC event from now till Doomsday and all the past events included, but the fact is that each and every one IS going to stay on Wikipedia whether or not it meets WP:EVENT, WP:ROUTINE or any of these clearly pointless Wikipedia policies that actually have no effect what-so-ever on keeping or deleting UFC events because they are ALL on here anyway regardless of whatever policies they fail. So I just say why not just rate an event (UFC or any other MMA Promotion's event) based on the type of articles that are out on the event. So for example if they are covered by USA Today and The New York Times in America, the The Sun in Britain, or the Times in India (in India of course) then it has the right to say that it goes beyond routine coverage and is given a higher rating of notability. BigzMMA (talk) 10:49, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all due to coverage beyond results. It is notable because of who is involved, the amount of coverage, the audience, etc., i.e. it passes WP:ROUTINE and WP:EVENT with flying colors. Go Snoopy! --173.241.225.163 (talk) 15:20, 13 March 2012 (UTC) Note: This IP has had !votes removed from AfD discussions in the past due to attempted vote stacking [46] --TreyGeek (talk) 15:33, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also, for anyone interested, look up this event and determine yourselves whether it is notable or not - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BAMMA 9 BigzMMA (talk) 09:51, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep all Are these guys really trying to say the UFC isnt notable? All these events were announced by reliable sources. JadeSnake (talk) 15:50, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, the UFC is notable and already has an article. We are saying that not every single thing that they do is notable. See WP:INHERIT and WP:RS. Dennis Brown (talk) 13:07, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well I'd say a UFC event where fights occur is always gunna be notable. JadeSnake (talk) 22:26, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Except the policy I just linked specifically says that this is not true. Specifically Discuss based upon the individual subject, not the subject's overarching classification or type. If a subject under discussion is independently notable, provide the evidence to show that. meaning you must provide multiple sources from independent sources, or it fails WP:GNG and any subset. Dennis Brown (talk) 00:55, 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 delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:07, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Workers International League (US)[edit]

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

Non-notable organization, the only sources are the organization's own journal, except for one source which doesn't mention the organization. No reliable sources and unlikely to ever have any. Article reads largely like an advertisement for the organization. Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 07:41, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:10, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as per nominator's arguments. Being part of an international umbrella, this organization seems to have more famous national groups elsewhere, but I can't find anything online (apart from the briefest mentions) about the US group. Being entirely self-sourced, this article is effectively free advertising for the WIL. In fact 90% of the article is about the international WIL in general, rather than the US group. Effectively the article has no content! Sionk (talk) 16:07, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nominator. Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 19:17, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - First: most obnoxious sidebar template EVER. Nominate that for deletion if you will. However: I favor the lowest of all possible barriers for political parties, their leaders, and their youth sections at Wikipedia. This is the sort of material that SHOULD be included in encyclopedias. Keep and flesh out. Carrite (talk) 20:36, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It's not a political party. It's not registered as such and does not run candidates. Appears to be more of a discussion group or club. Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 22:05, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Political organizations do not need to stand for election to be valid. But it is definitely true that, because there are no independent news about this US organization, we're all left to guess why this article even exists. They have a section in the International Marxist Tendency article and IMO that is probably sufficent for now. Sionk (talk) 22:29, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Do any of the other articles for International Marxist Tendency sections need to be looked at? Most of them appear to be self-sourced and promotional: Esquerda Marxista, Fightback, FalceMartello, La Riposte, Socialist Appeal, The Struggle. Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 02:14, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • CommentThis article should not be deleted. The WIL is an organisation with branches, full-time workers etc, not just a discussion group. The article should be improved through a better layout, less biased wording, and better references (if they can be found). If articles were removed from wikipedia on the basis that they were biased and poorly referenced, it would be a very empty website! Perhaps, if users are desperate to remove it, it could be renamed as Socialist Appeal (US) and become a page about the WIL's magazine? 91Wikicb (talk) 16:50, 29 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91Wikicb (talk • contribs)
            • Comment Looking at your contributions it seems you created the article and that you've almost exclusively edited articles related to the WIL and its parent group, the International Marxist Tendency. If you're a member of the WIL or otherwise associated with it you should probably declare that. Secondly, if an organization has no external reliable sources that can be used as references then it's probably not notable enough to have an article, nevermind the fact that an article can't be very balanced if its only sources are the subject of the article itself. If the WIL becomes significant enough in a few years so that credible references exist outside of the organization (or groups its affiliated with) then it should have an article but until then I really don't see how one is justified. Wikipedia doesn't exist as a promotional vehicle but that's what articles are if they are entirely self-referenced and written by the subjects themselves. Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 22:05, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • As per the reasoning in Carrite's earlier comment, I will happily 'vote' to keep the article if reliable independent references can be found and the article can become more than just a manifesto of the IMT. It is important to know the differences between these left wing groups and, to be frank, good to know that socialists exist in the USA! Sionk (talk) 23:30, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep by longstanding practice, we do keep articles on verifiable splinter parties. The only way to avoid bias here is to be as inclusive as possible. DGG ( talk ) 05:18, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment the WIL is not a political party, let alone a splinter of one. It does not run candidates and it did not split off of any established US party. Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 17:40, 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, Bmusician 15:19, 6 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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:57, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Persefone[edit]

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

The article has been tagged for over three years due to a lack of references and notability issues, and neither has been addressed. Searching for references only brings up first party sources (ie personal sites). The band is signed only to a relatively minor record label, whose own article was previously deleted via a deletion discussion. The article fails WP:Band. Rorshacma (talk) 21:58, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Some sources to establish notability: [52], [53], [54], [55]. Those are the result of a search in the .ad domain only, and there may be further non-English sources available elsewhere. I'm not including them in the article now, as the outcome of the discussion is not yet clear and hence it may be a waste of time. -- Trevj (talk) 13:32, 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, Bmusician 15:14, 6 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) 01:03, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Bonacci[edit]

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

A game designer. Known mostly for the game Happy Wheels. Article only has references from his company's website Totaljerkface, an interview or a site showing he was the creator of a game. Most of the refs the article had were from happywheels.wikia.com, but I've already deleted those. I'm unable to find any reliable references. Article was Proded, deleted and then re-created again. Bgwhite (talk) 22:01, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 22:05, 28 February 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) 01:40, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it was deleted and re- created once, then it will happen againg. Trust me, I know these people. I come from totaljerkface.com. These people will not give up. Theshywillraindeath (talk) 20:58, 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, Bmusician 15:13, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — No notability found. Support SALT if creation history warrants it. Livit⇑Eh?/What? 16:17, 6 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) 23:46, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sunrise Records[edit]

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

Deprodded with addition of source, but it seems to be only routine local coverage. Found no non-trivial secndary sources. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:11, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Have to agree with Hammer, coverage just doesn't exist. No shocker, most pure businesses don't get independent coverage, even if they are great. In this case, they come up short of WP:CORP. Dennis Brown (talk) 18:35, 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, Bmusician 15:12, 6 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) 22:03, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Standish[edit]

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

This is not the subject of substantial coverage by multiple reliable sources per WP:GNG. He does get some mention and recognition as an expert in his field, however expertise alone does not make one notable, and this subject's accomplishments are not sufficient to show any significant or enduring impact (see WP:ANYBIO). This subject also fails WP:ACADEMIC and WP:WRITER because this subject enjoys only no-depth or low-depth citation and mention. His own publications are numerous, but this establishes that the topic of his discussion is likely notable, meaning the subject WP:INHERITs nothing from his own publications alone. JFHJr (㊟) 22:39, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence that this person is notable. Cusop Dingle (talk) 06:49, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep: Despite poor sourcing of the article a quick search seems to me to indicate sufficient information, particularly from the BBC, to indicate his being noted by them as an intelligence expert particularly around the time of the Iraq war and as a commentator. The BBC and Newsweek citing of his views and introducing him as an intelligence expert and editor of one of Jane's magazines seems sufficient evidence of notability. Perhaps I should add more of these. I am not sure what haapened with regard to his honorary post a Durham but it seems to have been deleted: deleted (google cached) (Msrasnw (talk) 23:00, 29 February 2012 (UTC))[reply]

  • Comment – Being a commentator without substantial coverage of the commentator himself indicates the topic of comment was actually notable; not the commentator (see WP:INHERIT). Pundits aren't notable for having opened their mouths. At any rate, it should be clear that no substantial coverage is of this commentator. And unfortunately no notability guideline is based on expertise, or being acknowledged as one in a source. I know what happened with Durham, and it's not the subject of discussion here. See this subject's thread at WP:BLPN if you'd like that discussion. Please state which notability guideline or criteria you think this subject passes under such as WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, WP:ACADEMIC; and why. JFHJr (㊟) 23:21, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Oh dear. That link to the thread certainly complicates the picture. I wish I had seen it before contributing here and my query related to his position at University of Durham. I think it can be useful for us to have info. on those who are media experts and his work at Jane's and being an editor of a journal there and a producer for Panorama etc and cited by the BBC/Newsweek as an expert all seem to meet wp:creative #1 - The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. And while there is the possibility that the info in the thread you mention adds support for his being "high profile" I prefer to remove my keep. Sorry for my contribution here. I should be more careful to check elsewhere first.(Msrasnw (talk) 23:53, 29 February 2012 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete. Given the reliably sourced information from the BLPN thread, we would be remiss not to mention it in an article about the subject. But, given the marginal academic notability and the failure to pass WP:PERP, I think we're better off just not having an article. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Editor of Jane's Intelligence Digest is notable, and that's regardless of other considerations. I am reluctant to disagree with David E, but I do not think the Durham material relevant to his notability , and thus can be properly excluded. DGG ( talk ) 06:08, 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, Bmusician 15:11, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — The article certainly makes claims to notability: UN, BBC producer, respected commentator, author, Jane's editor... in a perfectly-sourced world these would all combine to make it simple to find 50 references. As it is, the sole reference is to an interview where he was acting as a commentator—by itself not a notable event. However, targeted g-searches (such as "Alex Standish Janes") shows up dozens of cases where he is quoted or interviewed by mainstream media. Some are trivial mentions, some are feature length. As a BLP, this article needs a LOT of trimming down to only contain well-sourced information, but it passes the WP:N-test for me, if barely. Livit⇑Eh?/What? 16:58, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. At the end of the day, neither the article nor this discussion provides references to sources that cover this subject closely enough to allow us to write a verifiable article about him. This makes the article fail WP:BLP and WP:V, never mind WP:BIO. People who want to retain this article must provide actual sources, rather than talking in the abstract about how notable he is.  Sandstein  19:55, 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 keep. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:52, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alec Monopoly[edit]

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

This artist fails both WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE for a lack of substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources, and his work has not garnered its own significant coverage or presented any kind of significant concept, theory, or technique. Available information seems almost entirely from WP:BLPSPS and interview statements where the subject talks about himself with no editorial oversight from the publisher as to claims. Third party coverage should be readily available if this subject truly rises to CREATIVE levels, or even GNG, but there's precious little. JFHJr (㊟) 23:03, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • i dont know a lot how to write in wiki but i think that this article should not be removed because alec is a great and talented artist well known in the states and even in africa . Thanks La galerie 38 in Casablanca — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.251.46.164 (talk) 15:54, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- interesting person but the sources are just not there to establish notability. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:27, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article should NOT be removed. ALEC MONOPOLY is a well known and well covered Street Artist with an international recognition and press. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.63.106 (talk) 02:55, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This isn't the strongest case of notability, but there are a few good refs (Huffington Post, etc) mixed in with other decent links available. He is more than a flash in the pan, and the coverage he has gotten is much more than brief mentions. It is borderline, but I think it is on the right side of the border. Dennis Brown (talk) 18:25, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – FWIW, the Huffington Post is a blog and I wouldn't consider it reliable, especially for sourcing content on living persons. Could you provide some URLs that are examples of substantial, in-depth coverage by multiple reliable sources? Simply asserting they're out there doesn't help much. JFHJr (㊟) 22:03, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The New York Times also has a blog, and so do many mainstream publications. They are generally considered reliable sources if the piece is written by someone notable, such as John Wellington Ennis, who wrote this piece. This is not the same as a self-published blog. Dennis Brown (talk) 22:38, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • So no examples of multiple WP:RS giving substantial coverage? I went ahead and removed another blog squarely outside WP:RS territory. FYI reliability isn't about the author at all. It's about the editorial practices. Contrary to your assertion, being written by someone notable doesn't mean it's reliable. So Huffington isn't good for basing notability. It's just a blog. JFHJr (㊟) 16:06, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NEWSBLOG says otherwise. If some random person who wasn't considered at least somewhat of an expert (say you or I) wrote an article on a Huffington's blog, then no it wouldn't be suitable to use as a reliable source. This isn't the same thing. John Wellington Ennis would easily qualify per WP:NEWSBLOG These may be acceptable as sources if the writers are professionals but should be used with caution because the blog may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact checking process. It is fine to disagree about the quality of the author, but to say that all blogs, even Huffington Posts', New York Times, LA Times, etc. are automatically disqualified is to misread the guidelines. If the source of the blog is a reliable source, AND the author of the article is considered reliable, then the article can be used as a reliable source. The author is professional, the media content owner is reliable, the only difference is that it is on the 'blog' portion of their website. Most blog articles ARE useless for sourcing, I agree, but this is one of the exceptions that is specifically laid out in the guidelines because so many large news sources are adding blogs. And the comments TO the article are never allowed to be used for references. The guidelines are very narrow on this, but are satisfied here. If there is still a doubt, I would suggest getting another opinion from someone else. I've already seen this argument several times, and even been on the wrong side of it once. Dennis Brown (talk) 18:17, 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, Bmusician 15:11, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — Coverage in independent, reliable sources: [56], [57], [58], and yes, HuffPo is generally considered reliable. Livit⇑Eh?/What? 17:13, 6 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) ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 22:13, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Model of Christian Charity[edit]

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

Contested PROD which was seconded. "To be an article here the requirements of notability must be met. This is just a sermon, and is not at all notable." Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Nothing that warrants more than a mention of the overall themes of John Winthrop's sermons in the article about the latter. We don't need an article on an individual sermon. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 00:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. This sermon, already mentioned in detail in the article John Winthrop, is notable as it laid the guidelines for living as a Puritan. This sermon constitutes the bulk of the article City upon a Hill but should be covered in its own article. Plenty of references exist. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 09:17, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Following the Google Books links finds multiple books discussing this key text in American religious history. Clearly satisfies WP:N. -- 202.124.73.46 (talk) 11:51, 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, Bmusician 15:10, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — Published sermon, which gets almost 400 citations. Obviously notable. Livit⇑Eh?/What? 17:14, 6 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 Thomas and Friends#Television productions. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 01:47, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas and Friends (Series 17)[edit]

Thomas and Friends (Series 17) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not enough information is known about this series for it to exist yet. The current series (16) is also still on the air. This article should be deleted until Series 17 begins airing. Dandaman62 (talk) 20:57, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Per nom's rationale, but I advocate a redirect to the main Thomas and Friends article, especially if there is a subsection of that article referring to this series. Unless of course consensus is that the information about this series is not sufficient to meet WP:CRYSTAL (I think it's on the good side of borderline), in which case, obviously, delete. - Jorgath (talk) 18:21, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 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, Bmusician 15:10, 6 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 arguments to keep the article fail to cite any policy-based reason for doing so, whereas the delete position has multiple policies that would seem to support it. No prejudice against recreation as a redirect. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:45, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oakdale (As the World Turns)[edit]

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

In-universe, unsourced OR, tagged for sources for 3+ years with no improvement. Doesn't seem reparable, as nothing in the article at all is out-of-universe, nor does it assert real-world notability. Deprodded. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:43, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Pending - Unless everyone else votes for deletion, I'm waiting for other people's opinions. This article should be about the fictional city itself, not some... article with an identity crisis. Springfield (The Simpsons)... has receptions, but... it's not a typical article about fiction, such as Sam and Diane, Pauline Fowler, or List of Tokyo Mew Mew characters... it's unique. This article, on the other hand, is badly edited and requires a lot of cleanup and receptions. Look, I have previously nominated soap-related articles before, and others hounded me for being the witchhunter of soap operas. List of... soap-topics are not that notable, yet people persist notability proofs for existence. If this discussion results keep, then it's time to remove list of people in this article, as it is irrelevant to the fictional city in general. --George Ho (talk) 04:34, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as 100% unverified to reliable secondary sources, and consisting entirely of plot. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 00:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Redirect: Though it has insufficient sources, it can still be worked on with proper sources found. Get rid of lists and people except for staff, cops, etc. but only to a small portion and not a big part of article. Those parts still matter. Or, just redirect it to As the World Turns so the information remains accessible. Casanova88 (talk) 19:22, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I conquer with Casanova88! Everything he said was on-point to what I'd say. MusicFreak7676 TALK! 19:56, 21 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, BusterD (talk) 22:51, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak merge the Location section into the main article or simply delete as a massive dump of in-universe details. I'd guess 95% of the current content is inappropriate for Wikipedia per WP:NOT#PLOT/WP:NOTDIR/WP:WAF/WP:TRIVIA. – sgeureka t•c 08:35, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are plenty of reasonably good articles on fictional places, e.g. Walford. The grounds given aren't in themselves reasons for deletion, and even if nobody can be bothered to improve it, it shouldn't be deleted. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:41, 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, Bmusician 15:07, 6 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 Samsung_Galaxy_S_II#Successor, where it is already briefly mentioned. If there is further content worth merging it can be pulled from the page history. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:27, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Samsung Galaxy S III[edit]

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

I think this page should be deleted because this page is filled with rumors that have not even been confirmed yet, the first prototype was NOT shown at CES 2012, basically the page is just a bunch of lies. s.o.m.e.g.u.y.4.3.2. 06:08, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Support a partial delete - Although most of the content up there is fill with rumours and speculations, the release of the phone has been confirmed. The iPhone 4S article was created weeks or even months before the phone was released but contrary to this article, it was filled with information relevant to it's pre-release, such as date, place and other information that wasn't speculative. Will help clear up the Galaxy S 3 article and delete the rumours when I can. YuMaNuMa Contrib 09:29, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's no such thing as a partial delete. Exercise of the administrator deletion tool — which is what a AFD nomination requests — removes the whole wikitext and the entire editing history from view. Editing the article, with the edit tool that even editors without accounts have, is not deletion. You need to decide whether you want the closing administrator to use xyr deletion tool, because that's the decision to be made, here at AFD. Uncle G (talk) 12:02, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • You know what I mean.. YuMaNuMa Contrib 01:09, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, we don't, because you haven't said anything meaningful. Exercise the deletion tool or do not exercise the deletion tool: pick one. Uncle G (talk) 08:18, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • You mean no you don't, I clearly state my intention in the first reply, despite having a somewhat misled initial support sentence. I'm sure you don't judge an entire book by it's first line because that would be extremely foolish, so why do it here? My intentions were to remove content that warranted deletion and I have acted upon these intentions. Instead of taking 'You know what I mean' with the benefit of the doubt, you decided that I was "challenging" you, clearly you weren't exercising good faith there and as result replied with an obnoxious tone. There also really isn't any point clarifying whether I support a deletion or not because consensuses aren't decided on the basis of a majority but on reason. YuMaNuMa Contrib 10:37, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • More waffle without any clue given as to what outcome for the closing administrator is desired. Is it really so hard for you to pick one of the two choices and say which one you've picked? Far from there not being any point to it, that's what this discussion is primarily for. Uncle G (talk) 08:26, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • Sorry, about my previous edit, I got a bit carried away, these few weeks haven't been the easiest. I understand you're just trying to do your job but can you lighten up your tone a bit, being antagonised and condescended to while attempting to improve Wikipedia (which is our common goal) is quite frustrating. To clarified my previous 2 replies, I oppose the article deletion. YuMaNuMa Contrib 08:40, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:18, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Theres plenty of articles like these. Dozens of Sony and HTC phones that are still to be released, and some, still to be confirmed like the HTC Edge, but the point is that an article needs references and as long as that is followed, and the guidelines for how a Wikipedia article is to be designed, it can stay IMO. 83.108.197.56 (talk) 01:05, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteMerge to Samsung Electronics (or userfy to a major contributor), per WP:CRYSTAL. The article can be recreated in mainspace (via WP:UNDELETE) once there are some reports in reliable sources. -- Trevj (talk) 10:52, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't anything speculative in the article, all rumours about its specification have been deleted and will continue to be deleted as users attempt to add it into the article regardless of whether it is sourced or not. The phone itself has been confirmed by Samsung and was earlier refer to in a twitter post made by Samsung earlier this week. No release date is included in the article as none have been announced by Samsung thus far. The only possibly speculative content is the reference to the iPhone 4S' successor which has not been announced by Apple. YuMaNuMa Contrib 11:08, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. But isn't this patrolling going to be a little disruptive? Until such time that more encyclopedic knowledge about the product can be verified, product announcements should be merged to a larger topic (such as an article about the creator(s), a series of products, or a previous product) if applicable. -- Trevj (talk) 11:33, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, a merge would probably be more suitable. The prose of the article as it is can merge with the existing Samsung Galaxy S 2 article with little to no issues. YuMaNuMa Contrib 12:08, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, this would be the best course of actionMr.weedle (talk) 12:42, 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, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:00, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


I vote KEEP it as is; time will flesh it out soon enough.
LP-mn (talk) 19:32, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge — Coverage exists in RSes, but it's entirely speculative at this point. Merge for now and fork back out when non-CRYSTAL coverage exists. Livit⇑Eh?/What? 17:24, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/merge Products of this sort in the pipeline can be merged into a higher level article pending release, e.g. Samsung Galaxy. Warden (talk) 18:35, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Redirect - Merge what exactly? The entirety of the article that is verifiable is "a Samsung smartphone expected to be released in 2012". Until we have an actual announcement and some details, any speculation and stuff can go into Samsung_Galaxy_S_II#Successor. Grandmartin11 (talk) 21:17, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Samsung Galaxy and Samsung_Galaxy_S_II#Successor. Per WP:CRYSTAL, not enough is known to justify a keep currently. "Until such time that more encyclopedic knowledge about the product can be verified, product announcements should be merged to a larger topic" Superm401 - Talk 00:55, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per WP:CRYSTAL. Will be re-created when there is verifiable information sometime in the future. -- Alexf(talk) 18:13, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep,merge. None of the phone's specifications can be reliably verified at this time. The article will only warrant full coverage when the phone is officially launched by Samsung. Now, however, I propose redirecting this article to the Galaxy S II one or expanding the already existing mention it has (in the S II article) to more accurately reflect the considerable interest the phone has garnered.Thuralt (talk) 11:22, 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 delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:07, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ScienceSoft Inc[edit]

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

Non-notable company, no coverage in third-party sources. Fails WP:CORP. Livit⇑Eh?/What? 14:28, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:36, 6 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) 01:09, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CHSLD[edit]

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

No notability is claimed, nor apparent from the descriptions. There are no citations. While citations may be found, it doesn't seem probably from the description, that the place is sufficiently notable for an article. Therefore, no redirect should be made either. It would seem like WP:SPAM for the business. Student7 (talk) 14:18, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:30, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Article is about a nursing home in Quebec. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:30, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    not a nursing home in Quebec, but the nursing home system in Quebec. That is why I put the merge tag. How many tags do we need for one small stub? Merge, delete, speedy delete? Current article is a definition (WP:NAD), whose subject is already covered under Nursing home. UnQuébécois (talk) 18:47, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable. Could possibly have been speedied under A7, since the article "does not indicate why its subject is important or significant". --MelanieN (talk) 15:45, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete — I CSD-A'7ed it... we'll see if an admin will agree. If not, consider this a delete per nom and MelanieN. Livit⇑Eh?/What? 17:26, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Potentially notable topic, but its just a piece of a bigger picture. CHSLD has a subsection currently in the retirement home article on the French wikipedia, see fr:Maison_de_retraite#Qu.C3.A9bec, the paragraph on "Les CHSLD" describes that care level. redirects to it as well. Clearly the topic deserves coverage somewhere within the context of our coverage of Quebec's healthcare or retirement care infrastructure[59].--Milowent • hasspoken 19:36, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Nursing home and expand, as per original proposal, the original reference was to the government of Quebec website about the healthcare system, in brief, clearly states:

    Residential and long-term care centres (CHSLD) provide services both to people with decreasing autonomy and the elderly.

    Anyone who would have checked the reference would have known that it was not a single business. I started to look at improving the original "stub" article then realized that everything that would be covered is just a duplication of Nursing home.--UnQuébécois (talk) 20:18, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there's no apparent need to distinguish nursing homes in Quebec from nursing homes anywhere else, by which I mean that if there is something special about Quebec nursing homes, it should have been in the article. PKT(alk) 22:13, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would oppose a redirect or merge. The chance of someone searching for this French acronym in the English Wikipedia approaches zero. --MelanieN (talk) 23:32, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless you are an English speaking person that has any contact with English Media in Québec, for example. --UnQuébécois (talk) 23:34, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, there's no one in Canada who speaks English, I forget about that. sigh. I really don't understand people sometimes.--Milowent • hasspoken 21:20, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No need to get sarcastic. Québécois is quite correct that the acronym is used in both the French and English press in Québec. However there is still no need for a Wikipedia article to define the term IMO.--MelanieN (talk) 22:51, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is nothing more than a French–English translation of the term: centre d'hébergement de soins de longue durée → long-term care facility. This article is not about any specific facility. There is nothing to merge. A redirect does not make any sense. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 17:53, 7 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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:10, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bare legs[edit]

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

Unencyclopaedic, no significance or reason that I can see for its inclusion. Has not been modified or expanded on since creation. There are no equivalent articles (or any call for, IMO...) for "bare arms" (or "sleevelessness") or "bare shoulders". If anything, bare legged-ness is more a footnote for fashion overviews than something deserving its own article. Mabalu (talk) 12:25, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Bare legs are top importance and deserve their own Wikiproject. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 16:05, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I've added a few references to the article and cleaned it up a bit. There are many many available sources regarding bare legs and fashion/sports/historical dress out there, no reason that this cannot be expanded.--StvFetterly(Edits) 16:21, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is not a great article, but the topic has been discussed often enough to meet notability requirements. This is especially true in the context of moral standards, and I remember many years ago reading an academic article on moral relativism which discussed this as an example, though I cannot now recall the author. During the first half of the 20th century in particular bare legs were often seen as sexually immoral in a way that stockinged legs were not, even when it became the norm for those stockings to be sheer or flesh coloured (thus arguably imitating bare legs). I've added a sentence and reference but that could be improved and expanded upon. --AJHingston (talk) 17:36, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I created the article because there were references to bare legs in a number of other fashion related articles. It was flagged as a stub as an invitation for others to add to it. I know that there is much room for expansion, as noted above. It would be a shame for the work which has been put into the article to be lost.Ewawer (talk) 17:49, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The right to bare legs is enshrined in the Scottish constitution (or ought to be). A piper reported to Henry Mayhew, "We go about with our bare legs, and no drawers on. I never feel cold of my legs; only of my fingers, with playing. I never go cold in the legs. None of the Highlanders ever wear drawers...". Elsewhere we read that "Bare legs and bare feet, as premodern dance innovator Isadora Duncan learned over and over again in her groundbreaking career, were considered a scandal on the legitimate stages of nineteenth-century dance theater...". And so on. Warden (talk) 18:26, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep—Besides the fact that I fully support bare legs in all cases, the article is backed by reliable sources that (assuming good faith for offline sources) "cover" the subject. Passes my WP:N-sniff-test. Livit⇑Eh?/What? 19:45, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:00, 7 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) 01:15, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom Democrats[edit]

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

Unremarkable political party. No assertion of notability throughout the article: almost all references are taken from the party's website itself. – Richard BB 12:06, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:13, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:13, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:GNG, can't find any sources online talking about them. They are a splinter group of another splinter group (the British Freedom Party) of what is essentially a fringe political party (the British National Party, who, in 2010 got 1.9% of the vote in the seats they stood for). This is Popular People's Front of Judea stuff. The article as it stands is also a complete mess of POV. In the infobox, for instance, their ideology is listed simply as "patriotic". (As opposed to every other political party who consider themselves unpatriotic?) —Tom Morris (talk) 13:21, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Zero hits for "Freedom Democrats" in GNews with location filtered to UK. When I express my concerns over Wiki articles being used as soapboxes for minor political parties, this is exactly the kind of article I'm talking about. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 15:47, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • very weak keep They exist, and they are a registerd party. But thre seems to be zero coverage. So I am leaning to delete at this time. A source [60], anoterh [61] going for weak keepSlatersteven (talk) 18:13, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete—The first source Slatersteven found is mentioning the Freedom Democrats as a party "to be formed". The second source is the most trivial of trivial mentions. At this time they are non-notable, the article can be recreated if/when they become so. Livit⇑Eh?/What? 19:49, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Coverage in reliable sources appears to be very sparse at this time. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:51, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is all news to me and I take quite a keen interest in UK politics! A couple of fringe anti-fascist organisations have noticed the splintering of the BNP, but that is hardly surprising. It would need at least one reliable news source to convince me to keep this article. Sionk (talk) 01:09, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bit UAF and hope not hate are used quite heavily as sources on the BNP and EDL pages, repeated question on RSN have found them to be RS.Slatersteven (talk) 13:48, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are you getting them confused with Searchlight magazine? As far as I can see, UAF and Hope Not Hate are campaigning organisations, not reliable fact-checking publications. Sionk (talk) 18:09, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hope not hate and UAF are used in other pages as RS.Slatersteven (talk) 14:47, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Joaquin008 (talk) 21:03, 9 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) 21:39, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Osei Kwasi Boamah Brown[edit]

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

Restored as contested prod. Non-notable footballer who has yet to play in a fully-professional league J Mo 101 (talk) 11:40, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:54, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:54, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore with suggestions on efficient use of references - Hello All at Wikipedia admin, GiantSnowman and others in this talk!

I hope everyone is having a pleasant evening. Below I have summarised some of the key points which in relation to the general guides on notability for Wikipedia and other criteria, I feel there is enough evidence to keep the article. However, the endeavour of GiantSnowman has correctly pointed out that the article needs to be developed, and I am working on this with minimal skill so please give me time.

Please consider the following below:

General notability guideline: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list. Significant coverage, reliable, independent of the subject, and the significant coverage provides a presumption that the article is suitable for inclusion. Also, one a topic has been subject of significant coverage; this does not have to be ongoing.

Regarding the WIKI PROJECT FOOTBALL/FULLY PROFESSIONAL LEAGUES It does mention that: 'The lists are currently incomplete and some entries are lacking sources'

The Tercera Division along with the Segunda B Division of Spain ARE FULLY PORFFESIONAL. The confusion disputing this is understandable as the leagues are administered by province due to the size of Spain being very large. Every player from Real Madrid in La Liga, to La Gineta CF in the Tercera Division will sign the same professional forms but must indicate whether the team they are signing for plays in La Liga, Segunda, Segunda B, or Tercera Divison. The division below the Tercera Division is called The ‘Divisiones Regionales de Fútbol’ which represents the Spanish lower non-league divisions.

In regards to the player in Question: ‘Osei Kwasi Boamah Brown’. Reliable evidence of him ‘competing’ at a professional level can be found in the following references:

http://www.ffcm.es/pnfg/NFG_CmpPartido?cod_primaria=1000120&CodActa=96525 http://www.ffcm.es/pnfg/NFG_CmpPartido?cod_primaria=1000120&CodActa=96611 http://www.ffcm.es/pnfg/NFG_CmpPartido?cod_primaria=1000120&CodActa=96582 http://www.ffcm.es/pnfg/NFG_CmpPartido?cod_primaria=1000120&CodActa=96601 http://www.ffcm.es/pnfg/NFG_CmpPartido?cod_primaria=1000120&CodActa=96573

These sources are objective and reliable as the information is from a quasi-governmental organisation for football known as the: Football Federation Castilla la Mancha, which updates all the football news from professional leagues and clubs within the region. As you can also see, the coverage is significant enough coverage to evidence that the article can be presumed to satisfy the criteria for a stand-a-lone article.

I have further references which I would like to add to the article but I’m struggling to do this and balance my hectic life at the moment so please stay patient as I try and update the article.

I will say, however, that the proposed deletion by GiantSnowman does highlight that maybe further sources are needed and the article may need a little more work. Pleas if any administrators including GiantSnowman could suggest ways where this article could be improved/rearranged etc in order for it to remain permanent in Wikipedia.

I thank you all for the time taken and would like you to know that I am sometimes unable to access the computer which is why it may take some time for me to respond. I appreciate all the patience thus far and look forward to hearing all feedback.

Kind regards,

Showerman-2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Supreme-2012 (talk • contribs) 19:36, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Routine news such as match reports do not constitute significant coverage per WP:GNG. Furthermore, the Tercera Division is not fully professional (and as mentioned here, even the division above is only semi-professional). J Mo 101 (talk) 23:55, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep—Article claims he is a professional player, and the first reference states that he was "signed" to the team, so appears pro to me. If he is, then he meets WP:FOOTYN. Livit⇑Eh?/What? 19:55, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't use FOOTYN, we use [[WP:NFOOTBALL[[, which states a player has to play in a fully-professional league - this player hasn't. GiantSnowman 19:46, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if we did use FOOTYN, he doesn't meet it anyway, because it requires the subject to have played for a fully professional club, which he hasn't -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:26, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete, per above, but someone please slap a "historical" template on FOOTYN. I've been referring to it quite a while without ever noticing the little italics at the top. Livit⇑Eh?/What? 15:57, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:20, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Subject hasn't played in a fully professional league (i.e. one in which all players are full-time professional athletes, as opposed to part-timers with "day jobs" as well) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 23:56, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep— Hi Guys! Hope everyone is ok.

Firstly, article meets general notability guidelines as following ‘reliable and objective references’ are not just routine match reports and with the ‘significant coverage’ it can be reasonably presumed ‘not necessarily guaranteed’ that the person in question is notable. http://www.eldigitaldeportivo.es/articulos.asp?idarticulo=25095 http://www.futbolesta.com/p_equipo_SQL.asp?equipo=478 http://www.futbolme.com/com/jugadores.asp?id_jugador=27638 http://www.futbolesta.com/P_Ranking1_SQL.asp?idusu=&id=49305 http://www.tomellosocf.net/Guia%20Liga%2011-12.pdf (look at page 15) http://www.albadeporte.com/?p=2414 http://www.middlesexfa.com/News/2011/02/MIDDLESEXSENIORTEAMFINISHESONAHIGH.htm

Also, the references mentioned above are not match reports. They are statistics from the: Football Federation Castilla la Mancha.

http://www.ffcm.es/pnfg/NFG_CmpPartido?cod_primaria=1000120&CodActa=96525 http://www.ffcm.es/pnfg/NFG_CmpPartido?cod_primaria=1000120&CodActa=96611 http://www.ffcm.es/pnfg/NFG_CmpPartido?cod_primaria=1000120&CodActa=96582 http://www.ffcm.es/pnfg/NFG_CmpPartido?cod_primaria=1000120&CodActa=96601 http://www.ffcm.es/pnfg/NFG_CmpPartido?cod_primaria=1000120&CodActa=96573

Also, the following reference (http://www.spanishfootball.info/guide/league-structure/) from JM 101 is also contradicting and therefore unreliable. It claims that Segunda B and Tercera Division is not a national level league; but goes on to say in the text about Segunda B and Tercera Division: ‘… It should be pointed out that this is not a regional league per se…’.

What the article aims to do is to compare the Spanish system to the English. It shows that in regards to the English system, only La Liga and Segunda would be classed as National as they have equal comparison the premier league and the championship. It is clear that what is being said is that although the Tercera Division and Segunda B do have regions, this doesn’t mean it’s a regional league and is actually national level, although when compared to the English system it is not. We can’t rely on comparisons as each countries league format is specific to its Country- and the league format of Spain is specific to the large size of it’s country. The regional spanish division is the first truly regional league. Furthermore, the article explains how in Spain reserve teams can play in the league, which isn’t the case in England, further highlighting that the article is just comparing the English System and the Spanish.

With that said I agree with Livit⇑Eh?/What? That the reference: http://www.eldigitaldeportivo.es/articulos.asp?idarticulo=25095 claims the player is a professional and was ‘signed’ therefore meets WPFOOTYN as played at national level and signed professionally.

Again, I must stress that if anyone has any suggestions on how the article can be IMPROVED that would be useful. Thanks again for your time.

Kind regards,


Showerman-2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.184.180 (talk) 18:17, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep !vote struck on the grounds that the above IP is presumably the same person as Supreme-2012. You are free to add additional comments, but please don't !vote more than once -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:10, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, admittedly my Spanish is rusty, but could you clarify where in that article it states that the player is a full-time professional footballer.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:13, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And finally, nobody is making any judgements on whether or not the Tercera Division is "national" or not, because it's not relevant. WP:NFOOTY requires that a player have played in a fully professional league. Whether it is national or not is not relevant. Do you have a reliable source that states that the Tercera is fully professional (i.e. all players on all teams are full-time professional footballers, not part-timers).........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:16, 8 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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:49, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dysmorphometrics[edit]

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

Non-notable neologism. The term dysmorphometrics was invented in the cited paper; no indications that this term has gained any currency. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 10:48, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:54, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we really call something a "non-notable neologism" if it's supported by a peer-reviewed article? It may not reach the "multiple" source requirement of the GNG, but it is the supported by one peer-reviewed source, which is more than you can say about much of our content. Guettarda (talk) 12:47, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I believe we can. Just because someone coins a new term in a published article, that doesn't mean that the term will be picked up and brought into common parlance (even among the select group who might be readers of that particular journal). Until the term has been used in several other papers (with or without reference to the original), I think we have to call it non-notable. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:22, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Google searches find no evidence of coverage in independent reliable sources. Qwfp (talk) 17:20, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete—per nom and Qwfp. Not yet notable because it is not covered by multiple sources. It's the "multiple" bit of the GNG that prevents us from having articles on every theory published. Livit⇑Eh?/What? 19:57, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As noted already, only the one source can be found, which isn't enough for ongoing notability at this point. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:57, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Joaquin008 (talk) 12:57, 10 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 List of The Office (U.S. TV series) characters. and redirect. The discussion appears to have established that the subject doesn't meet the notability guidlines. The merger proposal has remained unchallenged since it was proposed. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 23:54, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Miner (The Office)[edit]

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

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Miner (The Office). This article was bundled with several other articles on The Office characters; the previous discussion showed that the issues were too complex to be handled as a single discussion. As such, I closed the bundled discussion as no consensus and am procedurally renominating each individually. Note that I have no opinion on the article itself; however, I do wish to remind all participants that importance is not judged based on (your opinions of) the character's relative importance in the show, but on coverage of the character in "real world", independent, reliable sources. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:04, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:55, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:55, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete—Entirely in-universe. No coverage of the character outside of corporate and fan sites. No indication of the character's real-world notability. Livit⇑Eh?/What? 20:02, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to a list of office characters. Per WP:ATD, deletion isn't even really a viable outcome: either we merge it (primary sourcing only...) or we keep it as a separate entry (Sufficient RS exist). Jclemens (talk) 00:36, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to List of The Office (U.S. TV series) characters. Not significant or notable enough for a separate article. Theoldsparkle (talk) 16:06, 7 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 List of The Office (U.S. TV series) characters, where he is already mentioned. Any further content worth merging may be pulled from the page history. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:28, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Lipton[edit]

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

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Miner (The Office). This article was bundled with several other articles on The Office characters; the previous discussion showed that the issues were too complex to be handled as a single discussion. As such, I closed the bundled discussion as no consensus and am procedurally renominating each individually. Note that I have no opinion on the article itself; however, I do wish to remind all participants that importance is not judged based on (your opinions of) the character's relative importance in the show, but on coverage of the character in "real world", independent, reliable sources. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:55, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very minor cast member, barely notable in the show let alone in the real world. Unnotable, cannot find external sources or Wiki used sources that demonstrate notability or critical analsysis of this character, and do not believe it would be a viable search term. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:53, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete—Entirely in-universe. No coverage of the character outside of corporate and fan sites. No indication of the character's real-world notability. Livit⇑Eh?/What? 23:33, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to a list of office characters. Per WP:ATD, deletion isn't even really a viable outcome: either we merge it (primary sourcing only...) or we keep it as a separate entry (Sufficient RS exist). Jclemens (talk) 00:41, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to List of The Office (U.S. TV series) characters, if not just delete; this guy barely even qualifies as a character. I watch every episode of the show and I had no idea who this name was referring to. Theoldsparkle (talk) 16:09, 7 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 List of The Office (U.S. TV series) characters. The discussion appears to have established that the subject does not meet the notabiltiy guidelines and does warrant a standalone article. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 00:28, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kathy Simms[edit]

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

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Miner (The Office). This article was bundled with several other articles on The Office characters; the previous discussion showed that the issues were too complex to be handled as a single discussion. As such, I closed the bundled discussion as no consensus and am procedurally renominating each individually. Note that I have no opinion on the article itself; however, I do wish to remind all participants that importance is not judged based on (your opinions of) the character's relative importance in the show, but on coverage of the character in "real world", independent, reliable sources. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:02, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/redirect As I pointed out last time, I see no reason for deletion when this is at least a plausible search term as a redirect to the list of characters. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:08, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:56, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:56, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Character List. Minor character who "may" be moved up to main cast, except being in the second tier cast of a show doesn't make you notable by itself. No sources exist to offer real world notability or critical analysis of this character. Only significance is appearing in episodes of something, the history of which should be greatly summarized and fit neatly on the character list. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:48, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

umm isnt this real world notability? http://www.laughspin.com/2012/03/01/lindsey-broad-the-woman-behind-the-offices-cathy-simms-laughs-off-the-vitriol/ --173.59.33.89 (talk) 22:01, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fan hatred? No. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:08, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
this looks like a substantial enough article to keep it around. --RichardMills65 (talk) 01:55, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep—Actually, yes—that looks like a reliable source, and there are others cited in the article. Notability seems to be met for this one. Livit⇑Eh?/What? 23:37, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Just to make you aware, all but two of those sources are episodes or online webisodes. Only two are external independent sources and they're both a sentence saying the actress had been cast as the character. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:42, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to a list of office characters. Per WP:ATD, deletion isn't even really a viable outcome: either we merge it (primary sourcing only...) or we keep it as a separate entry (Sufficient RS exist). Jclemens (talk) 00:40, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's spelled C-a-t-h-y. --173.59.33.89 (talk) 05:43, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge and redirect to the character list, not enough individual notability but no reason to outright delete.--Yaksar (let's chat) 08:58, 11 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 List of The Office (U.S. TV series) characters.  Sandstein  19:48, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jo Bennett[edit]

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

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Miner (The Office). This article was bundled with several other articles on The Office characters; the previous discussion showed that the issues were too complex to be handled as a single discussion. As such, I closed the bundled discussion as no consensus and am procedurally renominating each individually. Note that I have no opinion on the article itself; however, I do wish to remind all participants that importance is not judged based on (your opinions of) the character's relative importance in the show, but on coverage of the character in "real world", independent, reliable sources. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:00, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:56, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:56, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as non notable, third tier guest cast member. The only remotely significant source I can find on her is this which doesn't make her notable but could probably do with a mention. Character offers no real notability outside of her existence on the show. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:51, 6 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 List of The Office (U.S. TV series) characters. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 23:58, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deangelo Vickers[edit]

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

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Miner (The Office). This article was bundled with several other articles on The Office characters; the previous discussion showed that the issues were too complex to be handled as a single discussion. As such, I closed the bundled discussion as no consensus and am procedurally renominating each individually. Note that I have no opinion on the article itself; however, I do wish to remind all participants that importance is not judged based on (your opinions of) the character's relative importance in the show, but on coverage of the character in "real world", independent, reliable sources. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:59, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:56, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep—This particular article does include references to reliable sources which cover the character. Several of the cited sources are borderline between covering the actress and covering the character, but enough of them cover the character in first person language that I think this one is notable enough. Livit⇑Eh?/What? 23:42, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to a list of office characters. Per WP:ATD, deletion isn't even really a viable outcome: either we merge it (primary sourcing only...) or we keep it as a separate entry (Sufficient RS exist). Jclemens (talk) 00:40, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to List of The Office (U.S. TV series) characters. Not significant or notable enough for a separate article. (I can't believe there's a "Season 8" section that takes a paragraph to mention the one thing we learned about the character the one time that he was mentioned in season 8: he's brain-dead.) Theoldsparkle (talk) 16:12, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Not a notable character. JDDJS (talk) 02:18, 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:52, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kineti-Go[edit]

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

Non-notable, conflict of interest and barely-disguised promotion of something recently made up and productized. It maybe bordered on speedily deletable per G11 as promotional, but the author already deleted the {{proposed deletion}} tag I put on the article, indicating a belief that the product is notable, and has attempted to cite external sources to support this idea (some were bot-removed as invalid per external linking policy, e.g. links to known unreliable, user-edited sites like About.com). The article author, Mstromberg (talk · contribs), a single-purpose account who has made no edits other than to this article and to advertise it in the see-also sections of mostly unrelated games, is the inventor and seller of the product and proprietor of the eponymous, seemingly one-product company Kineti-Go Games (he names himself in the article and is named in the one reliable but trivial source cited). This also touches on both WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY and WP:COMPANY issues, inasmuch as the article is a three-in-one promo piece. The author also attempted to use an interview with himself as if it were a reliable source. There's basically no showing of multiple instances of non-trivial coverage in editorially independent reliable sources. All we have is:

  • A local-interest piece from a small community newspaper about how locals "Tom and Marlene England" carry the game in their store – it is not available from mainstream outlets (each game set appears to be hand-made from wood, so this is not surprising) – and interviewing the game-maker at a toy fair (another event interview and photos from same were the subject of the deleted About.com links).
  • An entirely user-written review/webboard site that fails WP:RS again.

I'm sure it's a fun game if you like small-scale tabletop shuffleboard, of this which is just a magnetic variant, but this is nowhere near notable enough for an article here, and the promotional conflict of interest is a major non-neutral point of view problem, too. Kineti-Go is yet another "garage band" of the gaming world for now; it could become notable at some point in the future, but isn't there yet. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 07:28, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Recent attempts to improve the article have actually made it far worse, turning it into a puff piece about the company that cites the company's own website repeatedly and promotes its other gaming products, while citing nothing but trivial local mentions from a long time ago, e.g. this one which states that only 20 retail outlets even carry this essentially home-made game. It's just utterly non-notable. Sorry. Trivial coverage in small-town newspapers does not satisfy the general notability guideline. I removed a couple of links to personal gamer blogs like this one per WP:RS and WP:EL; they[re not reliable sources and not something that we should link to for any encyclopedic reason. I improved one source citation. But the kind of local-paper coverage that is all this game has is the same kind of trivial "human interest" coverage that people get for winning the homecoming game in high school football or whatever. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 04:38, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:56, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • My experience with Kineti-go has been extremely positive. I live in a metropolitan area, visitors come frequently. There are two things that people love to do when visiting, see the city and play this game. Both are unique and both offer enjoyment to many. So it seems to be a relevant and notable article as people enjoy the game and it is becoming more popular. I believe if this page is removed people seeking information about it's history and related information would be harder to attain. I would, however, like to see some information about the physics involved added to the Wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.148.10.134 (talk) 16:15, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Apparent WP:MEATPUPPET; this entire IP address has only ever made 3 edits, an only in the last year. Nothing said here is WP:Verifiable. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 05:19, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kineti-Go was popular in my college town at several bars and game rooms. It offers a compact and fast-paced alternative to pool and darts and is easily accessible by virtually anyone. Some photos or diagrams of games and explanation of rules would help enhance this entry, but I don't believe it should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.90.213.130 (talk) 17:34, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Apparent WP:MEATPUPPET; this entire IP address has only ever edited this AfD page. Nothing said here is WP:Verifiable. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 05:19, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article should not be erased and certainly does not warrant speedy deletion.
First, according to wikipedia policy, If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list.
"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.[1] This criteria is met in the Gazette article and on some of the reviews listed. More links will be coming too.
"Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability. The Gazette is a reliable source according to Wikipedia criteria "Sources",[2] for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally expected.[3] Sources are not required to be available online, and they are not required to be in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability.
The Gazette is a secondary source.
"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.[4]
The Gazette is independent of the subject
Wikipedia definition of Self-promotion
WP:SELFPROMOTE does not apply here
Conflict of interest often presents itself in the form of self-promotion, including advertising links, personal website links, personal or semi-personal photos, or other material that appears to promote the private or commercial interests of the editor, or their associates.
Examples of these types of material include:
Links that appear to promote products by pointing to obscure or not particularly relevant commercial sites (commercial links).
Links that appear to promote otherwise obscure individuals by pointing to their personal pages.
Biographical material that does not significantly add to the clarity or quality of the article.
There is nothing in this article that can be construed as promotional. It is strictly factual. It includes a basic summary, equipment, gameplay, and origins. Nothing more, nothing less. The article points to a relevant website- www.kinetigo.com,which explains the rules of the game and the origins. Iphone points to apple.com. Ford f150 points to Ford- That is just how it is.
No individuals are pointed to here. The "About" link I added was to convince you of Kineti-Go's notibility. A well know website seeking out the owner of the company to interview him about the company's games. That is notable by most people's definition.
As for me not editing other articles...I am not sure what that has to do with this. I stick with what I know. If more people stick to what they knew on Wikipedia it would be a much more reliable source. I am en expert on Kineti-Go and other parlor/table games. That is what I know. Would you like me to edit Busan, Korea to get more credibility with you?
You statement "promotional conflict of interest is a major problem" has no merit. As stated earlier,there is nothing promotional in this article and Wikipedia does not have an explicit policy against conflicts of interest.I did follow the suggested guidelines.
Your claims of a one product company and entirely handmade products are also inaccurate. Check your sources for that.
As for linking to and advertising in unrelated games, Those are very much related games. You may want to look at the links again.
In summary, I believe that you have failed to make your case for non-notable, self promotion, and something recently made up( The game is 8 years old).
This page should remain up!
Mstromberg (talk) 19:38, 6 March 2012 (UTC)— Mstromberg (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
"Don't delete" there is a New Have Register article I will be posting a link to later today. If the two previous articles don't establish Notability (though it hey do per Wikipedia policy), the addition of this thrid paper will certainly do . MStromberg71.234.49.115 (talk) 13:22, 7 March 2012 (UTC)— MStromberg (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Don't Delete I have just added a reference to a New Haven Register article about Kineti-Go to the references section of the article in discussion. We now have two newspaper articles in Maryland covering the game as the primary topic of the article, one newspaper article from South Carolina,and one From New Haven, Connecticut. In addition, there are links to online reviews of Kineti-Go at a well known game forum, the Kineti-Go website, two links to bloggers reviews, and two links addressing Kineti-Go that were deleted by the bot.
All of the points in the motion to delete this article have been thoroughly addressed and there are no grounds to delete this article.
The suggestion to delete this article should be dismissed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mstromberg (talk • contribs) 20:56, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's too much of a wall of text to respond to in detail, and most of it's moot anyway, since the only real issue here is notability. Your newspaper coverage is utterly trivial, and that's the only coverage there is. It's also old, indicating no lasting notability. The article is clearly promotional (even more so now than it was before!), promoting not only the game but the company's other gaming products, citing the company's own website and press release as soruces for claims about how widespread the game supposedly is. The problems with this article have not been addressed at all, and if anything it is worse now. PS: Eight years ago is still "recently made up" for encyclopedic purposes, especially when there's apparently been no new coverage since 2005 or so, shortly after product launch. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 04:38, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete—I think that the nom-statement is a little harsh, but the over-the-top protests of the clearly COI-infected article creator don't help matters. I did find one additional source, but only the abstract is available on-line... [62] What I will say is that I would expect a notable product developed in 2005 to have enduring coverage, not two mentions in regional papers in the same year the product launched. Since the coverage seems to be one-shot coverage and there hasn't been any mention of the product since then, I have to agree that the product seems non-notable. WP:PRODUCT seems to set a pretty high bar for product articles; I sincerely hope that nobody here thinks this is equally notable as the iPhone. Livit⇑Eh?/What? 23:57, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Don't delete". While the inventor of the game may be the primary author of the article, I find the article to be fact based and not promotional. Wikipedia is a great resource for objective and factual information to be collected, as well as a reference to other sources of primary information. The links to BoardGameGeek for third party reviews and newspaper features are a start. There is a "chicken and the egg" is with the notion of "notable" articles. This is especially difficult for inventions/products that are not mass produced (and heavily marketed/seeded by large corporations) or technology oriented (where products are readily internet-accessible and targeted at internet users).
I'm pleased that this article exists, I would like it to remain as a reference article for others curious about this game and its origins. I'm not in anyway associated with M Stromberg, nor do I even own a Kinetigo game. I'm a curious potential customer that spent quite some time trying to find out more about this game when I first learned about it. Without the wikipedia article, I would have been lost in search engine land. (Sorry I think I put this comment in the Talk section) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.105.141.161 (talk) 15:54, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • SmMcCandlish why are you just proposing deletion for this article now? The history shows it has been on Wikipedia for over six years. I checked some of the links that this article points to. Pitchnut is a much stronger candidate for deletion than this article. So is Pinchonette. Neither cite references or sources and both are non-notable by Wikipedia standards. One has never been produced ,is only hand made, and is popular " in 2 farming villages in Ontario". Kineti-go has had four primary articles written about it in three papers in three states. There is also a reference to Montana in the article. That spans most of the USA. I guess I am confused as to why you would suggest deleting this article now and not suggesting it for the other game articles you have a history of editing? What connection am I missing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.234.49.115 (talk) 02:38, 8 March 2012 (UTC) — Derekbyron (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
'DON'T DELETE Although Kinetigo is a product, it's value as an accessible and tangible educational tool for the physics of polarity and the the nature of magnetic forces should merit it's availability on Wikipedia as a resource. It has successfully been used in math and science classrooms as a teaching tool. Additionally, the company has a history of donating games to schools. Kinetigo is as much a "product" as it is an exercise in demonstrating some otherwise abstract laws of physics. This page should remain as a resource for anyone researching magnetic forces and their application. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Derekbyron (talk • contribs) 13:53, 8 March 2012 (UTC) — Derekbyron (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Apparent WP:MEATPUPPET, possibly a WP:SOCKPUPPET; this user has only ever edited this AfD page, and the associated IP address has only edited this AfD page and the game article, but displays much alleged knowledge about the product. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 05:19, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why now? Because I just now found it. Orphaned "my cool product" would-be-articles like this often survive unnoticed for years. If I'd seen it the day it was created I would have nominated it for deletion then. Nothing personal. I'm sure it's a fun game, it's just obviously not encyclopedically notable, any more than my old high school band was or my Web development consultancy is. See WP:OTHERSTUFF; the fact that articles on other arguably non-notable games exist is not a good argument for keeping this one. I may well nominate pitchnut and pichenotte for deletion, too. I have several encyclopedic works on games. If I don't find these games listed in them (and I'm sure I won't find Kineti-Go!) that's a good indication that they're junk articles. The main difference, however, is that they're articles about documented folk games with long histories (if possibly too-local ones), while this article is a promotional piece written by someone about the product they are marketing. Wikipedia is not a directory of companies and productss. See also WP:SPAM. It's not being nominated for deletion because "it's a product", but because it's a non-notable product that WP is being abused to market. That someone some where might find it "educational" is a WP:ITSUSEFUL argument. The fact that you seem to know a whole lot about its alleged uses in education suggests you are closely connected with the company, since none of the weak sources cites so far go into such alleged uses. How — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 03:54, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I'm finding no sources, valid or otherwise, that establish notability. - Jelly Soup (talk) 08:04, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, the sources are that establish notability are listed in the article. For some of the references, it will take some research away from your computer, but according to wikipedia, or any protocol on citing sources, sources that are not online are still considered valid and notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mstromberg (talk • contribs) 00:59, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No one said non-Internet sources aren't valid. The problem is that the ones you have for the product you're trying to market through Wikipedia are all trivial "human interest" mentions in local newspapers or mentions on people's personal gaming blogs. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 05:19, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NCORP, WP:PRODUCT, WP:PROMO. An article focusing on the company could possibly be recreated in the future, if it meets WP:GNG. Such an article could include some brief (but not undue) mention of the games it sells. -- Trevj (talk) 15:13, 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 speedy deleted by User:Skier Dude under criterion G7 with additional comment of "rather than belabor the AfD process, accepting G7". (non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 12:52, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jorge Pupo[edit]

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

Vanispamcruftisement. This Autobiography is a glorified resume advertising this person. Sourcing includes a mix of classmates.com, imdb, jorgepupo.com, wikipedia and shops. Not independent reliable sources. Other sourcing is deceptive, doing things like support part of a claim but not the part that involves him (eg "In 2003, Pupo narrated José Martí's most famous poem" is supported by a reference that says the poem is famous but nothing about Pupo narrating it) or merely verifying the existance of a company Pupo may or may not have worked with. Nothing supplies significant independent coverage of Pupo. This advert should be deleted. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:38, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete though I must take issue with the nominator's characterization "glorified resume" -- there's no glory here at all.
"[I]n 2002, he worked with portrait photographer Timothy Greenfield-Sanders to shoot an international, all media print ad campaign for UPS appearing as 'The Shipping Manager.'." Oh, how sad! Why do people insist on embarassing themselves like this? EEng (talk) 08:54, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:57, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's quite obvious that the editor who created the page is Pupo himself and after a search it was very obvious that Pupo does not meet the notability guidelines for WP:NACTOR or any other bio guideline. Merely narrating an audiobook or participating in a movie in some format does not give you notability regardless of whether or not Amazon lists you as narrator or not. The only halfway usable non-primary or IMDb source I see is one to audiofile that comments on his narrating and even then it is more of a trivial source at best. The ridiculous sourcing here and the exaggerated layout of the article is pretty much the best example of WP:PUFFERY that I've ever seen. I actually sort of recommend that if possible, we keep part or all of this on one of the help-type pages as an example of what puffery can look like. (Not keeping the article, just using it as an example.) Tokyogirl79 (talk) 12:06, 6 March 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
  • Delete Does not establish notability even with our forgiving guidelines on notability for WP:ACTORS. A reference section loaded with 'references' from imdb and classmates.com doesn't quite cut it. Web search doesn't bring up much more than these two sites. Fails WP:GNG. As usual tokyogirl79 is on point - this is some excellent WP:PUFFERY! MisterRichValentine (talk) 15:36, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete—Lets see... sourced to IMDb, classmates.com, Wikipedia, oh, and to a site with "resume" in the url. In other words, "per above editors". Livit⇑Eh?/What? 00:00, 7 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. SilkTork ✔Tea time 18:41, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

American Leak Detection[edit]

American Leak Detection (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:57, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:57, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Appearances in "Top 25" or "Top 500" lists generally do not establish notability; they only would if these lists are famous enough that each of the other 499 businesses on it would become notable just by virtue of being named on the list. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:40, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Inclusion here, or not, does not depend on the size of the company or the number of countries it operates in. It depends on the existence of significant coverage by independent reliable sources. A Google News archive search for this company turns up many pages of hits, but most of them are trivial or are clearly advertising. However, the sources highlighted by Eustress seem to establish the company as notable. --MelanieN (talk) 16:05, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep How do I request an edit of the entire article by someone without a COI? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DuaneDepoole (talk • contribs) 00:01, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • sigh.... Another entry for the free to advertise Wikipedia Business Directory. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:56, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Now appears to meet WP:NCORP. -- Trevj (talk) 15:03, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have edited the article, adding independent sources and updating it. --MelanieN (talk) 16:50, 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:17, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Enzo Petito[edit]

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

I recognize him from The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, but he's too minor an actor to merit his own article. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:31, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, especially following expansion that is currently going on, but notable enough without that. Emeraude (talk) 10:52, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:57, 6 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) 01:18, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Micheal Martin Goldstone[edit]

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

Poorly sourced article speculates on potentially living people connected to a putative homicide. A biography of a student who died while resident in student accommodation, citing a publication of the students association as the sole ref and created by a user with the same name as the student accommodation, so also delete as per Wikipedia:LOCAL. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:13, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The article claims that this person is "widely regarded" to be the source of a popular ghost story, but there's absolutely no sources that back this up. A look under various different versions of the name with and without the term of "Weir House Ghost" does not bring up anything except hits back to this article. For that matter I can't see where this ghost story is as popular as the article claims it is. I see where there's a haunted Auckland location named Weir House (not to be confused with another Weir House that seems to be in Europe), but I don't see where anyone specifically thinks that Goldstone is the cause behind it. One lone book does not supply us with enough reliable sourcing to warrant an article.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:01, 6 March 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:57, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:58, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable and poorly sourced. Will be blocking creator after this. Daniel Case (talk) 14:36, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Tokyogirl79 (and thanks for all the research work you've done) looks at best to be a vanity article of some sort. MarnetteD | Talk 14:42, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable person supposedly turned non-notable ghost (?). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:01, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - After some source searching, under the search terms "Micheal Martin Goldstone, Weir house ghost", "Micheal Martin Goldstone", "Micheal Goldstone" and others, not finding coverage in reliable sources whatsoever. Northamerica1000(talk) 07:37, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:55, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Because I know the people who wrote the article. It was a joke to scare other residents in Weir house. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.195.107.39 (talk) 21:02, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Pure fiction, nothing published in Wellington newspapers in 1937 about Goldtone. NealeFamily (talk) 03:46, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Tokyogirl79. -- Joaquin008 (talk) 21:09, 9 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) 01:09, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of educational institutions in Salem, India[edit]

List of educational institutions in Salem, India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY. The page is an external links collector and has no encyclopedic value. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 05:48, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:58, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:58, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:47, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep : The article needs clean up, but that is no reason for deletion. For your information, there are 8 featured lists in Wikipedia which are of the type 'List of schools/colleges in xyz place' [63] --Anbu121 (talk me) 12:22, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and the main difference between this and featured lists is that they are featured works. Do you think that Wikipedia is an external links farm? Because that's what you did say in your keep "vote". Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 04:17, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And please don't try to compare this with this. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 04:18, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that the page has inappropriate external links, you could have removed them yourself or you could have put a tag on the top of the article saying 'Needs clean up' or 'contains external link'. AfD is definitely not the place to report an article that has inappropriate external links. --Anbu121 (talk me) 08:03, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I said in my delete rationale, Wikipedia is not a directory, being specific: "Contact information such as phone numbers, fax numbers and email addresses"; as well as it fails WP:LISTCOMPANY. There's no reason to keep such unencyclopedic page. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 08:11, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Vermont is a region in US and Salem is a region in India. If 'List of colleges/universities in Vermont' can be a encyclopedic article, 'List of educational institutions in Salem' can also very well be an encyclopedic article. I repeat, AfD is not the place for cleaning up and removing links from an article. --Anbu121 (talk me) 10:36, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As noted by Anbu121, clean it; dont delete. Arent all educational institutes notable by default? -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 10:00, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As of now, it is quite different from when it was nominated. It no longer seems a linkfarm and doesn't seem to be covered in WP:NOTDIRECTORY anymore. Per WP:LISTCOMPANY, A company or organization may be included in a list of companies or organizations whether or not it meets the Wikipedia notability requirement, unless a given list specifically requires this. I do not think a list of this form requires fulfilling notability. (In case others do, I'd like to point out that WP:UNIGUIDE#Notability reads In general, all colleges and universities are notable and should be included on Wikipedia.) I do note that per WP:LISTCOMPANY, If the company or organization does not have an existing article in Wikipedia, a citation to an independent, reliable source should be provided to establish its membership in the list's group. and per WP:V Any material that requires a citation but does not have one may be removed., however the list now contains some references and hence the entire article cannot be covered by this. Hence the grounds on which the article was nominated do not seem to stand true anymore. The article may be shortened considerably for lack of sources, in the extreme case it may be merged with Salem, Tamil Nadu; however the entire article cannot be considered as deletable.--Siddhartha Ghai (talk) 01:38, 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) 01:20, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Irina Athanasiu[edit]

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

I don't see WP:PROF criterion 5 being satisfied. Even if the Politehnica University of Bucharest has the highest number of notable computer science professors in Romania (a valid assumption), nothing says all of them are notable. Plus, there's no evidence in reliable sources independent of the subject for any claim made in the article — there is even, as of now, no usable source to show Athanasiu was a professor, much less that she did the things ascribed to her by this article. If any WP:PROF criterion is going to be met, independent, reliable sources will be needed to demonstrate the claim. Barring those, deletion seems imperative. - Biruitorul Talk 05:21, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:59, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No evidence of passing WP:PROF (the citations in Google Scholar are far too low for criterion #C1) and the article seems to consist only of undocumented and unverifiable local accomplishments. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:49, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per David Eppstein. Tradedia (talk) 17:12, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is entirely (self-)promotional, no evidence of notability; regardless of how controversial it may be to delete spam on female academics. Dahn (talk) 17:30, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • To make up for my delete here, I've found another Romanian female computer scientist who doesn't yet have an article and clearly does pass WP:PROF, and added her to a list of articles I'm working on creating. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:16, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Absolutely. Far be it for me to suggest that Romanian female computer scientists are by definition non-notable - I'm sure that at least some of them are; I was just saying that Athanasiu doesn't seem notable by any standard, and we'd be wrong to keep the entry just because of some absurd PC parity. Dahn (talk) 20:56, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I attended a course of hers, interesting stuff, but yeah, she's not notable for a Wikipedia article, at least based on the sources I could find. bogdan (talk) 18:11, 7 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 Snow keep. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:09, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy[edit]

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

Single event, not a newspaper, and BLP. Herp Derp (talk) 04:57, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


  • Strong Keep except it's about a notable event covered by international media over 5 days and continuing with the same level of coverage and it's not a biography page. also, notability isn't temporary. just another herp derpy dunlikeit. Paintedxbird (talk) 05:13, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious keep. Major news story. Maybe it is sad that this is what people are writing and talking about, but by Google News's count we've already crossed 5000 stories. Per Wikipedia:Notability (events), the coverage here is well beyond routine. If we were talking about a personal biography, BLP would be more relevant. However, both parties in this scenario have given multiple interviews to the press about this issue. We should write carefully about the issue to maintain neutrality, and avoid irrelevant personal details, but I don't think we have the kind of privacy problems at this article that would mandate deletion. Dragons flight (talk) 05:34, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, possible port to Wikinews This is probably more of a news story than an encyclopedia article, so Wikinews is probably the better venue. That having been said, this is causing Rush to lose sponsors, so it may have a ripple effect on his show. If so (and that remains to be seen... WP:CRYSTAL), some of this content could be merged into Rush Limbaugh or maybe someday be an article at such a time that there is enough commentary about this to warrant one. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:47, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious keep National news for 6 days now. Persistent news coverage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Casprings (talk • contribs) 06:18, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Really? It was all over the national and international media for days on end. Had advertisers pulling from Limbaugh's show, involved the President and members of Congress and petitions condemning Limbaugh everywhere. It is hardly a "single event". --Pstanton (talk) 06:22, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Rush Limbaugh. A news story that is a significant, albeit minor, episode in that biography. Carrite (talk) 06:42, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge' to R.L. If we had an article for every time Limbaugh makes an ass of himself, Wikipedia's servers would melt down. EEng (talk) 07:40, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, per massive amount of coverage and notability, though the article could certainly do with some copyedits (and, in some places, good amounts of rewriting). Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 10:57, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:59, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:59, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:00, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the KPUA cancellation and other fallout and withdrawals have taken this past any one-event concerns. - Dravecky (talk) 12:10, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Dragons flight.--В и к и T 12:15, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't know why this is even up for debate. --Auric (talk) 12:31, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Nominator should be banned forever.--Milowent • hasspoken 12:46, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of the decision in this case, Nominator is entitled to presumption of good faith. —Anomalocaris (talk) 02:42, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. Trying to delete an encyclopedia article on Einstein is not a sign of good faith.Pretzeldut (talk) 14:33, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It's an important event in the U.S. presidential election cycle; I WP:SPLIT it off from Sandra Fluke (also at AfD), to preserve the information about the Limbaugh-Fluke flap; and created Contraceptive mandates for the issue that sparked the name-calling issue. A summary of the controversy is being maintained at Rush Limbaugh (section Sandra Fluke comments), in accordance with Wikipedia:Summary style. --Uncle Ed (talk) 12:48, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Paintedexbird and Dragons flight say it better than I can. This has gone well beyond routine coverage. Does anyone else see it snowing? HangingCurveSwing for the fence 13:43, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- could use renaming, as the current name is rather clunky. But at this point this has become way more than a simple news story, with potentially long lasting repercussions to Limbaugh's radio show, and with ripple effects in the american political landscape. Umbralcorax (talk) 15:01, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: And yes, please ban the nominator for frivolous nonsense.Ak47andmore (talk) 16:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious keep This page is on the front page of Google News. 12,000 page views. This event has already become one of the major stories of 2012. --Nbauman (talk) 17:57, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - this is sufficiently covered content related to Linbaugh's career that would be UNDUE to contain within that article. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:54, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • switching to Move Lead to Limbaugh and Delete - after reading the whole article, there is actually nothing other than trivia after the section lead. The lead can be covered in the Limbaugh article. (although it appears already covered in the Limbaugh article, this is essentially simply "delete"-- The Red Pen of Doom 21:07, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Blunt Amendment or some other highly neutral and broad title. There are a raft of POV issues here. If you redirect to Rush Limbaugh, you help the GOP and conservatives make this about one man's loud mouth, and not the alleged sexist attitudes of an entire party. If you redirect to Sandra Fluke, you play into the hands of liberal activists who are working overtime to put a human face on the debate over insurance mandates. Other possible article titles could mention health insurance, moral exceptions for health services, contraception, and religious freedom. Each of these represents a certain POV, none of them neutral. Each of those is only one aspect of the Blunt Amendment, which sought to carve out an exception for "moral reasons" (not only religious ones) to the health insurance mandate. It was an exception large enough to cover practically anything, and Republicans, for rhetorical purposes, narrowed it to religious freedom, while Democrats narrowed it contraception, and further personalized it to be about one likable young woman. Limbaugh played into their hands by making it about one boorish man. To avoid playing along with any of the propagandists here, a neutral, broad title that is evocative of next to nothing, Blunt Amendment, encourages the reader to go beyond the title and read the whole story. And it encourages editors to include all the relevant facts, not just the salacious details of Limbaugh's insults and the drama that ensued. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:01, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: 2012 U.S. birth control insurance coverage mandate controversy sounds pretty neutral to me: I can't see how a title like that gives either side a framing advantage. --Uncle Ed (talk) 23:07, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - strangely enough it still says "encyclopedia" underneath the Wikipedia logo. I suggest that also be deleted....--Kalsermar (talk) 19:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Major news story with persistent and massive coverage in reliable sources.--JayJasper (talk) 19:09, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as expansion of Rush Limbaugh article per WP:summary style. — goethean ॐ 19:13, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Wknight94 talk 20:25, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the bones to Rush Limbaugh. A news story of significane to warrent a minor mention in that biography. As it stands as now written its nothing more than a bloated tabloid-esque attack page.Youreallycan 21:00, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge While the story is of course perfectly notable, an article like this inherently raises BLP issues. I think it could be merged into Rush Limbaugh, expanding the coverage of the incident in that article. I'm also extremely surprised that there is no article on the Blunt Amendment and all the controversy around it - that would be another natural and appropriate home for this content. I would point to how odd it is that there is a complete article on these asinine remarks and none on the larger issue of the amendment, but to point out that we value the salacious over the truly important is beyond obvious. Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:09, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: There will be one, if you help me write it. Meet me at Blunt Amendment? --Uncle Ed (talk) 23:09, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Rush Limbaugh. Even if this event precipitates a significant change in his career/influence, it's more a part of his biography than a general event. The relevance to the presidential election also seems pretty low, since it's just resulted in a few comments from Obama and the Republican candidates. UltraNurd (talk) 21:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 62 Refs and counting? Widespread media coverage? Involvement from POTUS? I'd say it merits its own article. --JaGatalk 21:37, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Not to mention 12,000+ pageviews. C'mon. --JaGatalk 21:40, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If excessive "popular intrest" in morbidly inane topics really correlated to importance, then we should have a different president. -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:48, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Importance has nothing to do with Notability. I am confident Cato, New York is not important to anyone except the people who live there, but that does not make it any less notable, nor does it make it any less viable for inclusion. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 01:36, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Information is trivia and irrelevant to real life except for persons who support job-killing regulations and taxes on job creators!!! Yeahriiite (talk) 22:47, 6 March 2012 (UTC) — User:Yeahriiite (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. User's first edit.[reply]
  • Keep. This is a prominent political issue at the moment; perhaps at a later date it can be merged but for now it's a first class subject. Wainstead (talk) 00:06, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep—Really just piling-on at this point, but the amount of coverage makes this a notable event. Livit⇑Eh?/What? 02:19, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep IMO, this page should stay due to the huge amount of news coverage, but the Sandra Fluke page should be deleted. — NY-13021 (talk) 02:46, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete As I just posted on the article's talk page (in a complaint that the terms "slut", "prostitute", etc. are missing from the lead), I believe that absent a follow-up event of enduring notabiliy, such as Limbaugh's resignation or financial ruination, this is little more than a news story whose importance will fade once its cycle is run. Allreet (talk) 04:44, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. This is a major news story and clearly follows the notability guidelines. I think merging it with Rush Limbaugh or Contraceptive mandates would do a serious disservice to readers. Yellowy(talk) 04:02, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, possible rename, as discussed above. From the safe distance of over 3,000 miles from the Republican Primaries, I think this is pretty significant stuff. I'm unswayed by other !voters' protestations that this is a political article - it's about politics, but it can be written and edited in such a way as to be NPOV. The events themselves are notable and well-covered, in addition to the politician, the mandates, and the amendment. Sandra Fluke, on the other hand, is BLP1E material. And when will people learn that no-one's going to get banned from the site for a page nomination? AlexTiefling (talk) 10:37, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's more than a bit silly to have a deletion discussion when the merge discussion couldn't even gather consensus. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:31, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is newsworthy, it has value in terms of concise information and it is as unbiased as the editing public can keep it. It has plenty of citations and sources noted. There is no other source available like this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Route246 (talk • contribs) 15:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Why this is even up for discussion? It is all over the news; It is a significant event worth documenting.Malin84 (talk) 15:53, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - It might be the norm these days but I think it is sad that "it is in the news" has become a criterium for a so called encyclopaedic article.--Kalsermar (talk) 16:15, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: While I agree that much of the notoriety is temporary, the event is having a lasting effect and clearly meets notability requirements. WP:NOTNEWSPAPER is not applicable, there are plenty of secondary sources used as references.--RDBury (talk) 19:25, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Rush Limbaugh doesn't need more controversy G Dijon (talk) 19:39, 7 March 2012 (UTC)— G Dijon (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • Comment: Someone having a lot of controversy surrounding them is not a reason for not including a wikipedia article about an event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.34.28.208 (talk) 12:44, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment could whatever admin closes this one close the Sandra Fluke AfD as well? We really don't need two articles on the same thing. Speciate (talk) 21:17, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rebuttal to comment: It's not two articles on the same thing: I very carefully moved the bulk of the controversy out of Sandra Fluke and into Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy, in accordance with Wikipedia:Summary style. Perhaps when you have time you could take a glance at that editing guideline. The aim is to have a main article of unlimited size, about the controversy; and a short section summarizing the controversy in the articles about the contending parties. So even if Sandra Fluke is judged not to be a notable person, we can still keep all the important information about the controversy. Related issues include:
    2012 U.S. birth control insurance coverage mandate controversy
    Contraceptive mandates
    Conscience protection - not yet written
    Blunt amendment - not yet written
    Let's tell the whole story for our myriads of interested readers, eh? --Uncle Ed (talk) 22:34, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Everything is well sourced and the incident appears to heve been commented on by loads of notable people. The notoriety may well be temporary for the masses, but the incident is so revealing about a section of American society that it will have longevity. Meowy 01:18, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious Keep. Topic is notable, and while some content may stray into BLP territory, that can be addressed with proper copy-editing and oversight. Also, speedy close. We should not be seriously entertaining deletion requests from a repeat-vandal who has made multiple frivolous AfD proposals before. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 01:31, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The incident has proven to have staying power in the news sphere and has had an effect on numerous fields, with major political figures getting involved.--Yaksar (let's chat) 01:51, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Summarize and merge into Controversies section of Rush Limbaugh. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:29, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This is a major political controversy with massive ongoing worldwide coverage. A number of major corporate advertisers have dropped support of Limbaugh's show and issued statements on the controversy. The President has weighed in. This story has huge political implications that may well impact the outcome of 2012 elections in USA. This is already destined to be an important incident in American political history. What credible argument is there for deletion? PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 03:04, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not keep under its current form; in its current form, it is little more than news coverage, which is the remit of Wikinews, not us. I've always been of the opinion that coverage of current events should be retrospective and we shouldn't cover everything just because it's sourced; if anything, it enforces systemic bias to the present. However, there should be an article about the birth control issue, of which this should be a part. Sceptre (talk) 03:51, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question How long does this normally take? It seems like on this page, the general thought is to keep the article. Casprings (talk) 04:05, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seven days, sometimes a bit more. Youreallycan 05:04, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Why are people wasting time discussing this? Why isn't there a mechanism to filter out obviously junk requests by vandals, or have it seconded by an admin first? The person who put up the delete warning label on the article is not acting in the best interests of Wikipedia for three reasons: (1) A warning label deters users from wanting to contribute (what's the use if it's going to be deleted) or even look at the article, (2) It wastes other people's time, (3) It makes Wikipedia look foolish. Incidentally, the person also tried to delete the article on Einstein's relativity. Pretzeldut (talk) 06:29, 8 March 2012 (UTC) — Pretzeldut (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • If you disagree with our AFD process, go to Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy and propose a policy change. On this page, we're here to discuss whether this specific article should be deleted, not whether AFD tags on articles are a good idea. Also, try to avoid personal attacks, such as calling someone a vandal. Even if the nominator were indeed a vandal, the nomination was in good faith and has attracted significant support (don't take this as a statement on where consensus lies at this point). szyslak (t) 08:17, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Though I support deleting the biography on Sandra Fluke, I think this incident is notable enough to describe on Wikipedia in some form, either in this article, in the Rush Limbaugh article, or in another related article. szyslak (t) 08:24, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Important news story about important right wing U.S. political commentator and his personal attacks against people. Obvious vandalous AfD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.34.28.208 (talk) 12:39, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not the newspaper. If you want content on this subject, it should be in Limbaugh's article; an entire article on this is badly in violation of WP:UNDUE. Nyttend backup (talk) 13:11, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Big event in Limbaugh's career and this year's American politics.Dvzmasz (talk) 13:53, 8 March 2012 (UTC) - — Dvzmasz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment: We all know this isn't going to be deleted, I cry for some bold admin to close it now without prejudice to a new AfD in 2 months time, if necessary. The obvious precedent: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colorado balloon incident.--Milowent • hasspoken 14:19, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's not just one event it's multiple events that happened because of the one incident such as the many sponsors that backed down from his radio show. JayJayTalk to me 18:26, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious keep and speedy close, for the reasons already discussed here. A very vague deletion's rationale against tons of reliable extensive coverage in international sources (i.e., some Italian coverage: [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69],[70],[71], [72], [73], [74], [75], [76], [77], [78],and more) that demonstrate the weight of the controversity. No need to mention Limbaugh or Fluk) have never had coverage in Italian newspapers and magazines before this (clearly not minor) controversity. Deletion nominations such as this, two days after the same question was discussed as merge propostal, make a mockery of Wikipedia. Cavarrone (talk) 18:37, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In France too: http://vinogradoff.blog.lemonde.fr/2012/03/02/obama-descend-dans-larene-et-defend-une-etudiante-insultee-par-la-droite-conservatrice/ http://bigbrowser.blog.lemonde.fr/2012/03/06/zlut-lanimateur-star-des-ultraconservateurs-perd-ses-annonceurs-apres-un-derapage-verbal/ Pretzeldut (talk) 19:27, 8 March 2012 (UTC) — Pretzeldut (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep. Very notable, lots of media attention. Everyking (talk) 19:30, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Is a single event that is part of a long-standing controversy. It is the long-standing controversy, coverage of which is currently spread out over several Wikipedia articles that is of encyclopedic note, not the single event. We should not give undue weight to recent events. (Also, if the article on Sandra Fluke is deleted, this article should definitely be deleted. You do not want the only article on a living person to be the one about the controversy.) Bwrs (talk) 21:08, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lol! and that, based on which policy?! In Sandra Fluke AfD you (and me too) argued the article should be deleted as the subject meets BLP1E, and BLP1E policy says the exact opposite of what you're stating: "it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article." Cavarrone (talk) 22:54, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- WP:NOTNEWS is meant for, as it states, "routine coverage" for "things like announcements, sports, or celebrities." The coverage scale here is nothing of a sort. When a controversy erupts to such a magnitude, there is nothing "routine" about it. Far too much topic-specific content to merge to already long other articles. --Oakshade (talk) 22:49, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Substantial and sustained news coverage--an important national event. --TeaDrinker (talk) 23:46, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Never mind the 66 citations -- pretty much every where you go there's banner ads lobbying for people to take sides on the issue. It's very controversial, not a single nonnotable event. CarniCat 00:15, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, if only to keep the controversies section on Limbaugh's page from being doubled in length by all the content that would be merged into it. TheRealTeln (talk) 02:39, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Mega-tonnage of WP:RS out there to establish notability till the end of time. Qworty (talk) 06:58, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clear Keep - I am honestly astounded to find that this article has been brought to AFD. I've seen political/media controversies come and go, for more than 4 decades. This one is still going strong after more than a week -- hardly a one-day wonder. The controversy has snowballed far beyond what I initially anticipated, and will not soon be forgotten. I don't recall the last time a sitting President took the extraordinary step of placing a phone call to somebody who had been badly treated by a media personality. Highly unusual. I'm not sure there's anything else left to say that hasn't already been nicely articulated by so many other editors. So I will simply note that it is very discouraging to see (once again) how easily the AFD process can be abused. I do think we should have a procedure in place to enable us to ban repeat-abusers from further AFD nominations -- perhaps a "three strikes and you're out" sort of thing. (I can't help thinking of the way "Frivolous lawsuits" are dealt with in the legal system.) Cgingold (talk) 14:16, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned, this kind of vandalous activity - and a policy that tolerates it and wastes people's time - make Wikipedia look foolish. Pretzeldut (talk) 16:50, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Tons of coverage, RL's own article is already huge and can't contain all the information here. Sergecross73 msg me 17:51, 9 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) 01:21, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Jason Torres[edit]

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

Local politician. Not notable per guidelines. ThousandAngryBees (talk) 04:19, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No evidence of coverage outside of his local area, which leads to the conclusion that he is not notable outside his local area. —C.Fred (talk) 04:26, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:00, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:00, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete—Coverage isn't (currently) required to more than regional, but it is required to be significant. All but one reference is trivial coverage on routine school board votes. The one cited source with feature coverage of him isn't enough to satisfy the multiple clause of WP:GNG. It's odd that the youngest elected official in the history of New York State hasn't generated more press, but it seems he hasn't. Livit⇑Eh?/What? 00:09, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. & Livitup. No evidence of significant coverage, does not meet WP:BIO or WP:POLITICIAN.--JayJasper (talk) 20:30, 7 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) 01:22, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Korea First Bank FC[edit]

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

No indication why this topic is notable. Cloudz679 16:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Cloudz679 17:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable team. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:02, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 17:04, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Club has played in the second division and were runners-up in 1989. Number 57 20:47, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could a source be added to the article to demonstrate this? Mattythewhite (talk) 10:33, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Playing in the second division doesn't appear to establish notability, even if it could be referenced. Cloudz679 08:54, 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 03:29, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No clear establishment of notability whatsoever. Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 06:11, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Stubby article does not evidence notability, and pretty much the only ghits (in English) are to WP, directly or indirectly. Nor is there any reason to assume that a semi-pro team that lasted 16 years is notable. If substantial coverage from WP:RS sources can be found, happy to revisit, but fails WP:GNG at this point. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 12:38, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Defer Suggest contact Seungsoo Lee (RSSSF) on pinkstep(at)hotmail.com to establish if there is any evidence that Korea First Bank FC (and other teams in the defunct Korea Semi-Professional Football League} competed in the South Korea FA Cup. (Finnish Gas (Finnish Gas 17:05, 6 March 2012 (UTC)).[reply]
  • Delete—There are about a dozen articles on different defunct clubs in this defunct league. I prodded them all, but the article creator took offense. They all fail WP:FOOTYN and I'll gladly AfD them all as soon as this one closes. Livit⇑Eh?/What? 00:11, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per WP:FOOTYN; no evidence has been supplied of the team playing in the national cup. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:00, 11 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) 01:23, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OpenPortal[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:Notability (web) and too short. ♪ anonim.one ♪ 10:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Software does not fall under A7. →Στc. 06:49, 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, —SW— confabulate 16:13, 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 03:28, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete—The non-English references User:Trevj has found are referring to a French company that markets an ERP software product. This is not the subject of this article. The subject of this article is an open-source software product that has no coverage in reliable sources. Livit⇑Eh?/What? 00:17, 7 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, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:40, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arglefargin[edit]

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

I have been unable to locate any reliable source coverage to establish notability for this topic. I am not clear that it is not a hoax topic, and likely should be deleted as such. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 01:13, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 6 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, A7 by User:Kinu. Lenticel (talk) 01:10, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Andrew[edit]

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

Non notable digital creator Edinburgh Wanderer 00:32, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Unambiguously non-notable, borderline A7 candidate. Also an unsourced BLP. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 00:51, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I honestly would support A7 on this, and I note that the page creator is technically not allowed to remove a CSD flag so I'd suggest to the nominator that they re-tag it if they wish to go that route. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 00:53, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have done whether will be accepted or not.Edinburgh Wanderer 23:28, 6 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. looks like a blizzard now Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:39, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of April Fool's Day jokes[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of April Fool's Day jokes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Example farm. There is no inclusion criteria, so nearly any example can be added willy nilly. I can't see this being reduced to a few "notable" examples as I can't think of a possible singular cutoff criterion. It's WP:IINFO right now. Last AFD was full of WP:SOFIXIT (how can I "fix" something that's 100% examplefarm?), WP:ILIKEIT and "no reason for deletion", which is ironic since none of the keepers were using policy based reasoning either. I surely think this is beyond repair and that WP:IINFO is a good reason for deletion. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Just to add a new voice to previous discussions..We are writing an encyclopedia here to inform readers about topics they might be interested in. Are they interested in April Fool's Day jokes? Of course they are, in large numbers, and they are often looking for a reliably sourced list too! Notwithstanding the regrettable current trend to argue via policy quote, the concerns about this list are really concerns about what should be on it and how that is decided. Those are matters for talk page discussion, not AfD. Geometry guy 00:49, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's the problem. I think nothing should be on this list, since there's no possible way there could be an inclusion criterion. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:09, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The talk page is a blank canvas, so you have all the space in the world to discuss it. Geometry guy 01:34, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but remove any joke (no exceptions, no loopholes for associated entities - there must be an article and it must be specifically about the joke or hoax) that does not have its own article. TPH is right that it's a potentially limitless example farm in its current form, but there are a number of notable jokes that would benefit from a list page. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:20, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A list of the jokes is something that readers might be interested in, and if each one was reported in the news media there is no problem. People who are not interested will find it easy to avoid the page. BigJim707 (talk) 02:29, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and develop an inclusion criterion via consensus. And yes, it is possible. My recommendation would be along the lines of "any entry that is a) notable by itself or b) carried out by a notable organization and verifiable by reliable sources". Limiting the list only to entries with associated articles is generally preferable, but I think it may be excessive in this case. Try and get some discussion going and get a feel for the broader community consensus and go with that. Angrysockhop (talk to me) 03:46, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and troutslap nominator. There is absolutely nothing WP:IINFO that supports this nomination, and nominator has been previously notified almost a month ago that such nominations were improper. Jclemens (talk) 04:55, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You don't think this is "Excessive listings of statistics"? I still think it fails WP:SALAT since there is no criterion of inclusion. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:41, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No inclusion criteria? (1) Must be a joke (2) Must have been carried out/published on April Fools Day! Other inclusion guidelines and policies such as verifiability and the general notability criterion imply an unwritten inclusion standard—that the joke must have been notable enough to warrant independent coverage (enforcing this would remove quite a lot of currently unreferenced entries such as the Adult Swim section). It's certainly not "excessive use of statistics" as suggested above! It's written in comprehensible prose, and for the most part, is well-referenced. --Canley (talk) 06:05, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Mr. Hammer and I have differed a bit about inclusion-worthiness of this topic or that over the last couple years (he being a highly driven deletionist). That said, there's no cause for trout here because this does not have any possible limiting inclusion criteria. "It happened on April Fools Day..." eliminates virtually nothing. This is a big junk drawer for all sorts of cruft. If it's an April Fools' prank and it was reported in the media, it's in. Not exactly encyclopedic, eh? That said, I think there is something to be said for a certain amount of cruft to leaven the hard content, so I'm not gonna cast stones here. But don't be too harsh on the nominator, he's pretty much on the mark on this. Carrite (talk) 06:48, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - my gut reaction on seeing this listing was that it must be a dreadful uncited cruftlist. But it isn't: it's a properly-cited, clearly-delimited list of April's Fools Jokes, some of which (like the BBC's spaghetti tree) are cultural icons. As such the list documents popular culture in a plain and encyclopedic manner and is certainly worthy of inclusion. An AFJ, by the way, is not 'any joke', but a deception or prank played with a straight face (e.g. camouflaged as a serious news item) on the morning of 1st April - quite a tight inclusion criterion, so there's no problem there. This is a good WP list. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:44, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per [user:Chiswick Chap]] I expected to see our usual listcruft and trivial kid's games at school. In fact the majority are like the spaghetti trees: large-scale hoaxes by media outlets that have since generated significant comment by other sources. We might yet prune some of those that aren't, but there's clearly a notable list here. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:41, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I removed some of the uncited material. BTW there is a rumor that next month WP policies will actually start to be followed. BigJim707 (talk) 12:36, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- but make sure the scope of the list is limited to jokes that would otherwise be notable on their own, such as the spaghetti trees joke. Umbralcorax (talk) 14:59, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is no policy that requires WP:Notability, to article standards, for individual list entries. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:04, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I was just trying to think of something that would prune out some of the useless cruft while leaving a viable list. Umbralcorax (talk) 15:26, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the fact that the joke had been reported on in reliable news media, as an April Fools joke, should be enough. I trimmed the article, mostly by this standard yesterday. Of course in 100 years there will probably be thousands of items, but I guess we can deal with it then. BigJim707 (talk) 06:04, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The exclusion criteria seems pretty well defined to me. . . A prank executed on April Fool's day that has received media coverage. In addition to that, the article is well sourced and written. --StvFetterly(Edits) 15:45, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Ten Pound Hammer tilting at windmills yet again on this one. On the last nom, you got one vote supporting deletion, you should sometimes let another editor reevaluate these things first. Its a notable subject, not free of editorial choice debates, but exactly the kind of article we should have in a comprehensive compendium of human knowledge and history.--Milowent • hasspoken 03:33, 7 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) 01:23, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AMGI Global LLC[edit]

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

Makes no claim for notability. Fails WP:CORP. No refs of any standing - most refs provided have no relevant content and few (any ?) are from reliable and notable sources. Might have qualified for a speedy except it has been around for a few years.  Velella  Velella Talk   22:22, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:CORP as nom stated. Also appears to be an advert, as the articles significant contributor is likely associated with the company. QueenCake (talk) 21:17, 21 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, BusterD (talk) 22:21, 27 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) 00:08, 6 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:38, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Advanced Technology Center[edit]

Advanced Technology Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 19 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, BusterD (talk) 22:32, 27 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) 00:08, 6 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:25, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Krant M. L. Verma[edit]

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

Subject fails to meet WP:BIO#Basic Criteria Wikieditindia (talk) 12:11, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There might be some Hindi-language sources available to establish notability. utcursch | talk 10:43, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The nominator's rather general reasons for deletion don't exactly make discussion easier. At first sight, the article both seems to assert the notability of the subject and looks well-referenced. There are certainly problems with the article - the assertions of notability can be read as largely promotional, and most of the references, while citing probably reliable sources, are in Hindi, offline and rather unspecific (for instance, Dainik Jagran New Delhi 19 March 2004 - but what page?). These problems may be related to the fact that the article was created and has been largely edited by someone who at least comes close to being an SPA - under other circumstances I might suspect autobiography, but in this case the article subject happens to be a Wikipedia editor (User:Krantmlverma) who seems to be significantly more Wikipedia-literate (for instance, in setting up references) than the article creator. My gut feeling is that at least some (though not all) of the Hindi references will probably turn out to be substantial and reliable and that, despite the lack of (for instance) good GBooks hits, that is probably either a matter of almost all references being in Hindi or the article title being the wrong search term (note that several of the inward links to the article into the article are piped). But that's a gut feeling - not enough to vote on. PWilkinson (talk) 13:23, 26 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, BusterD (talk) 23:17, 27 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) 00:07, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Like PWilkinson, I am chary of voting on an article where notability depends on Hindi sources, apparently quite good. A proper judgement on this article requires either an expert on the subject or at least someone who can look up and check the old paper sources. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:36, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: As noted by PWilkinson, most of the sources should probably be found offline and in Hindi media. Assuming good faith the sources cited should be considered right. One web source is provided which does prove the notability and one of his books is included in Google Books. The image File:Release of Books By A.B.Vajpeyi.JPEG, although nominated for deletion due to lack of license, also does not seem fake and proves a few points mentioned in the article. Worth keep! -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 09:46, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


  • Weak keep:Vide Chiswick Chap. Disclaimer: I have met Krant ML Verma at WikiConference 2011. He is a Wikipedian. AshLin (talk) 13:42, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:Was asked to comment, so: Although the article needs a little cleanup (and probably a move), on first look the references seem good, and I don't see how it fails WP:BIO#Basic criteria. I see atleast four different newspapers as references, and I think they count as " secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." And the article names seem to be about the subject/his works, which I think can be called "substantial coverage". Specifically, refs 4, 6 and 14 in this revision seem enough to pass WP:BIO.--Siddhartha Ghai (talk) 15:59, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep:Per wp:UGLY, admittedly the article even cites Wikipedia, or that the sources are poor, or in Hindi? Could someone tell me what the policy is on translating articles written from one language to another, in Wikipedia. The subject is notable, 23 Wikipedia articles cite his work as a source[80], my vote is that it should stay. That the subject is a Wikipedian shouldn't be held against him. I suggest that the Hindi citations should be cited verbatim and translated as: footnotes, can we have a better photograph please. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 20:11, 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:27, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

David Bascombe[edit]

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

This is a producer that has worked on a lot of songs, some of which are notable. I can't however find significant coverage about this producer himself. The only reference in the article is in depth, but not independent. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:32, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 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) 00:06, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete He seems to be very talented, but without secondary sources saying something about him it's more like a Who's Who entry than an encyclopedia article. BigJim707 (talk) 02:46, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Coverage doesn't get past WP:BASIC. Can't see how he gets past WP:ARTIST or any of WP:NM, either. Hoppingalong (talk) 19:29, 11 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2012_March_6&oldid=1142634412"