Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 March 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 6 March 8 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 Speedy delete, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:19, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Law of behavior[edit]

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

Prod removed after an attempt at improvement that doesn't seem to address the core problems. The only reference is a link to Wikiveristy in which it is clear that it is the user's own Original Research as an undergraduate. It seems not to make any sense anyway. At best it is very unclear. So, in summary, we have no notability, no verifiability, original research, self-promotion and possibly nonsense. DanielRigal (talk) 22:26, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It uses Euclidean geometry and if you need a concrete example, plot time on the y-axis and commodities on the x-axis. I don't believe that I had a chance to explain myself fully on the page, but that was because I was also hoping that people would take notice and build on the article before scheduling it for deletion. It's a gem and I hope you will reconsider. Stimulieconomy (talk) 22:53, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the policy on Original Research. Whether it is meaningful or not is not the main issue here. The main issue is whether this is notable and verifiable. As it is unpublished it can't be either. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:58, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. DanielRigal (talk) 22:58, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. DanielRigal (talk) 23:02, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I have slated the page and requested deletion in the future I will try not to make the same mistake. I would like to edit Wikipedia pages but perhaps I should start small. Thank you, and I'm sorry if I came across as mean. Stimulieconomy (talk) 23:06, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Thanks for that.
It is still on Wikiversity. I am not sure what the rules are over there. It might be OK. If not, I am sure there are plenty of other places you can self-publish it.
This AfD is now moot. I am not sure if I am allowed to close it myself so I will leave it for now. I am sure somebody will be along shortly to sort it out. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:14, 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) 23:39, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TFM Page[edit]

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

Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed. Kinkreet (talk) 19:57, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I'm not finding any coverage in WP:RS. --Kinu t/c 20:22, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No RS on web or in article, for over 3 years. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:51, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:WEB. Alexa rank is 293,296 so it doesn't even get a "but it's POPULAR!" excuse. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:07, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:36, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:36, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:36, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Joaquin008 (talk) 13:05, 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 Speedy delete a7, webcontent, doesn't assert notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:19, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Meftytjory[edit]

Meftytjory (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 is slightly confusing, and it is unsourced. Furthermore, due in part to the lack of sources, notability does not appear to have been established. dci | TALK 19:17, 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 delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:40, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Hard Nails[edit]

Jimmy Hard Nails (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 2011 YouTube video series, trivial third-party coverage. Proposed deletion challenged on my talk page. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 19:16, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as above. Doesn't pass WP:WEB. Even the view count (usually the main bragging point on youtube articles) isn't anything special. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:43, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - if view count/subscribers is the same thing as notability, Wiki would be swamped with new articles about random twitter users. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:25, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:33, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:33, 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. Michig (talk) 08:24, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dithered Twits[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Dithered Twits (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 has previously been nominated in 2008 for not being notable with a consensus of weak keep if notability could be established. Since then, the article has resisted attempts to be de-orphaned and has not been improved to demonstrate notability. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:53, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Absolutely no notability claimed in the article whatsoever. And after 6 years I really doubt anything new is going to surface either. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:34, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:25, 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 no consensus.  Sandstein  19:47, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

City Block (Judge Dredd)[edit]

City Block (Judge Dredd) (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 created in 2004, and redirected to Judge Dredd in late 2011 without discussion, un-redirected, and then re-redirected. The editor's reason was "Fails WP:N: non-notable element of a fictional universe not discussed in multiple third-party sources". Due to the age of the article and the contested redirection I feel that a proper AfD is appropriate, to give any interested editors a chance to comment. I concur that this article does not appear to meet GNG. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 11:30, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not convinced outright deletion is the best option here. Maybe it would be better simply to return it to being a redirect? Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 23:36, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    For what purpose? Either it meets criteria for inclusion or it does not. Redirecting with no AfD is just a state of hibernation; it could be put back at any time, but isn't serving any purpose in the meantime, and it isn't being improved. It would be better to move it to the Wikipedia:Article Incubator, where at least it could be improved upon, or deleted if it cannot be improved. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 23:55, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    For the same purpose as any other redirect: it takes someone looking it up to the most relevant related article. This could be perfectly useful as a redirect, and the fact that someone might inappropriately turn it back into an article is not a justification for outright deletion. There are all kinds of useful redirects that could inappropriately be turned into articles, but we don't delete them because of that. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 23:37, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    We're talking about two separate things here. The redirect itself is not helpful, because it is unlikely someone would use it. If they did use it, they would find no info related to the redirect at their destination. All they would find is that the topic is related in some way to Judge Dredd, which they already know from going to City Block (Judge Dredd). And then there is the article itself. I agree that the fact that someone might inappropriately turn it back into an article is not a justification for outright deletion, which is what the AfD is for. Not meeting our criteria for inclusion is justification for outright deletion. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 00:47, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be a valid redirect to other articles, for example Mega-City One. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 01:27, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough, that would be a valid redirect. As I said, I see this as two separate issues. Deleting an article doesn't prevent a perfectly valid redirect being created at that location (unless the redirect is somehow offensive). It wasn't the redirect itself that I was putting up for deletion; I would have done that at WP:RfD. It was the method of removing the article that I didn't agree with. If this article is a problem, it should be fixed or deleted, not swept under the rug. That isn't solving anything, just saving the solving for a later day. I'm sure people do this to articles all of the time, and there is no policy against it. There is also no policy against re-instating the article and putting it up for a proper AfD. There is no logical reason for redirects to have long and varied histories filled with material that does not meet our inclusion criteria. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 02:14, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Johnny: I don't think any of us have a problem with the title existing as a redirect to a parent topic, but if we agree that the topic isn't suitable for a stand-alone article, and the content isn't worth keeping, then we should delete the content and then create a redirect at the title. If we simply redirect without deletion, then anyone can simply come along and restore the article just by clicking undo, even if the consensus at AfD was that it shouldn't be an article. There have been at least a dozen such cases—where consensus was that a topic wasn't suitable for a stand-alone article, but instead of being deleted the article was simply redirected—where I've had to keep a title on my watchlist for years just so I can revert every time an IP comes along and undoes a redirect. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe, but people can always turn a redirect into an article (even if its past history as an article is removed) if they're sufficiently determined or know enough about the subject. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 03:49, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    All of these edits stay in user contributions, so people can easily stumble across the content. Also these intact histories allow direct inbound links to specific versions. The real question is, why would it be desirable to keep the article history of an article whose subject matter does not meet our criteria for inclusion? What would be the benefit? ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 04:02, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Polisher, I've no prejudice against anyone taking a crack at writing a decent article that meets our notability thresholds (demonstrable secondary source coverage) and style guides (focus on real-world aspects, not just plot summary). But there isn't a thing worth keeping in this article, and the basic premise of the "city blocks" of the Judge Dredd comics is already well-described at Judge Dredd#Dredd's world. What is the benefit of keeping a bloated plot summary lingering around in some redirect's version history? There's no indication that this is a suitable topic for a stand-alone article, and even if there was it'd likely have to be rewritten completely to meet our inclusion standards. --IllaZilla (talk) 04:53, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No sources to establish notability . Fictional element of a fictional universe without enough real-world content or significance to stand alone. WP:NOT#PLOT as well. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:01, 25 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, Spartaz Humbug! 18:24, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to relist this, there is a discussion about this going on at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lawgiver_(Judge_Dredd). Please post all comments there. Richard75 (talk) 19:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Said discussion has since been closed with no consensus, with the closing admin suggesting either AfDing each article individually or in smaller packs. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 03:44, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The nomination seems to be an argument about redirection. That is a matter of ordinary editing not deletion. The topic is notable, being discussed in detail in sources such as Comics & culture: analytical and theoretical approaches to comics, Action/spectacle cinema: a sight and sound reader and Art & the city: a dream of urbanity. Warden (talk) 10:12, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources posted by Warden and Rangoondispenser (via this "rodeo"). Additionally, this discussion indicates a concern over a redirect dispute, which is not what AfD is for. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 07:19, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:41, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-Marc Aractingi[edit]

Jean-Marc Aractingi (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 Wikipedia:Notability (people). Having searched for reliable sources on the subject, I can find nothing that is not either completely self-published or authored by the subject himself even if published by someone else (such as his who's who entry). I strongly suspect self-promotion. Blueboar (talk) 17:23, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Follow up note... Both Google and Google news do get quite a few hits... but please look deeper... you'll find that the subject authored all of it. What we need are sources that are independent from the subject, and I question if any exist. Blueboar (talk) 17:37, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I fully agree with the nomination. Having also searched, I find nothing independent to support notability. Flagrant self-publicity. Timothy Titus Talk To TT 19:54, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:48, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - read the article, can't find a thing notable about it. Not notable in any sphere. MSJapan (talk) 16:54, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy deleted as hoax (author apologised on article talkpage). Peridon (talk) 20:35, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rémi E. Ballot[edit]

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

Apparent hoax - IMDB does attribute the film he's alleged to have written to a Rémi Ballot, but without the E - however, as the film was released in 2008, the author would had to have been 9 or 10 at the time, which is unbelievable. (IMDB appears to have been tampered with, as well - this review lists a different writer, as do other sites - [1], [2], [3], [4], [5] for examples) The Guardian link makes no mention of Ballot, so that's a failed verification, and the French bio link, when translated, is almost ludicrous. I think we have a kid with the same name trying to co-opt someone else's credit - a Google search on "Rémi E. Ballot" shows only this article. MikeWazowski (talk) 17:07, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as hoax. IMDB is user-edited, I believe, so it could quite easily be the same person perpetrating it on both sites. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 17:45, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Smells fishy — born 1997? writes script at age 10? American but all websites are in French?... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 18:15, 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?) 02:06, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Clarke (entrepreneur)[edit]

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

Every one of the references listed is a 'primary' reference, that is--it's a reference to the individual's own web sites or paid press releases. There are no actual reliable secondary sources used. Zad68 (talk) 16:43, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note after initially AfD'ing this article, which looks like it might be about a notable individual, I tried to de-spam the article, and realized it is really far too self-promotional to be a workable attempt at a biography article. So this article is now CSD'd, let's see if it survives that first. Zad68 (talk) 16:50, 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) 23:42, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SongPro[edit]

SongPro (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 of notability, no references and edited by a series of SPA editors. Theroadislong (talk) 16:02, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Did some searching and doesn't look like it could be properly sourced. --SubSeven (talk) 16:17, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Couldn't find any reliable sources for this. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:43, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:31, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:31, 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) 23:43, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Bogard[edit]

Daniel Bogard (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 with no reason given, player has not played in a fully professional league therefore fails WP:NFOOTBALL & has also not received significant media coverage & also fails WP:GNG. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 15:56, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 16:02, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 16:02, 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. (non-admin closure) ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 21:23, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Igloo (New Zealand)[edit]

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

Declined PROD, rational was: unlaunched product. no independent refs after months of existance. nothing in GNews but press releases and thinly disguised marketing materials. both partners in this joint venture already have pages and Sky Network Television in particular contains very similar information to this article, with a similar structure. COI and self-published tags removed by article creator. There are now two independent references, one from each of the big NZ web media news outlets; neither appears to contain any independent journalism, merely reporting what the three companies have said about the (still unreleased) product. Note that thong is new media company based in New Zealand which operates online communities serving the production, broadcast and viewing of television in New Zealand, Australia, Canada and the UK [6] and not independent for the purposes on notability. If WP:RS with real coverage are added to the page, feel free to ping my talk page and I'll take another look. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:24, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the topic meets the WP:GNG, about 15 hits[7] on the NZ Herald website, several of which are beyond trivial. I think there is a bit much detail on subscriber options etc, which could be summarised. XLerate (talk) 23:35, 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, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 15:01, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep: This article needs cleanup and expansion, especially in WP:NPOV writing and sourcing. That said, the product seems notable to me, and there is coverage. That said, I don't feel qualified to fix it myself, nor interested in doing so. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 17:43, 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. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 23:51, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All-Time DDR-Oberliga Table[edit]

All-Time DDR-Oberliga Table (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. Has now had a few references added, but I still think it falls afoul of WP:NOTSTATS and, most importantly, I can't find any significant coverage in independent sources, so I don't think this table is notable. Jenks24 (talk) 13:26, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Jenks24 (talk) 13:29, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Jenks24 (talk) 13:29, 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 09:07, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All-Time Slovenian Republic League Table[edit]

All-Time Slovenian Republic League Table (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PRODed this a few days ago, but the PROD was removed and a reference added. I'm no longer concerned about WP:V, but I still think it falls afoul of WP:NOTSTATS. Most importantly, I can't see any indication of notability, such as significant coverage in reliable sources. Jenks24 (talk) 13:16, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Jenks24 (talk) 13:19, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. Jenks24 (talk) 13:19, 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. Deletion concerns appear to have been addressed. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 00:44, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of companies of Malta[edit]

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

While in principle, this is a fine topic for an article, in practice, this is a list of redlink companies, or spamvert links to external sites (and if the editing history is closely reviewed, primarily by COI editors) wikipedia is not a directory, especially of non notable companies.

Either : This needs to be pruned down to what policy allows (leaving it pretty much empty)

deleted

or an exception to the policies granted for pages such as this. Gaijin42 (talk) 13:11, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a directory. Emeraude (talk) 14:09, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:46, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have pruned the list to just bluelinks, and from the navbox at the bottom it seems evident that this type of article (list of companies of ...) is a fairly standard type of list. OSborn arfcontribs. 16:13, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would vote for keep in the pruned form, if there is consensus that all of the redlinks and spamlinks should be prevented from returning. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:28, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is the default assumption for how lists function. OSborn arfcontribs. 04:06, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Valid list and part of a bigger scheme of List of companies of Europe and Lists of companies by country. Linkspam should be addressed through editing and not through AfD. Lugnuts (talk) 07:39, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, looks like redlinks have been removed. Valid list in the "companies of <country>" genre. --Funandtrvl (talk) 20:09, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Lugnuts. So long as notable businesses are added.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:09, 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) 23:44, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...Va man dar khoshbakhti-e shirin be donya amadam![edit]

...Va man dar khoshbakhti-e shirin be donya amadam! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(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)

After research the article fails WP:NF. No andication of notability and the article is unsourced. Farhikht (talk) 12:04, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 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) 23:45, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ehsan Khoshbakht[edit]

Ehsan Khoshbakht (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(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)

No reference to prove and no clear indication of its notability. Sources provided are articles by the subject and not on him. Farhikht (talk) 11:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom, refrences are his articles not reliable sourceses to assert notability. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 07:15, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now. While searches show that he is a rather prolific film critic for a number of publications, there aren't any sources that show that he, himself, has any sort of independent notability. Rorshacma (talk) 19:27, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:45, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Karis Wilde[edit]

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

Doubtful notability: no sources online or in Google books and very few Google hits other than WP article; unsourced, non-neutral BLP Clegs (talk) 10:51, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have notified the two users who worked on the page. Clegs (talk) 11:05, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As cool as this guy is, he unfortunately doesn't pass the guidelines for WP:BIO or WP:ENTERTAINER. There just aren't any reliable sources out there.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 11:56, 7 March 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
  • Delete. The only notable thing about this guy seems to be that he worked for some notable people (i.e. Marilyn Manson), but these assertions are not sourced, and that definition of notability would be much too sweeping. It's at best a violation of WP:ENT and at worst WP:SELFPROMOTE and/or WP:ARTSPAM. A few things that jumped out at me:
    • "He is known for his androgynous presentation..." Known by whom?
    • "Karis was born in a small town in Mexico..." What town?
    • "Somewhere along the journey..." Where? What journey?
    • Article is poorly wikilinked and contains inline external links to other non-notable individuals/groups, while failing to emphasize the few aforementioned aspects that might make him notable. —JmaJeremy talk contribs 15:11, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 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. Kubigula (talk) 22:15, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pookah Makes Three[edit]

Pookah Makes Three (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 came up as a Random Article. I tidied it up and saved, then realised that the band probably does not meet criteria for inclusion. The article is entirely unreferenced and I have not found any reliable sources; the only external link (to Discogs) gives nothing to suggest notability. The band released three singles, none of which charted in the UK, though one is claimed to have got to #33 in Australia (or, rather, its B-side did) but there is no evidence of this. One of the band members subsequently joined another band which does have some notability, but that does make this one notable (and he was only in the second one for a few months when it went into decline). Emeraude (talk) 10:43, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete. Can't see any online sources or Google Books. May well be 80s print sources, but I don't have 30 years' worth of NMEs under my bed. Connection to Twelfth Night (band) certainly doesn't establish notability, per notability not inherited guideline. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:06, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously though, somebody should digitise all those NMEs. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:07, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. One of those bands that received plenty of coverage that is virtually invisible to the Web. "Take It Back" reached #85 in the UK Singles Chart,[8] and although I can't find a reliable source, it appears to have reached the top 30 in Australia. There are a couple of relevant news articles on the Web: [9], [10] - the "front page star of teen magazines" bit in the BBC article would have been from Martyn Watson's time in this band.--Michig (talk) 17:59, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here's one of the magazines that covered the band - see the cover/sleeve between Nick Hayward's shoulder blades - I've got a couple of these 'Debut' releases, and there was a substantial feature on each artist with a track on the LP that came with it.--Michig (talk) 18:53, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article in Buxton Advertiser, a local paper, is NOT about Pookah Makes Three but about one of its members and merely mentions in passing that he had "a minor chart hit" (though unspecified how minor). Similarly, the BBC local page for Nottingham is also NOT about the band but the person, and makes a passing reference only to it - he will discuss "Pop success in the 80s with the Pookah Makes 3" but no indication what success means. Rateyourmusic.com is NOT a magazine; it's a record sales site and an advert for a compilation LP which mentions Pookah Makes Three on the cover - no evidence of sales or notability. Hardly surprising that a magazine/compliation LP would have a feature on the people in it, but without seeing it, no evidence of notability. If reaching #85 with one single makes a band notable, OK, but given that in the 80s charts were only taken seriously down to #40 I doubt it. Emeraude (talk) 22:28, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say those two articles are 'about' Pookah Makes 3. I also did not say that rateyourmusic.com is a magazine (are you serious?) - that page on the site shows the cover of an issue of Debut magazine that featured the band. Debut was a magazine that came with an LP featuring tracks by the bands featured in it - a feature in the magazine certainly is evidence of notability. --Michig (talk) 07:41, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep precedent is to keep groups with charting hits in a major music market (US, UK, Japan). Most references for this probably aren't going to be online. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:26, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note. I have got hold of the Debut magazine in question. It has a lot of content unrelated to the LP that came with it, and that issue includes a two page feature article on The Pookah Makes Three.--Michig (talk) 08:27, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Anarchism and issues related to love and sex. Consensus is that this should not be a separate article, and there is no clear consensus that all content should be merged, so a redirect allows a selective merger from the history by those who are interested in the subject matter.  Sandstein  19:45, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of anarchist pornographic projects and models[edit]

List of anarchist pornographic projects and models (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 compilation of unrelated information that is original research, irrelevant, or unimportant. John Vandenberg (chat) 09:55, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 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) 23:46, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AoPSWiki[edit]

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

Spam by blocked spammer. Wiki with no indication of notability. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, no indication of coverage by secondary sources. Huon (talk) 12:16, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Joaquin008 (talk) 13:31, 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 no consensus.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by User:Jimfbleak under criteria G11 - "Unambiguous advertising or promotion: no evidence of notability". (non-admin closure). Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 09:19, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Currency House Incorporated[edit]

Currency House Incorporated (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 reference to prove and no clear indication of its notability. Not really encyclopedic and attempts were made to attract readers to their site. Suspected advertising attempt. Lakokat (Drop me a line) 05:54, 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 Withdrawn—Ryulong (竜龙) 00:19, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kony 2012[edit]

Kony 2012 (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 web movement that has absolutely no coverage yet to discern notability, particularly the guidelines at WP:WEB. The video may have 4 million views, but this is not the metric by which we discern the notability of web content. WP:NOTSOAPBOX and WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK also hold, as we are not a means (as the various IP messages on the talk page during the time the article was up for speedy & prod show) to promote a movement, no matter how altruistic the cause may be. What Joseph Kony has done is terrible. However, creating an article on this one film in the mere hours it has existed is jumping the gun. Deletion is my main goal. However, I believe a proper merge to Invisible Children Inc would suffice. —Ryulong (竜龙) 05:44, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And just a note: The nobility of this campaign is not enough of a reason to give the video its own page.—Ryulong (竜龙) 19:54, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepThis video is almost thirty minutes long and very detailed. It is nearly a documentary, so information on plot, and listing writers, producers, and directors is relevant. Furthermore, this video is gaining terrific press, and after all, Wikipedia's purpose is to provide relevant information on subjects that viewers require information about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.3.80.58 (talk) 23:47, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause. Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a social network, and this article is not notable. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 05:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: It has garnered enough press about the Invisible Children organization to be notable.Keep Remember, Wikipedia does not have firm rules. "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." Common sense tells me that this is notable as is. Jhunt47 (talk) 05:56, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepThis video has been public for less than 36, if I understand correctly. The press is just noticing its viral nature and cultural significance. Some press is emerging.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:05, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Even then, is it notable on its own merits?—Ryulong (竜龙) 06:07, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - I do believe it'll pass our notability guidelines once the US media has woken up, although at the moment, the sources available appear insufficient. Will reassess the situation tomorrow. —Dark 06:09, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - large response and coverage so far. -download ׀ message 06:11, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no "large coverage" yet. Just two news pieces, thus far.—Ryulong (竜龙) 08:01, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It seems likely that this will become far more notable in the coming days. It seems there should be a stay of execution till at least that time. if it does not become sufficiently notable it should at the least be merged with the Invisible Children article as it has much relevance to that article.Nome3000 (talk) 06:22, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The video may be significant to internet culture in the future. I agree a merge with Invisible Children is a better solution than an outright delation User:dpac007 6:34, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep - It has been spreading through social media for at least the past 18 hours (when I first saw it), and it has gone viral. It is very hard to ignore something 2-3 days old with 4 million video views and 3.5 million shares on Facebook. In the coming days it will just explode even more, and yes I know about WP:CRYSTAL, but at the rate it is going, it would be near impossible for it to just stop in its tracks and be forgotten about. Sentra246 (talk) 06:36, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just because it has been spreading, does not mean Wikipedia should be one of those venues.—Ryulong (竜龙) 06:42, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ryulong, you know that its social network popularity is not its only notability as I've already mentioned to you on numerous occasions. Can you please therefore stop insisting that this is its only cause for notability. As it has at least a small amount of notability from these articles it then isn't contradicting WP:CRYSTAL to wait for more articles which will inevitably follow. As for its sudden popularity, that under the guidelines does take a back seat but is not to be seen as irrelevant. Its popularity only enhances its notability not undermines it. I think common sense should be applied in this instance.Nome3000 (talk) 06:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Considering the amount of coverage that it's already received so quickly, which looks to put it right on the edge of notability, and since it seems clear that more coverage will be forthcoming, I see no reason to delete this article. I think this falls under WP:RAPID. An AfD nomination made a week after the release of the video, if no more news had been produced, would have garnered more traction for delete, but I don't see the purpose of this AfD at this point in time. SilverserenC 06:58, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • SecondedNome3000 (talk) 07:01, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here Here! Jhunt47 (talk) 07:04, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • This isn't some rally. This is a discussion on whether or not the page should be retained. If I'm wrong in my assumption and it is notable, then it's clearly not notable on its own and should just be something mentioned on Invisible Children Inc.—Ryulong (竜龙) 07:12, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it's pretty obvious that this is meeting notability guidelines even as we discuss it. —Nightstallion 07:17, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per significant event, web coverage is currently present. Should be kept independent of Invisible Children Inc. for documentation of reception (ie. affects and responses). Similarly we do not merge articles like Friday (Rebecca Black song) with Rebecca Black nor do we merge episodes of South park with the main article. --Cs california (talk) 07:21, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Those are notable unto themselves. This topic does not seem notable unto itself yet.—Ryulong (竜龙) 08:01, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Contradicting every vote does not mean said vote is not counted. DarthBotto talk•cont 08:23, 07 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't think you understand how Wikipedia works. These are !votes, because polling is not substitution for discussion. AfD !votes are assessed based on the quality of arguments used, not the number of supporters and opposers. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 11:10, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • "I don't think you understand how Wikipedia works" - now there's a fucking assumption, considering I've been editing for five years. I understand very well that quantity does not supersede the strength of a motion or the validity of an argument, but a single editor contradicting nearly all the explanations for an opposition does not necessarily mean the motion is vindicated. DarthBotto talk•cont 20:08, 07 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. I personally doubt the entry's notability, but since this is a current event and coverage is still unfolding, a clearer indication of the notability should develop over the next week or two. In the meantime, it seems wiser to wait a few days before deleting the article than to delete now just to potentially recreate it next week when more information is available. Wait a while longer, and the proper course of action should become clear. Angrysockhop (talk to me) 07:31, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This subject has gone viral and gained massive publicity and is directly correlated with the late 2011 adviser operations against the LRA. Perhaps the nominator should research a little deeper? DarthBotto talk•cont 07:50, 07 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Any arguments for deleting this will become invalid within the next week, if not day. Is it really worth deleting now just to have restart later? The techniques used to make this go viral are something that I suspect will be studied in years to come. - Lithos12 (talk) 07:32, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: New news article here. SilverserenC 07:51, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this article just informs people of the historical movement that is taking place right now, it's not being used as a soapbox. If you delete it now you'll just have to put it back up later when it's all over the news — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kikig22 (talk • contribs) 08:14, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Invisible Children Inc, and wait and see if it gains sufficient specific coverage to merit its own article later. WP:CRYSTAL applies. And Ryulong, please stop answering back to every !voter you disagree with - it makes you look obsessed, and it makes the page hard to read. It's not like you can remove people's comments by hectoring them. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:59, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is becoming more and more popular and notable by the hour. Wikipedia is about the world we live in and it's history - if this isn't worthy then I dont know what is. Savvi72 (talk) 12:06, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Seems to have press coverage, but might still make more sense to merge with Joseph Kony or Invisible Children Inc and redirect. Not every campaign needs an article, even if the campaign gets press coverage: the question is, who is really notable, the campaigner, the campaigned-against, or the actual campaign itself? --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:49, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Under this logic we wouldn't ever have an article on a campaign. In this instance, it's quite clear that the campaign is getting the news coverage, likely because of its popularity and how it's trending. SilverserenC 13:35, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Doesn't address the news coverage, closer should not consider this vote when closing. SilverserenC 13:36, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The closer should make up their own mind, in accordance with established procedure. Why do you think you can boss them around? AlexTiefling (talk) 13:41, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pointing out something for the closer is not bossing them around. SilverserenC 13:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • LOL please. The reason I gave is more than acceptable. Do you want me to copycat what that wikipage says? ׺°”˜`”°º×ηυηzια׺°”˜`”°º× 17:54, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NOBLE is neither a policy, nor a guideline. Anybody can write an essay in project space. It does not mean that it holds any weight in deletion discussions. --Joshua Issac (talk) 22:16, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As I expected, here's your news coverage:
Stop Kony, yes. But don’t stop asking questions - The Independent
Uganda: Invisible Children's Jason Russell on KONY 2012 - AllAfrica
Make Kony Famous - Sydney Morning Herald
Australian support amasses for Kony 2012 - NineMSN
Kony 2012: Invisible Children Documentary Sheds Light On Uganda Conflict - The Huffington Post
Internet campaign backing the arrest of Ugandan military leader, Joseph Kony, becomes online hit - The Voice Online
KONY 2012: Campaign shedding light on Uganda conflict an online success - Metro
Stop Kony: Invisible Children’s ‘Kony 2012’ to Find Justice for Child Soldiers - International Business Times
I think my point is made. SilverserenC 13:49, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this one's a no-brainer. Bloody deletionists with nothing better to do. --Brian Fenton (talk) 14:02, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Sure, the campaign is young, but awareness of it has exploded in the past day or so and taken the internet by storm. Countless numbers of people use Wikipedia as a source of information, and undoubtedly many will come to Wikipedia looking for information on this cause. I feel that to delete this article would be a disservice to the noble cause of Kony 2012 campaign and to anybody who comes looking for more information. If the Kony 2012 article must be removed, I implore whomever has the final say to merge it with the Invisible Children article rather than delete it entirely. I echo the above sentiments that a stay of execution should be granted as the campaign becomes more well-known and picks up steam. - Botulizard
  • Comment Some more:
Kony 2012 takes over Reddit in today's digest - The Daily Dot
Toronto activists join campaign to arrest Ugandan guerilla leader Joseph Kony - CityNews
Can social media help hunt down a Ugandan warlord? - CBC News
Stop Kony 2012: Rhianna Backs Hunt for Ruthless Uganda War Criminal - International Business Times
And these are just from the past hour. SilverserenC 14:54, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge somewhere, whatever, close this AfD. I wish deletionists would stop AfDing every article about viral stuff just after it happens rather than having a proper editorial discussion about where to merge it to while we wait for more substantial source material to come in. And lo and behold, more substantial source material has come in since this AfD has started. Why is there such a rush to delete everything which might not end up being notable for its own article? This is not content that should be removed, it is sourced, it is neutral, arguments about soapbox/noble are invalid imo. Have any of you ever considered what it makes Wikipedia look like to the rest of the world when every article about something viral (which many people are clearly going to search) always has "this is being considered for deletion" in a big red box at the top? - filelakeshoe 15:03, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Was confused from people talking about The KONY thing and looked it up on wikipedia, where I found what I was looking for. I guess I'm not the only one. So keep or merge, but don't delete! --MarsmanRom (talk) 16:00, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment there is also opposition to the movement. Source that cites other sources: We got trouble. - Visible Children - KONY 2012 Criticism, if someone could develop that further. -- Cmartincaj (talk) 16:19, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have been working on a criticisms section as that seems more appropriate than opposition. Most of the sources are critical of the campaigns approach rather than its intended goals. I agree that this needs further development.Nome3000 (talk) 16:39, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Merge I think the size of the debate over this article after the video has been up for less than two days says something about its "notability". Merge, possibly; delete, no. The fact that there's already a sizable schism in the community, and actual criticism with legitimate points, for this video/topic serves as a reason we should keep the article, so that both the main points and the criticism can be discussed in an unbiased manner for anyone who's going to look it up - and they are going to look it up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.91.192.41 (talk) 17:12, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: More than 150 references from news articles which a good amount are reliable published news sources. Nocturnal781 (talk) 19:27, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: The topic itself is worth a mention but does not merit its own article. —Entropy (T/C) 19:52, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Invisible Children Inc -- very little information about the film itself, and more about the drive of its awareness. If someone could expand the article to provide more info about the film itself, then I can call for keeping it. -- azumanga (talk) 20:11, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable already. Covered by many including the government. Deletionists get mad, the article is here to stay. :) 65.34.3.144 (talk) 20:22, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it definitely meets notability guidelines. I'd say more, but then Ryulong would badger me about my opinions. Tavix |  Talk  20:29, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't done it in hours so don't fucking point it out. It does appear that the subject can be covered on Wikipedia. I just do not think that it requires its own separate page. This crap might fizzle out before the week ends.—Ryulong (竜龙) 20:35, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable as can be. KING GRIM LOL YO WHATS UP (talk) 20:29, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Please do not delete this page. I saw the Kony 2012 video and visited the website. All very worthy, but is it genuine? For independent confirmation I come to Wikipedia. If anyone has doubts about the validity or truthfulness of the content of the video, let them post it here. I'm not very familiar with the rules of Wikipedia, and yes I did just create this account to post here, but I would offer that as support for the idea that Kony 2012 *is* a notable event (albeit emerging). Redirect this page to invisible Children by all means, but please provide a means for checking up on what the video has to say. Josephtalbot (talk) 21:23, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep press coverage is increasing and notability has been established. This is something many will be turning to WP to learn more about and it serves the readers well to have its own article. Goalloverhere (talk) 21:44, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep To Benlisquare: And the SOPA/PIPA blackout wasn't a soapbox? ~Andrew Gunkle — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.55.230.124 (talk) 21:51, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge & Redirect; although there is notable press coverage it is my humble opinion that the subject does not meet WP:EFFECT. Since the subject of the article is related to Invisible Children Inc the article should be summarized, merged, and a redirect be left in its place. If the parent article grows to the size described in WP:LENGTH it can always be spunout into an independent article again. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:54, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now It is too early to tell what the impact will be. The video got 3 million views in 2 hours and is all over everything. How big the effects in a month will show notability. -- BCS (t · c · !) 21:57, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - According to WP:GNG, notability is established by coverage by reliable sources, and this article references multiple such sources. --Joshua Issac (talk) 22:12, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As Bar Code Symmetry said above, I want to see the long-term effects of this campaign. If news channels pick up this, like CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, etc, as well as celebrities and politicians, then I without a doubt vote to keep this article. Let's just wait and see. -- Luke (Talk) 22:14, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - There is no valid reason to delete the article. This is a huge, notable movement, there is plenty of coverage on external reliable websites, and if you delete it now, it will just have to be created again later because trust me, this will be huge. People will come here for more information about the movement because that's what this website's for - deleting it would cause confusion and annoyance for people looking for neutral information on the topic. Wikipedia is better with this, than without it. --andy4789 ★ · (talk? contribs?) 22:27, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - In less than two days Kony 2012 has exploded worldwide - even a cursory Google search brings up hundreds of related news articles. As long as it's kept neutral and doesn't turn into a soapbox, it's a keeper. Michaelmas1957 (talk) 22:32, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Yesterday there were over 1,000 views on this page, Joseph Kony has been viewed 10,000 times yesterday. JayJayTalk to me 22:41, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this is an online campaign for an IMPORTANT MATTER, this ain't some viral marketing for a TV show or movie or an article for a "popular" Star Wars character, but for an international movement. The goal of the campaing is for people worldwide to be informed of Joseph Kony and his actions. I can't believe that humanitarian campaigns are deemed "irrelevant".--Gonzalo84 (talk) 22:46, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This already passes WP:GNG - maybe things have changed today since the nomination was made. Can I suggest WP:SNOW? It looks like most people are in agreement and we look a bit stupid when highly viewed articles have a big afd tag at the top. SmartSE (talk) 23:00, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I should have provided some evidence that GNG is met: [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]. The last also goes into more details than "it's a viral video". SmartSE (talk) 23:05, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep why would you want to get rid of this... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.175.251.98 (talk) 23:03, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - plenty of reliable sources devoted specifically to the subject. —Ashley Y 23:18, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - I recommend with a Merge/Redirect to Invisible Children Inc . Nford24 (talk) 09:29, 8 March 2012 (AEST)
  • Keep - I find the spam as annoying as anyone else, but to say it's not notable is a complete fallacy. I think we can agree that it's gone viral at this point. Nearly 10 million views on YouTube and plenty of news articles referencing it. Something with this much publicity needs its own article for the convenience of people researching it. ~Ttony21(talk, contribs) 23:33, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, plenty of news coverage. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 23:37, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep : I think this article is of worldwide interest especially on the current rumors that although KONY is a threat in Uganda, there are some shady side to the organization Invisible Children. As most people I would like to find out and I think with the involvement of many Wikipedians the article might be able to shed light on to the actual story. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 23:53, 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 that to be there is clear consensus that this material is not included in the encyclopedia. Under normal circumstances, I'd make my boiler-plate "I'll userfy this for you" offer, but this is such an incoherent mess I'm not going to do that. Instead, if someone writes a decent article about a clearly defined topic, I'll do a history merge so that the sources can be used and anything relevant smerged. Aaron Brenneman (talk) 13:13, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of most highly populated countries[edit]

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

Incoherent mass of facts that doesn't make an article. Rmhermen (talk) 05:11, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and close No policy cited by the nominator. Lugnuts (talk) 08:02, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Is is mandatory to cite a policy? If so, I submit that the nomination implicitly references WP:INFO. The article is not a list as such, but an incoherent grab-bag of demographic facts, which appears to be attempting a job better performed by List of countries by population and the Demographics of... article series. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:05, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:20, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Redundant, as has been noted, to List of countries by population. Furthermore, the one difference - that these are the "most highly populated countries" - is vague. I could theoretically see a use for a List of the 10 largest countries by population, but that's redundant too. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 15:05, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This article is not redundant with the populations list because this article is actually about ... um ... er ... something else. Also, I don't think it belongs on the list related discussions because it isn't a list. The two highest population countries, China and India, are one entry, in the spot after Bangladesh (which is the 9th highest). OK, so they aren't listed by population. Whatever. How are they selected? In terms of population size, we have 1, 2, 3, 7, 9, 14, 22, 37, 39, 55, 63, 61, 65, 69, 72 and 83. Well, at least we have 5 of the top 10 and didn't exclude #83... You see, this is about "some of the most highly populated countries." Clearly we MUST keep this, as our wikilawyers will demand, because the nomination did not give a single, linked reason for deleting this steaming pile of random crap. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:53, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Because I don't like it. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:53, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - How about "because it's useless?" Just because we can't keep things on the grounds of being useful doesn't mean we can't delete them for not being useful. (Actually, it does, but I'm being facetious - in this case, WP:COMMONSENSE says that this is so useless and redundant that it should be deleted, as I said above). - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 17:33, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This article is not about the most highly populated countries, but about ecodestruction due to overpopulation and other human stupidity. I'm all with the author politically, and if s/he wants to start a petition, I'll sign it, but this does not belong in a neutral encyclopedia. Matchups 19:00, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is not a list of highly populated countries (as noted above we already do have a list of countries by population which does serve this purpose). Instead most of the places on the list are examples of problems caused by overpopulation (though some, such as the UK, USA and Ethiopia are merely described as having high population, population density or resource use). We could rename it to List of countries with overpopulation problems and get rid of large portions of content but a list at that title would have hopelessly vague inclusion criteria. Hut 8.5 20:46, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article does not actually describe what its title suggests; if it did, it would duplicate List of countries by population. And we already have an article about the apparently intended topic of this article: Overpopulation. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:16, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snowball delete, article is completely off topic and says nothing not already covered by others. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 07:55, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep The nomination seems to be a plain falsehood as the facts presented in this article clearly have a coherent theme. Like most of our articles, it could use some work but our editing policy is to keep such imperfect drafts in mainspace rather than deleting them. The article seems to be a spinoff or detailing of facts related to overpopulation and so the worst case is that we would merge into an article of that sort. Warden (talk) 10:23, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nomination does not meet any of the criteria in WP:SK. A merge to overpopulation (which would have to be a highly selective merge) would be impractical because the size of the target article is already getting to the state where a split would be a good idea. Hut 8.5 16:09, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The relevant clause of WP:SK is "nominations which are so erroneous...". As for overpopulation, the size of that article does indeed indicate that we might split. The article in question indicates that a split by geography might be helpful. Overpopulation in India is already a blue link and we might divide the topic along such lines: Overpopulation in Africa, for example. Warden (talk) 16:41, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you're saying the nominator's actions were unquestionably vandalism or disruption? Right. And even if that description was accurate you've missed that that clause only applies if nobody unrelated recommends deleting it. Hut 8.5 17:46, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've missed nothing. I'm not trying to predict the outcome here — I'm just giving my opinion of what ought to happen. It is not unusual for editors to give contrary opinions but the conventional wisdom is that this is not a vote. It may be that the closer will discard other opinions such as "because I don't like it.". Or other editors might change their minds. I'm not the only editor to comment on the weakness of the nomination and my view remains that it is so counterfactual that it should not be taken seriously. Warden (talk) 18:04, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Holy fuck. Please read the explanation immediately preceding the "Because I don't like it". This so-called article is not what its title claims it is, which would be the top several countries in List of countries by population. Yeah, let's split that off into List of top 20 countries by population and List of countries by population other than the 20 largest, that would be brilliant. The "coherent theme" in the article is that the article's creator thinks the listed countries/continents/regions/states are too densely populated (check the history). None of the sources reflect the creating editor's opinions. OK, so let's rename the article, remove the pieces that don't belong (all of them), ditch all of the sources and find sources to attach countries to the new title. But, FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, DON'T DELETE THIS! (instead, keep the article and change absolutely everything about it). Holy fuck. (Did I already say that? Too bad.) Here's the deal: Go ahead and keep the article. Let me know when you're done. Then, let's remove all of the sources as off topic (unless the sources actually say that "China and India" is one of the "Most highly populated countries", along with #83 and two US states...). Next, we'll yank all of the content as unsourced. We'll have a blank article, but at least we'll have saved ourselves from the sin of deletion. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:49, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are 64 sources in the article currently and these include broad works about population pressure such as Paul Ehrlich's The Population Bomb. So, your assertion that "None of the sources reflect the creating editor's opinions" seems quite wild and unlikely. As for the title of the article, this may be adjusted using the ordinary processes of move, split or merger. This is all ordinary editing which would be consistent with our editing policy. Warden (talk) 09:07, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for pointing to that example, it is a very good illustration of SummerPhD's point. The book by Ehrlich is used to back up a statement that countries can be overpopulated even if they are wealthy and have lots of land area. This is followed by a list of sourced statements about problems supplying water in Arizona. The implication the article's author wanted to convey is that Arizona is overpopulated, but this isn't backed up by the sources. Ehrlich doesn't mention Arizona anywhere in the book and the various sources about Arizona don't mention overpopulation. The section is therefore synthesis: it puts together two sources to reach a conclusion found in neither. This is symptomatic of the article as a whole - the entire thing is a series of statements cobbled together by the author to try and show that countries are overpopulated. The fact that all this stuff is sourced doesn't mean it's encyclopedic. We could move the page to a title that more accurately reflected its contents, but moving it to List of pages I think are overpopulated isn't going to do any more than highlight the fundamental problem. Hut 8.5 12:11, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you admit that your !vote is incompatible with the relevant guideline? And that by trying to argue that your view is compatible with the relevant guideline you have implicitly accused the nominator of acting in bad faith? If you just think the nomination is wrong, say so. Don't try to get the debate closed early. Hut 8.5 18:49, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, my !vote is quite compatible because the !votes of other editors are subject to change or being discounted. What you don't seem to understand is that this is a discussion not a vote. Like other editors, I lay out my position and arguments hoping to persuade or otherwise achieve consensus. This is a process in which the position of the participants is meant to be flexible. We are not casting irrevocable ballots. As for the good faith of the nominator; I have no opinion about that. I just observe that when he says that the article is incoherent then he either does not understand the word or is misusing it. He makes no policy-based argument and just seems to be making an I-don't-like-it/it's rubbish case in ignorance of our editing policy. My view remains that such a flimsy, counterfactual nomination should be speedily dismissed. Warden (talk) 23:09, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I really don't see what you're getting at here. We only close debates as "speedy keep" if they meet one of the criteria in WP:SK, but as I've pointed out this one doesn't. It is possible to speedily close a debate because of weaknesses in the nomination, but they would have to rise to the level of disruption and if someone else argues the page should be deleted then the nomination can't be speedily closed. If you think the nomination is mistaken or weak or that the nominator has ignored some policy that's just irrelevant since those points should be discussed in a debate rather than the debate being speedily closed. Hut 8.5 12:11, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. this morning. Diego (talk) 22:58, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But only of the old article, which effectively disappears anyway.--Milowent • hasspoken 21:55, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No point to this article at all. I'm not even sure what highly populated means. Juggalo1010 (talk) 18:39, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as incoherent and unnecessary. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:03, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm not sure why so much effort would be put in to save a topic that's a mix of synthesis and blabber.--Yaksar (let's chat) 03:02, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Worth fixing. it's actually a fairly good base for an article on the effects of over-population. The references are appropriate. The arguments for deletion are not merely unfounded on policy, but unfounded altogether, or totally contrary to policy: one person doesn't understand what "highly populated means" -- it's not a good word choice,but her means high population density. Another thinks its unnecessary: I do not know what is meant by an article being unnecessary--very little is necessary here, in the sense we could not have an encyclopedia of somer sort without them, but our goal is much broader: we try to have a good comprehensive encyclopedia , and very little that can be written about with sources is inappropriate. Another person objects that the original author is trying to improve the article. Two people think it's redundant to having a list of coutnies by population, when it;s obvious there is much more detailed content about the individual countries, one or two find it an incoherent assemblage of facts: it's actually a fairly organized discussion, with the material covered pertinent to the topics. And one is, in so many words, because I don't like it--when challenged, explained further as "Holy fuck". I perhaps feel similarly, not for the same reason: a concerted effort trying to defy the policy that WP is a work in progress, nd that relatively unsophisticated editors can learn something by working here-- an approach to articles and users that will destroy the encyclopedia DGG ( talk ) 04:38, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Given that we already have a List of sovereign states and dependent territories by population density, what are you proposing that this article should have as its subject matter? AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:02, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Have you read the two articles or are you going by the mere titles?: one is a list of every country in the world, giving one line of basic demographic; the only is an article of the countries of the very highest population density, giving a discussion of the factors involved at moderate length, suitable for a summary. DGG ( talk ) 05:02, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • If this was "an article of the countries of the very highest population density" you might have a point. It isn't. Compare the entries at the top of the two lists. This one is an arbitrary collection of waffle about various countries cherry-picked by whoever felt like adding them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:18, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete whether populated means population or density, we have a list for that. For whatever is being pushed under cover of this; it seems subjective at best and OR mostly. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:33, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although normally disapproved of during an AfD, in this case I think it will clarify the discussion to change the title of the article to avoid the word list--because the article is not a list. I'm moving it to Countries of high population density. DGG ( talk ) 05:00, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I consider DGG's entirely arbitrary move of this article, while it was involved in an AfD which was clearly going to end in deletion as disruptive. I have asked DGG to revert. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:12, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Is that the final title? From the few I've looked at, several of the sources don't use that phrase or anything of similar meaning. With all of the arguments to change pretty much everything about the article, I'm having trouble keeping track of what the article is supposed to be. How about if we just add sources about a Pokemon, remove all the original sources, rewrite the article, rename it and keep it? - SummerPhD (talk) 05:09, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no "final title" -- if the article is kept, it can be moved again, by consensus--afd is not necessarily the best place to decide. the title should describe the content, and I think mine does, but others may think differently. Whatever the article is, it's about as much a list as it is about Pokemon. There is one aspect of my title which is certainly not arbitrary: the articles is not a list, but a somewhat naïve attempt at a general article, with a poor choice of title. The article may or may not be acceptable; I think the most critical question is whether it is OR. Those voting because they think it a list are giving non policy based and non fact based reasons, and if it is deleted under that misunderstanding, it will be very likely overturned at deletion review. What it needs is to have the discussion continuing with the proper question, whether the contents of the article is acceptable. DGG ( talk ) 05:19, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • In order to discuss whether the contents of an article are acceptable, we'd have to have a vague idea regarding what the article was supposed to be about. Nobody seems to know. If you think that there is a subject, start an article on it. Attempting to 'rescue' this incoherent heap of waffle because you think you might be able to salvage bits of it makes no sense at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:25, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      The new and improved title still doesn't seem to describe what this "article" is supposed to be about. "India and China" is not a country, neither are Arizona, California or the Petén region. I understand articles are always subject to further editing. However, the primary problem I have with the article is that there is no indication of a notable topic: the article doesn't have a clear indication of a topic and the sources do not support the vague topics the article might (some day) be about. Without a topic, the sources cannot demonstrate that the topic is notable. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:53, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy. As it stands, I would recommend a delete of the article. The title is clearly wrong but it is not really clear what it should be changed to: as the article compares nation states, subnational regions, and supranational agglomerations. The content is also troubling since it combines cited facts so as to draw a conclusion not supported by the sources, classic WP:OR by synthesis. It might be salvageable if it were retitled and rewritten from scratch but is vacuously true of any article. However, Warden and DGG have opined that the content is a worthwhile starting point for a policy compliant article. I do not share their optimism but see no reason not to give any interested party the chance to prove me wrong, but not in the mainspace until it is cleaned up and renamed to something that accurately describes the content. Eluchil404 (talk) 09:20, 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) 23:47, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Melvin Spector[edit]

Robert Melvin Spector (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 appear to meet notability guidelines. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:52, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see any notability elements in article or google links... Tradedia (talk) 22:37, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lacks the sources needed to establish notability. Fails WP:Scholar. Rorshacma (talk) 19:30, 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 Withdrawn by nom. Eh, I was wrong. NAC. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:17, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alfa Nero[edit]

Alfa Nero (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 boat, aside from citing size (59th largest yacht), appears to be generally unremarkable. To note, the article appears to be basically advertising the boat for charter, for all intents. There's some coverage pretty much talking about its opulence, and one of the links on the page indicate it was put up for sale in 2009 - but I'm really not feeling it. -- Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 04:27, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 20:22, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kip Kay[edit]

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

Another user tried to AFD this but didn't do it properly. Notability seems to be WP:BLP1E. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:02, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


My apologeies on that. I figured I had messed something up.Cbabb7 (talk) 07:43, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I do not see what BLP1E has to do with it. His claimed notability is in producing how to do it videos. The sources are NYT, LA Times, and Wired, which are good enough to show the claimed notability is real. Saying this is one thing is like nominating an author because he only writes novels. DGG ( talk ) 08:09, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sources show notability, though the article needs work. If it's WP:BLP1E, what's the one event? --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:33, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per DGG. Patently invalid deletion rationale. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:51, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep doesn't appear to be a BLP1E case. The LA Times reference is exactly the kind of source that articles like this SHOULD have. Appears to have 'crossed over' from youtube videos to real TV. A little of it is just sourced to youtube and should probably be trimmed, but the core of notability is there. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:38, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Close, clearly not a BLP1E case.Cavarrone (talk) 11:12, 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. Michig (talk) 08:29, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kulim Lake Garden[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Kulim Lake Garden (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 was previously nominated for deletion but closed as no consensus since no one responded. The article has remained without GNG worthy sources, and parks are certainly not inherently notable. My attempts to find foreign sources have been unsuccessful so far, although maybe someone else will have more luck. Yaksar (let's chat) 04:00, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Just a park, no notability. DoctorKubla (talk) 06:56, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong delete as per my previous nomination, no sources found to support WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 02:47, 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 no consensus.  Sandstein  19:43, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Poverty reduction in Vietnam[edit]

Poverty reduction in Vietnam (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 appears to be a term paper / original research. Contested prod. ... discospinster talk 03:42, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - While the article may need some minor copy-editing, it is sourced by trustworthy and reliable sources, including:
  1. The World Bank
  2. The United Nations
  3. International Food Policy Research Institute
  4. Overseas Development Institute
  5. The Vietnamese Government
  6. The Australian Government
 – Per WP:PRESERVE, the article should be improved, not deleted. Northamerica1000(talk) 05:56, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It may be sourced to reputable works, but none of them supports the info — it's all synthesis. And I see absolutely no way to fix it. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 06:54, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Could you be more specific? Much of the information in the article is directly supported by the references. For examples, see the section of the article "Poverty and demographics", in which the information is directly, and correctly referenced from Vietnam poverty analysis, published by the Australian government. It's absolutely incorrect to state as you did above that "none of them supports the info", regarding the references, because they most certainly do. Did you actually perform any cross-checking? Northamerica1000(talk) 09:18, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and retitle Poverty in Vietnam. The basis of an acceptable article, though it needs to be better references. The way to deal with a general article with inadequate referencing is to reference it. DGG ( talk ) 08:37, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Its a notable subject as far as I can tell. --TIAYN (talk) 15:56, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think. WP:Search for "Poverty in Vietnam" gets 1,540 article hits, so either it goes somewhere there, or is userfied after a suitable discussion and explanation. Hope that's right. NewbyG ( talk) 16:13, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move to Poverty in Vietnam per DGG and Northamerica1000. Perfectly reasonable article, with 1,000s of potential sources. Bearian (talk) 00:40, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy or incubate. The article need to be move to Poverty in Vietnam, however if you take a close look to the article, it does look like a essay, and also some changes needs to be make so that this article talks about the poverty in Vietnam, not its reduction. An article with the same title can be created later as the sub-article of "Poverty in Vietnam", but at this time, i will recommend that this article be incubated, and be made a proper article on the poverty in Vietnam and a section for it reduction part. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 08:58, 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 merge to International Software Testing Qualifications Board. merge into International Software Testing Qualifications Board as suggested by the nom. I cannot see the justification of keepingtwo articles. The keep opinions are correct that the material schould be covered, but not that it necessarily needs a separate article to do so DGG ( talk ) 01:30, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

International Software Testing Qualifications Board Certified Tester[edit]

AfDs for this article:
International Software Testing Qualifications Board Certified Tester (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Either merge this into ISTQB or just delete. This alone is not notable. Jasper Deng (talk) 03:32, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This does not concern the notability of the organization, but that of one of its certifications.Jasper Deng (talk) 18:36, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The organization is probably notable, but this sub-article of it is not, and it's hardly a likely search term considering that it goes through the parent, so to speak. Drmies (talk) 03:57, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. ----Erkan Yilmaz 10:15, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete® Spam. OSborn arfcontribs. 16:16, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Selective merge into International Software Testing Qualifications Board with redirect and edit history deletion: there is a topic for this, and there is no need to spawn multiple articles on each of possible aspects. From the first glance the subject of this discussion contains some potentially valuable information, and if this impression is correct, this information should be merged into ISTQB. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:04, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per previous AfD. Describing this as spam is ridiculous. This is an internationally-recognized professional series of qualifications, covered by several published books. It has therefore clearly been the subject of non-trivial coverage. It seems bizarre that this could be considered 'not notable enough' for Wikipedia.--Michig (talk) 18:10, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The organization is, but the position is not.Jasper Deng (talk) 18:30, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • The subject of the article is a series of qualifications, not a 'position'. Did you not read the article?--Michig (talk) 18:40, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Whatever it is, this particular part of the organization is non-notable on its own.Jasper Deng (talk) 20:59, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • It isn't 'part of the organization', it's a series of professional qualifications for which ISTQB is the international examining board. Would that be non-notable as in several independent authors having had books published about it?--Michig (talk) 21:16, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Look, a particular qualification is not notable alone, only if we include it in the main ISTQB article. Do the books cover this qualification in particular? How many are there? If they just cover the syllabi or just the organization itself (or several of its qualifications), they don't lend notability, period.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:09, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • Hmm, so a qualification is notable if we include it in the ISTQB article? Very strange reasoning. There are several books that cover these qualifications only - you can find them on Amazon.--Michig (talk) 07:46, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete on the same basis as no inherited notability. The qualification inherits its notability from the organisation and, on its own with no reference to the organisation, has insufficient notability. QU TalkQu 16:18, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where do you get this inheritance idea from? There are books about this set of certifications.--Michig (talk) 16:39, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are books that teach to the exam, they are not books about the exam (e.g., a book describing the history and evolution of the exam). As an analogy, the Vodafone "voicemail" service is not notable. It is notable purely as a service of Vodafone and while it may be discussed in the Vodafone article it wouldn't warrant an article of its own. There may be magazine articles, guidebooks and instruction manuals on how to use the Vodafone voicemail service. It still isn't notable. However, if someone writes a history of the development of voicemail and references the Vodafone service as being ground breaking then it becomes notable in its own right. In the case we are discussing here the exam is not notable, its notability extends from (is inherited from) the organisation. For it to gain independent notability there need to be independent sources discussing it. QU TalkQu 17:33, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The books also include detail about the certification, easily sufficient to constitute significant coverage.--Michig (talk) 17:43, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not easily, now that I think of it. By your argument, Technet's certification exams would be notable (since there are also books on it).Jasper Deng (talk) 21:58, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing admin. I sincerely hope the quality of the arguments put forward in this discussion will be taken into account. A professional certification held by over 200,000 people in over 70 countries belongs in an encyclopedia. Several of the arguments for deletion do not appear to be based on an understanding of what the article is about.--Michig (talk) 17:43, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, you could also say that of various other certifications.Jasper Deng (talk) 21:58, 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. It appears that reliable sources have established that the subject meets the notability guidelines for biographies. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 00:43, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Kelly (Ice Road Trucker)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Lisa Kelly (Ice Road Trucker) (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 previously nominated for deletion with the argument:

"Per WP:BIO (especially WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO): notability not established; relies largely on 2 primary sources, including a self-published source"

at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lisa_Kelly_(Ice_Road_Trucker). The resulting discussion resulted in a closure of no consensus. Examining the keep arguments, however, they look to be largely unacceptable, including gems like "I wanna marry her" or that she has an IMDb. None of the keep arguments previously expressed make up for the issues with sourcing. Yaksar (let's chat) 03:25, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Please don't delete the article she is notable person. Ramesh Ramaiah talk 15:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    duplicate !vote struck -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:34, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • ̶M̶e̶r̶g̶e̶ Keep into Ice Road Truckers. All real news sources that I can find ([23] and [24]) only refer to her in reference to the IRT show (which itself has demonstrated some notability). Fails WP:GNG Significant coverage, coverage that does exist is not independent of the subject nor is it from secondary sources. The only references in the article are from her employer or her blog/website. --Stvfetterly (talk) 15:23, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - As an FYI Ramesh, you are only supposed to indicate your preference once in an AFD.--StvFetterly(Edits) 15:56, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. She has been featured in dozens of TV programmes over multiple series over several years years. These have been seen by millions of people in many countries around the world. These series are securely archived on published DVD's and the information in the article can be abstracted from these. It is beyond ridiculous that someone so well known to so many people would fail inclusion tests when minor musicians or sportsmen can be included on the basis of some insignificant article in a local paper. PRL42 (talk) 17:33, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as she has been heavily featured in three seasons of Ice Road Truckers and two seasons of IRT: Deadliest Roads. Definitely notable as a trucker, reality star, and motocross racer. Tavix |  Talk  18:32, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - If she is as notable as people are implying then find some independent references and add them to the article. Newspapers, books, etc. would all work and I would change my merge to a keep. However, to date no references that aren't self published or IRT promo stuff have been provided.--StvFetterly(Edits) 15:13, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why bother? If people insist on wiki-lawyering on the basis that someone as relatively well known as LK must have citations that are not self-published then they must accept the rules. There is material that is not self-published. PRL42 (talk) 16:59, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Your argument would hold more weight if we could provide some of the independent material that you have said exists out there. I've only been able to find the following pseudo-story: [25] in google news searches. Do you know of other sources that we can use to help to indicate notability (beyond that of the IRT TV show website and her own blog)?--StvFetterly(Edits) 21:02, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • As I said, I'm not interested in wikilawyering. My argument is that the information can be extracted from five TV series that have been published on DVD. These series are editorially independent of the subject and so, unless there is a policy that a DVD is not a published source, notability is met. PRL42 (talk) 09:17, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Comment - I'm not entirely sure how attempting to establish notability is 'wikilawyering'. Besides pretty clearly violating WP:BLP1E . . . by your logic every cast member of every TV series released on DVD is then notable. I'm far from a deletionist here on wikipedia, but this reasoning seems a tad over-inclusive, don't you think? You might want to also check out WP:NPF to further understand why people do not agree that Lisa Kelly's personal website and facebook account valid sources in this case. Since you seem confused as to why the DVDs produced by L. Kelly's employer and her own website/facebook account are not sufficient to establish notability:
  • Lisa Kelly is not employed by the History Channel. PRL42 (talk) 15:39, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article fails WP:GNG - Significant Coverage as there are no reliable sources that are independent of the subject that address the subject directly in detail (her employer, the History network is not independent of the subject.
  • Lisa Kelly is not employed by the History Channel. PRL42 (talk) 15:39, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article fails the criteria defined in WP:GNG - Reliability "Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability". There are no secondary sources, just Kelly and her employer.
  • Lisa Kelly is not employed by the History Channel. PRL42 (talk) 15:38, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article fails WP:GNG - Sources, "for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability" - there are no secondary sources in this article.
  • There are secondary sources. Lisa Kelly is not employed by the History Channel. PRL42 (talk) 15:39, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article does not meet WP:GNG - Independent of the subject, as all sources are from Kelly's website, or her employer, there are no independent sources.
  • Lisa Kelly is not employed by the History Channel. PRL42 (talk) 15:39, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please understand again, there's no attempt to 'wikilawyer' anything here . . . your argument fails the notability guidelines for wikipedia on 4/5 points. I've been trying to find other articles online to demonstrate some notability, but the one mini article from fox news that mentions her in passing (that I posted above) is all I've been able to find that's independent. In light of that, I don't see how you can argue to keep the article.--StvFetterly(Edits) 14:04, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I think you are the one who is confused. And your confusion seems to so serious enough that it entirely explains why the wall of text above is not relevant. The History Channel IS NOT LISA KELLY'S EMPLOYER.
Please understand that despite your best efforts to show the article fails various WP's, you yourself have failed because, again: The History Channel IS NOT LISA KELLY'S EMPLOYER. Her notability arises from being featured on several series of programmes. If we were to use the logic you seem to be using: that anyone featured by some media operation - newspaper, magazine, tv producer, magazine publisher, etc, becomes an employee of that operation then no one would be notable because the very act of focusing on them would remove the focuser from the realm of 'secondary source'. PRL42 (talk) 16:52, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ice Road Truckers and off-shoot shows are distributed by A+E Networks. A+E Networks pays Ms. Kelly's salary by paying the production company for her work on the series. According to wikipedia, A+E networks also owns the History Channel who air the show. Why don't you consider the person who pays Ms. Kelly to star in a show her employer?--StvFetterly(Edits) 16:08, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you provide a credible source for that I'll consider it (but it must be a credible source that shows they were the people who employed her to do that for which she is being claimed noteworthy - you can't disclaim noteworthiness on the basis that someone later happens to employ someone they have previously featured as something other than an employee). At the moment, as far as I am aware, she was simply a person who was featured on several series of TV programmes. Her employer, as far as it is relevant to the reason for her notaability, was the trucking companies for whom she drove. PRL42 (talk) 16:52, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a further aside, it's not good etiquette to add unsigned comments in the middle of blocks of text written by other users. You might want to give WP:EQ a read through.--StvFetterly(Edits) 16:21, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ooops. OK, I forgot to add all the tildes. Mea culpa. But anyone with the slightest intelligence could immediately see who put them there. But keep on wiki-lawyering as it seems to keep you happy. PRL42 (talk) 16:52, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • PRL42 - Please refrain from further editing of my posts as you have done here [26]. Please also refrain from further personal insults in this debate.--StvFetterly(Edits) 18:40, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have not edited your post. I simply used the correct mechanism to sign some of mine that I forgot. Since you have been caught out trying to use a false objection, namely that LK was employed by the History Channel during the time she was featured, you have started adding pedantic, whiny, comments about things that are completely unrelated to the subject at hand. PRL42 (talk) 19:42, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first sentence of this link [27] indicates that the IRT drivers sign contracts with the History Channel.--StvFetterly(Edits) 22:11, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please provide evidence that this is an employment contract rather than a standard contract that allows the company to use material involving the subject. It appears that the subject is employed by the trucking company who are paying them by the load. PRL42 (talk) 08:58, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This whole debate is entirely irrelevant. The sole matter at issue is whether Kelly merits her own article, and who employs her has nothing to do with this whatsoever. The History Channel self-evidently isn't a third-party source when reporting on matters concerning its own program content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:22, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If featuring someone or something means that you are no longer a secondary source with respect to that thing then you can never have a secondary source. Hence your assertion is absurd. The point is that THC is a secondary source wrt LK. Not too important now as further secondary sources have been provided. PRL42 (talk) 10:14, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Ice Road Truckers - there appear to be insufficient independent reliable sources to establish any notability for Kelly beyond her participation in the TV programs. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:22, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Ice Road Truckers is syndicated worldwide and, as the only female trucker, Lisa Kelly certainly stands out for more attentions than most. It wasn't difficult to find several items of news coverage, particularly this one but also this one and this one. Sionk (talk) 16:02, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - In light of the sources that Sionk has found (and have been added to the article) I've changed my merge to keep. The article is still leaning pretty heavily on primary sources though.--StvFetterly(Edits) 12:48, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Significant coverage exists in multiple reliable sources, such as the ones posted above by Sionk and another one here; subject meets WP:GNG.  Gongshow Talk 23:26, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. per Gongshow: the coverage exists. It just needs to be included in the article. Jarkeld (talk) 00:03, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Redirect is an editorial decision.  Sandstein  20:06, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Coronji Calhoun[edit]

Coronji Calhoun (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 One minor role in one production. Dosen't look like there is much as far as substantial coverage out for him. Aaron Booth (talk) 02:59, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Monster's Ball, his only film role.Cavarrone (talk) 11:58, 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 Speedy delete, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:06, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Amassed[edit]

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

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary, plain and simple. The author may wish to submit this at Wiktionary, if it does not already exist there. Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 02:04, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have also nominated the following page by the same contributor for deletion:

Booby(Personification) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

That one seems like it belongs at Urban Dictionary instead… Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 02:08, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Author blanked both, I tagged for CSD. Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 02:10, 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 the whole shebang. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Amazon Forest Combat 1[edit]

Amazon Forest Combat 1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Basically, the events are non-notable failing WP:GNG, WP:ROUTINE, WP:SPORTSEVENT and possibly more. TreyGeek (talk) 01:53, 7 March 2012 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages:[reply]

Amazon Forest Combat 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Jungle Fight 36 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. TreyGeek (talk) 01:54, 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 09:33, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Nut[edit]

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

Real historical product, possibly popular, not notable. Other than this brief piece on a regional website, there is no significant coverage outside of a mention in a novel and a few fan pages. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 09:30, 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:21, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisting comment: AfD failed to be properly substed. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:21, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If not even the company that produced the drink is WP:NOTABLE, then the drink itself probably isn't either. —JmaJeremy talk contribs 02:48, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. For the moment I'd just like to clarify that it's not "a mention in a novel", it's a repeated comic motif in the Pulitzer-Prize winning comic epic A Confederacy of Dunces, the greatest of all books about New Orleans, and it is used to such great effect that Dr. Nut has become something of a talisman of old New Orleans. Whether that can be established in "reliable sources" remains to be seen.--Arxiloxos (talk) 04:31, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Can't find any reliable news sources here. Minima© (talk) 09:11, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Arxiloxos (talk) 16:09, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Found (and added) a book reference in a management tome about the 1977 attempted re-launch of the brand as mentioned in the article. May be enough to establish notability. Geoff Who, me? 22:18, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The article has references and sources. This was a significant, albeit regional, beverage - similar to Moxie. Article should be expanded rather than deleted. J. Van Meter (talk)
  • Keep This was a national brand from the 1920s through the late 1960s, and in that time was clearly culturally notable as a New Orleans icon. I suspect most coverage will be not easily accessable online, which isn't surprising as it hasn't been on the market for decades before the web existed. At the risk of sounding a bit WP:OTHERSTUFF, we have at least two articles on soft drinks that lasted 6 years each, and another one that lasted just two years and never even went national, and don't forget this one that didn't even last a year. All these are reasonably good articles, and I'm sure we can manage a decent article for a national brand with decades of history as well. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:59, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Starblind. This was part of the nom's Soft Drink Purge nominations. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solo (Norwegian soft drink).--Milowent • hasspoken 14:31, 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. Clearly the current consensus, with no prejudice against an article at a later date. DGG ( talk ) 04:05, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sentic computing[edit]

Sentic computing (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 topic does not seem to meet the notability criterion, since all the sources are primary sources by the same authors, who also seem to be responsible for the wiki page (User:Erikcambria) Anonymous but Registered (talk) 00:54, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - no RS. All the papers cited are primary, with COI by Erik Cambria. A news search on "Sentic computing" returns nothing but the WP article. There are one or two books but these turn out to be chapters by Cambria in collections of academic papers. I couldn't find evidence that anybody else had picked up on the term, so notability is not established. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:44, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The rather vague description of this has the ring of original synthesis, so it's not surprising that this is one guy's theory. It is also gravely suspected of having to do with nothing more consequential than yet another gee-whiz method for advertising on the Internet: a multi-disciplinary approach to opinion mining and sentiment analysis at the crossroads between affective computing and common sense computing, which exploits both computer and social sciences to better recognize, interpret, and process opinions and sentiments over the Web. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:56, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete COI spam. Text is a mess and honestly I don't think it says much of anything. OSborn arfcontribs. 16:09, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Not sure if anyone noticed this yet, but the author is both blatantly WP:SELFCITING and a WP:SOCKPUPPET. See Cambriaerik (talk · contribs) and Erikcambria (talk · contribs), the two main contributors to the article in question. Not only that, but his articles have repeatedly (1, 2) been flagged as copyright violations.
    For the record, I have reported the user for sockpuppetry: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Erikcambria —JmaJeremy talk contribs 19:23, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note The article has been edited and cleaned to comply with Wikipedia quality standards. Because sentic computing is a recently-proposed approach, the term is still not commonly used/referred. However, the many publications in top AI journals, e.g., Elsevier Expert Systems with Applications and Springer Cognitive Computation, and conferences, e.g., FLAIRS and ICDM, clearly provide evidence for the relevance and novelty of the approach. On 1st March 2012, in fact, sentic computing was selected as one of the best case studies to be put forward to the UK Government for the assessment of impact in the REF (Research Excellence Framework). Moreover, the motivations behind sentic computing are at the base of the organization of internationally referred workshops, e.g., the IEEE ICDM SENTIRE workshop series, and special issues, e.g., the IEEE Intelligent System special issue on Concept-Level Opinion and Sentiment Analysis. Eventually, a news article about sentic computing appeared in APCOMTEC on 7th September 2010. —Erikcambria 13:05, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If it's too new, then you may have to wait a while before it's encyclopedic. See WP:NEO. Also, you use a lot of WP:TECHNICAL terms without giving it enough context. —JmaJeremy TALK CONTRIBS 20:55, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that a Google Scholar search shows that most mentions of the term are in Cambria's papers, and that the most widely cited paper on the list (with only 19 citations) is mostly self-cited. Also, the workshop series is organised by Cambria. It seems like the author is trying to promote his own work via WP, as mentioned by others above. Anonymous but Registered (talk) 21:39, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The term "sentic computing" seems to occur only in papers by Cambria, who seems to be the author of this WP article. Cambria's papers have very few non-self citations. Fails WP:N. Also, WP:YOURSELF applies. -- 202.124.72.69 (talk) 02:23, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 09:31, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Communist Party of the Soviet Union General-Secretarial elections[edit]

Several articles – (View AfD)

Half of the page are about events which never happened; for instance, Lenin was never elected to the General Secretaryship or any other formal position - the General Secretaryship did not even exist in 1917..... The same goes with the so-called "elections" in 1920, 1953, 1987 and 1991 (they never happened); the elections in 1964, 1982 and 1984 did happen, but are not notable as stand alone articles. To reiterate, i want these articles to be deleted because half of them cover articles on events which never happened (1917, 1920, 1953, 1987 and 1991) and the other ones are not notable (1964, 1982 and 1984 - the 1982 may be notable, but I'm not sure, and maybe the 1985, but that one currently has no article... Even so, as they stand now they should all be deleted). --TIAYN (talk) 15:52, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following should be deleted
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions.  --Lambiam 18:12, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  --Lambiam 18:12, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In particular the ones about elections that were in fact not held should be deleted as being incorrect and misleading. The others may safely be deleted as being uninformative and implausible search terms; if someone should find interesting material about any of them that warrants a stand-alone article, a new article can always be created.  --Lambiam 18:15, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Okay, we've got three sets of items here. The first are the anachronistic years: 1917, 1920. There was no such thing as a "General Secretary." These are nonsensical and should be speedied out of here. The second are the years in which the Central Committee elected a new head. 1953 tries to do this, material that should be covered vastly in other articles (see Malenkov and Khrushchev for specific bios. Similarly with the selections of Brezhnev, Chernenko, Andropov, Gorbachev. These selections processes ARE encyclopedia-worthy, notable topics, but portraying them as a series of "elections" is farcical. These should be deleted out of the way without prejudice to a specialist doing in-depth articles on each succession properly. The last group are the actual elections. I don't know the specifics of the 1987 vote (I'm a historian of the 1890-1940 period, not contemporary affairs), but that one looks like a clear KEEP, albeit needing major work and probably a new title. The 1991 piece I'm not sure about, but I would tend to KEEP rather than annihilate — for now. Let the content creator work on that a bit, retitle it, and see what we see. Anyway, that's my thinking. Carrite (talk) 19:16, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But the last two never happened; Zyuganov was never elected CPSU General Secretary, Gorbachev left his office in August 1991, and Vladimir Ivashko became acting CPSU leader.. There was never any elections in 1987 and 1991; listen to me, never. And no there was no election in 1987 either - Zyuganov was not a major figure at the time (i'm not even sure if he had a seat in the central committee, he did not have a seat in the politburo, and Ryzhkov was premier and still an ally of Gorbachev; there was no 1987 and 1991 elections, so why keep?????) --TIAYN (talk) 20:55, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm convinced that no such elections were held and have tagged both of those as hoaxes. They should be speedied out of here. Carrite (talk) 21:46, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 1987 and 1991, but retitle. Delete All as anachronistic or as content forks or as blatant hoaxes (1987, 1991). Carrite (talk) 19:17, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bonus Trivia - Joseph Stalin DID actually stand for election twice — in 1937 and 1946. Both of these events are encyclopedia worthy, for what it's worth. Again, a specialist really getting serious on these matters rather than someone intent on doing a fly-by cookie cutter set of stubs can take this on. Carrite (talk) 19:22, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I've just now taken a look at the 1917 and 1920 pieces. Those are both utter FABRICATIONS and have been tagged for speedy as blatant hoaxes. No such "elections" in any form. I am also going to upgrade the tagging for 1987 and 1991 to speedy as blatant hoaxes in the wake of this info. Carrite (talk) 22:01, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Of the articles in this AfD that haven't already been deleted, none is more than 2 sentences long. And I don't know whether anyone plans to add information to improve these articles. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:55, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It would be good to get a couple more voices and then to snow this crap out of here, somebody went to a lot of work on an elaborate hoax. Having precise vote counts for 1987 and 1991 was pretty tricky, it had me slobbering and nodding my head. Excellent catch by Trust Is. Carrite (talk) 04:42, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It can be surprising how detailed and well constructed hoaxes can be, (I got into editing by finding an addition to an article that looked convincing - if you didn't have some knowledge of the subject...) I've even known someone create two online newspapers to act as references. (Didn't work - very quickly seen through.) Most hoaxes here are obvious because the perpetrators don't have enough knowledge - or don't realise the extent and knowledge base of our patrollers, or both. They put things up like a 'writer' aged now 14 - who scripted a film that came out in 2008. Oh yeh. I don't have the knowledge about the subject here (but might do some digging when I'm less tired). I am impressed by the way the matter is being dealt with. Peridon (talk) 21:47, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I noticed the lovely hoax called the 1991 election for general secretary a while ago, but was too busy to nominate such crap myself. The few elections here that are not fake are really not notable. If e.g., Andropov was unanimously elected General Secretary by a small group at the highest level of the Communist Party, that's really not much of a reason for creating a one- or two-sentence article telling us that. It should be in the Andropov article. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 00:42, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I've just done a little digging - into the author's history. It appears that their account at ru-wiki was in existence through 2011, but was indeffed (including email block) in December for vandalism and (as I read things) is possibly blocked from a Chinese language Wikipedia too. I've looked at one of these articles and at the articles of the 'participants', and it didn't tally. I'll go with the more expert opinions of those who have been doing the main digging here. I am wondering if a block would be in order here, but as they don't seem to have edited here since December, would it be necessary? Peridon (talk) 10:40, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2012_March_7&oldid=1142634402"