Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 May 20

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 19 May	21 May >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. Dipankan ^{(Have a chat?)} 10:19, 27 May 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Charles Kegel[edit]

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

Fails WP:PROF. A Google News search (archives) turns up very little other than a few articles about his administrative assistant's murder and the defendant's trial. I don't think that acting university presidents are inherently notable. Bbb23 (talk) 23:06, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The previous AfD 3 years ago resulted in no consensus. A fair amount of nit-picking about whether he satisfied one or the other of the various items listed at WP:PROF. Nothing has been done in the last 3 years to expand the article or better establish his notability. Please keep in mind that the academic guideline does not mandate anything and that he should still have significant secondary coverage to satisfy notability guidelines.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:14, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:21, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak, weak keep. I prefer to err on the side of caution, which for dead academics means "keep", in my opinion. It's weak, though. His communication textbook received some (short) reviews in academic journals, [1], [2], [3]--don't know if you can read those links (from my university access to EBSCO), but they're there. Usually a review or two on an academic book establishes some notability. What's problematic is that the article does not contain much information, and there seem to be two more Charles Kegels around: one a Southerner, and another who worked on John Ruskin and that may have been the same as our guy, but I can't rightly tell. It's not a very usual name so they may be the same. Our guy wrote an article called "lncommunicability in Salinger's The Catcher in the Rye" which is cited or referred to in a few books and articles (including here), and his article "Academic Freedom: An Analysis" (Liberal Education December 1966) is cited at least once (in Liberal Education 1968).
In all, it's not that much, but you'll note I can't do the fancy index footwork. Drmies (talk) 14:27, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Although he was an acting president, The article passes the sixth criteria of WP:PROF. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 15:17, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but I don't understand the "although" and I don't see how that criteria applies here. Drmies (talk) 15:52, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - It says,"Criterion 6 may be satisfied, for example, if the person has held the post of President or Chancellor (or Vice-Chancellor in countries where this is the top academic post) of a significant accredited college or university," he has been the president for over a year, so I believe the criteria is satisfied. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 15:55, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sorry, I should have been more clear: I am not sure that a temporary appointment satisfies that criteria/on. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 16:47, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- While he might have only been an Acting president, it's of a huge school, and his contribution was sufficient to have the school name a building after him. We've unearthed some decent citations in a field that you shouldn't expect many online cites for a scholar from the 1960s. It might be a weak pass in several different criteria (academically, administratively, notable outside recognition), but together it's a pretty clear pass. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 20:27, 21 May 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, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Casey (musician)[edit]

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

Non-notable musician. Can not find any coverage of substance in independent sources. Ridernyc (talk) 22:51, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:19, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's possible that this person meets criterion 10 of WP:MUSICBIO, but the guideline suggests that an individual article is still not warranted "if this is the only claim". I've certainly no objection to recreation once his debut album is released and some reviews/chart appearances/significant coverage results. And if such coverage already exists I'll be happy to reconsider my !vote. Gongshow ^Talk 06:17, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. SPA creation, references offered are to subject's own page and to record company promotional page for new album. I didn't find anything worthwhile on the web to evidence notability. His entry at iMDB suggests that his efforts as a composer of background music is at a very early stage. If and when his first album comes out and garners substantial coverage from independent, reliable sources, then we should have this article. Then, not now. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 10:27, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above reasons, an article can be created later on *IF* the subject becomes notable, and has sufficient coverage. as of now it is not. -- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 06:11, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it fails WP:GNG as no chart performances oor anything notable is achieved by the subject. The artist can be notable in future but not now. →TSU ^tp* 16:31, 27 May 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. Dipankan ^{(Have a chat?)} 10:21, 27 May 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

William Schnoebelen[edit]

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

Article has previously been deleted and has since been recreated. The problem the first time around, i.e. of notability, seems however not to have been resolved in a satisfactory manner. meco (talk) 22:13, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. meco (talk) 22:13, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Lots of news coverage and lots of mentions in books, although the details of his past have been questioned. -- 202.124.72.186 (talk) 04:27, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure there is. The problem from my perspective is that all this coverage doesn't seem to find its way into the article. It is in fact almost entirely referenced with primary sources. __meco (talk) 06:47, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a valid reason to delete. Notability can be established by sources that are not yet in the article. -- 202.124.72.54 (talk) 09:24, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not by vaguely referring to their existence without producing them for verification. Remember that this article has once before been deleted for the lack of verifiable sources attesting to the subject's notability. Editors interested in preserving this article should have fixed that issue when the article was recreated, yet they either didn't bother with it, or they could not. That's why we're having this discussion now. __meco (talk) 09:33, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I gave one. You can hit the search links above for the others. -- 202.124.72.219 (talk) 11:53, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You gave me one which briefly mentions Schnoebelen in the context of claims of fraudulent credentials. That's not much. As for expecting me to expend my resources in trying to dig up something beyond that, I'm not going to do that. I'm certainly not required to. I've watched the entire video interview series "Interview with an Ex-Vampire", 6 hours or more, and I found it of interest and used it in my personal research of occult-related social phenomena. But I'm not Wikipedia, and Wikipedia has certain definite requirements that need to be met for articles to be allowed to remain here. If those with an interest in keeping the article here won't do that task, the article isn't going to survive all by itself. __meco (talk) 13:19, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete, at least in the current state, I do not see any notability demonstrated.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:58, 21 May 2012 (UTC) Sources are fine, but now they should be added to the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:27, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:14, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:50, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Reliable sources include a ten-page section in a book from Éditions L'Âge d'Homme, plenty of coverage in another from I.B. Tauris and shorter but still significant coverage here in a book from Zondervan and here in a journal from a publisher founded by J. Gordon Melton. There's also this from Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:39, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those seem fine to me. I'd like to see them incorporated into the article. __meco (talk) 21:36, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. For all above reasons.--Martianmister (talk) 21:44, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reliable sources have been provided and the article seems to be balanced use of those sources. Stormbay (talk) 22:22, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep agree with the above, with the new sources the article satisfies GNG and can be kept. -- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 06:16, 27 May 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. There doesn't seem to be a question of the notability of the list (per this discussion as well as the previous one), only its verifiability. After this discussion, it seems that only the verifiability of part of the list is in question. So, the answer is to challenge and remove any parts of the list which cannot be adequately verified. If there is a desire to merge the list, then please start a merge discussion on the talk page. -Scottywong | gossip _ 15:45, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Grand Masters of the Grand Lodge of Scotland[edit]

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

This article now fails WP:V due to a citations issue (cited source for a "complete list" through 2012 was copyright 1987 with said material not viewable, and the webpage this was actually sourced from is gone), the content of this article is no longer verifiable. I'd also note the article creator was indef blocked for copyright violation, so I'd take a CSD on this as well. MSJapan (talk) 22:17, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is notable per WP:LISTN, being documented in multiple sources. Such sources are not required to be online as WP:V explains, "The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources: some online sources may require payment, while some print sources may be available only in university libraries.". Warden (talk) 23:15, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Most of it is sourced, and should definitely be kept, even if the last few entries are not. In other respects it passes WP:L. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:05, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a perfect example of a list that consists of (mostly) notable people, combined into a potentially non-notable grouping. I might change my mind if the intro discussed and substantiated what makes the position of Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of Scotland notable. I am not sure that it is... There are several thousand Masonic Grand Lodges in the world... each has its own Grand Master (so at any one time there are thousands of Grand Masters).... most are elected to preside over their Grand Lodge for no more than a year or two. ie: Masonic Grand Masters are dime a dozen... so what makes the Grand Masters of this particular Grand Lodge notable? That said... as an alternative to deleting, consider merging into Grand Lodge of Scotland. Blueboar (talk) 12:18, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question Looking through List of Masonic Grand Lodges, I get the impression that the Scottish grand lodge is far older than most grand lodges. Doesn't that give it a status distinct from the Grand Loge du Bénin and the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Wisconsin? Nyttend (talk) 12:36, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - Not in any way aside from the "historical interest" sense. Every Grand Lodge is sovereign unto itself, and only unto itself, so it does not legislate others. As an example, the United Grand Lodge of England (which is the oldest) recognized Prince Hall Freemasonry as legitimate after the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts did, which affected nothing as far as Massachusetts was concerned, and also did not cause all Grand Lodges to recognize Prince Hall by default. MSJapan (talk) 16:30, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:13, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I note that the nominator makes the absurd claim that the fact that the main source for this article is not available online means that it is not verifiable. It can, in fact, be verified at any of these libraries. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:50, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Then let me clarify - The Cyclopedia makes no claim to list all the GMs of the GL of Scotland, and if it did, it would only hold a list until its publishing date, which was 1987 (but not really; see below). The list stretches to 2012. Now, the article author who claimed the information was in the book was indef banned for copyright violation. It is my belief that the information was taken as a cut and paste from the GL of Scotland website, not the Cyclopedia. That GL webpage is now gone, and only has a page for the current Grand Master. Furthermore, on searching further for the 1987 MacKenzie book, it is in fact a reprint of this, which is by the same author and dates from 1877, and would therefore not have a list of GMs past that point. Hence, the source is faked. So, one faked source and one now-disappeared source. I did not claim that the source didn't exist; I claim it does not contain the information it purports to contain. The Amazon blurb for Part 1 of the Cyclopedia says: "1877. Other volumes in this set include ISBN number(s): 0766126110. Volume 1 of 2. (This description is for both volumes.) Extremely scarce and fervently sought after, this book rates as one of the most prized sources of Masonic research available to the sincere student of Freemasonry. H. P. Blavatsky constantly refers to this work throughout her Secret Doctrine. Unlike other Masonic encyclopedias, this is noted for fully exploring the esoteric roots of Freemasonry. Interestingly, Mackenzie and this work were consulted by leading esoterists of that time. Mackenzie may have even produced the Golden Dawn Ciphers. Replete with Masonic wisdom, this is one of those rare gems that truly offers "More Light in Masonry." So, no, I don't think the contents wrt to this article are either verifiable or accurate. MSJapan (talk) 03:02, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no copyright in a list of this sort, as it has no creative content. There are multiple sources for this data and Gould's History, for example, covers the list from 1736 through to 1933 - a period of two hundred years and some 81 masters, all of whom seem to check out. Per WP:LISTN, "The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been". Warden (talk) 14:24, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having not seen the original list this was stolen from, how do you know? I'm tempted to think that the Acting GMs was stolen as such, by the way.Also, don't obfuscate the argument - I'm not contesting notability, I'm contesting verifiability. The simple fact is that the article creator took the list verbatim off a website, lied about the source, and was banned for such activity, and I'm not sure what basis there is to claim otherwise. By your reasoning, Warden, if a list only has to be partially sourced, I could add myself in as a Grand Master of whatever GL I wanted, and make an argument that that was OK because the list was sourced up to a point which did not include my information. Oh wait, that's an unsourced BLP violation/vanity edit...which is why we have to source lists. My point is that the notability of the list (which is what your little snippet refers to) has nothing to do with and does not abrogate WP:V. The article as it stands does not meet WP:V, and as there is no source to verify the entirety of 1736-2012, the list should not be from 1736-2012. Moreover, if it's in Gould, we don't need to be duplicating sources. Better yet, go look at Gould, as I did (vol. IV, ch. 9, pp. 376-406); the GMs are interspersed as throwaway references throughout 47 pages of text on "History of the Grand Lodge of Scotland", (not "The Grand Masters of the Grand Lodge of Scotland") and names the majority of the GMs by title only (which means one has to find who the Earl of Strathmore was in 1741). At the very end of the article, there is a list of GMs up to 1933. That doesn't sound like "discussion of the set", but let's deal with that while we are at it. Contrary to your claim, WP:LISTN actually says the following, in its entirety: "A list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable, although editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles." All that indicates is that not all individual items in a list have to meet N, which means Steve Jones the NN accountant can be in a list with one of the Kings George for whatever reason in a notable list, not that lists can be unsourced (and we already have a question as to whether the list in N in the first place). What we have so far is that the GL of Scotland seems to at one point have had a list on their site, but that's a) gone, and b) not an independent source. Secondly, Gould talks about GMs of Scotland only to say they were elected in a certain year. They get one line each, followed by a brief list at the very end with no commentary. Therefore, I'd say that the necessary "discussion of the set" isn't met either. So shall we add a notability concern to the AfD as well? MSJapan (talk) 15:34, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is usually the case that Wikipedia is more up-to-date than such sources because we are able to continuously update the information whereas books are fixed as at the date of publication. We don't delete our articles for this reason. As for discussion of the set, it is obvious from what you say that the Masters are discussed throughout the Gould's history of that Lodge, as one would expect. There are plenty more sources which might be added to supplement this, should we wish, such as Laurie's The History of Free Masonry and the Grand Lodge of Scotland. That was published in 1859 and so only covers the early period but is out of copyright and is so a good source for our purposes. Warden (talk) 16:58, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I did not say "they are discussed throughout." I said they are mentioned by name only as part of the historical record, and that is all. We have still not addressed the total lack of sources after Gould (and the resultant fact that there's 80 years of unsourced information in the list), nor the fact that the GMs are not really independent of their Grand Lodges. Everything you have found as "sourcing" is not focused on the Grand Masters; their mention is incident to the fact that there are histories of their Grand Lodge. I also noticed you said "might", so again, look at the source first; existence of something is not proof of its usability. In short, you're arguing to keep a list based on total conjecture and tossing out of titles of books instead of doing the work to find out if the material is suitable or not. We also haven't addressed where the information is to be updated from - GL of Scotland doesn't maintain a list for public consumption, so are you telling me OR is OK for a list? I think not, and I'm not going to continue this train of inquiry, because all it's serving to do is derail the whole process. MSJapan (talk) 18:21, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - While the issue of verifiability (or lack thereof) is important... I think we need to establish Notability first. Is this list topic notable? WP:Notability##Stand-alone_lists states: "A list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources" So... the first thing we need to do is establish that the Grand Masters of the Grand Lodge of Scotland (as a group or set) has been discussed by independent reliable sources. Has it? (Note: the Grand Lodge of Scotland's website website would not be "independent" for this topic.) Blueboar (talk) 23:13, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sources have been listed above and every time the nominator tries to wikilawyer them away, I go off and find another one. For example, Coil's Masonic Encyclopedia contains an extensive entry on the Grand Lodge of Scotland which yet again details the Grand Masters from William St Clair on. Compared to other lists that I have had to defend at AFD, this one is quite well supported by sources. Our current draft needs work, as usual, but that's just a matter of ordinary editing not deletion. Warden (talk) 13:22, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Every time you find a supposed "source", it's about the Grand Lodge, not the Grand Masters, and that is the key. You're saying that GMs inherit notability by association with the Grand Lodge (you yourself have established multiple times that they only appear in articles about the Grand Lodge), and that's clearly contrary to WP:NOTINHERITED. That is why LISTN says what it does. Very simply put, a list of the Grand Masters ("the topic") in an entry about the Grand Lodge ("another topic") is not "discussion of the topic" as required by LISTN. Put another way, you're saying that anything that appears in an encyclopedia entry is fair game for a list, and policy prevents that. Moreover, "every source" you have found contains no information later than 1933. So anything from 1933-2008 is wholly unsourced, and we need to be editing per policy. MSJapan (talk) 14:38, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Such lists obviously relate to the parent organisations but that doesn't mean that we delete them. See List of Grand Masters of the Knights Hospitaller, List of Presidents of Venezuela, List of kings of the Picts, &c. These are all just WP:SPINOFFs from the main articles about the bodies that they led but that's not a reason to delete any or all of them. The key point is that the sources presented contain detailed lists of the GMs and so it is reasonable to do so here too. Recent information can be found by going to recent sources such as this and so we are able to satisfy both WP:LISTN and WP:V. Warden (talk) 15:03, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading statements again. "Recent information" meaning "the current GM only." This link was already addressed earlier, and it still doesn't address 1933-2008 (the inclusion thereof is therefore BLP violation). Having read SPINOFF, it applies to articles, not lists. It's part of content forking, which is article-based. If you want to cite policy, use one that actually applies. Also, just as an aside, if I'm the one wikilawyering, why are you the one introducing a new and different policy in every statement and then complaining when somebody actually reads it and finds out it doesn't apply? Merely posting WP link caps doesn't make you automatically right, and as much as I hate to go after editor behavior, you do this all the time whenever someone doesn't agree with you. Frankly, this AfD should not be this long or involved. The issues at hand are very simple. MSJapan (talk) 15:35, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is indeed very simple. This topic has been at AFD before as you have nominated it before. The result on that occasion was a clear Keep but yet you have nominated it again. Your ostensible grounds for doing so was a WP:DEADLINK but that is not a satisfactory reason to delete as that guideline states "Do not delete factual information solely because the URL to the source does not work any longer. WP:Verifiability does not require that all information be supported by a working link, nor does it require the source to be published online.". This has been explained to you by multiple editors above but you have just shifted to nitpicking about recent entries or the context of the sources, neither of which are reasons to delete the entire list. You haven't got a leg to stand on and so your persistence in this matter seems disruptive per WP:DEL, "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hopes of getting a different outcome.". My role in this matter is to be the only editor actually prepared to roll his sleeves up and do some real work here, finding and citing multiple sources. Let's recap what I've listed so far:

The Royal Masonic Cyclopaedia
Gould's History of Freemasonry throughout the World
The History of Free Masonry and the Grand Lodge of Scotland
Coil's Masonic Encyclopedia

These all cover the topic in detail and so establish its notability. The only detail which seems to require attention is re-establishing sources for the masters in recent years. From what has been said, this information was previously published on the Grand Lodge's website and so we might accept the current version based on that in good faith. Should we require further confirmation then this can be done by consulting the yearbooks of the Grand Lodge which will be reliable sources for the relevant years. Q.E.D. Warden (talk) 16:50, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

if this list is indeed a WP:SPINOFF... then I really must repeat my above suggestion and suggest that we MERGE this list into/back into the Grand Lodge of Scotland Article. As it happens, the Grand Lodge of Scotland article is quite short, so there is no real need to split off a list of its leaders into a separate list article. Merging would satisfy the concept of WP:PRESERVE... the information would still be available, just in a more logical location. I don't think anyone would question that the GL of Scotland is notable as a topic, and I would think that in the context of an article on the Grand Lodge, listing its historical leaders makes sense (after all... that's how the sources seem to deal with it). If we do this, then the notability of GMs of Scotland as a set or topic on its own is no longer an issue... they would be covered by the notability of the Grand Lodge. The WP:V issue for post 1900 GMs would still be a problem... but that isn't an issue for AfD. Blueboar (talk) 21:13, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent)::::::::*Question 1: what's the topic? That's really the crux of the issue. Warden's sources are all about the Grand Lodge of Scotland, wherein the Grand Masters get a mention as related items (and I do mean a mention - I wasn't exaggerating about the "one line per GM" statement). However, those sources are not about the Grand Masters in particular, and the policy for list notability is discussion about the topic, not the topic it is a subset of. Put another way, a list of apple cultivars is not notable because there's a list in an article on apples in general; it is notable if there is an article on apple cultivars in particular that talks about those cultivars in detail (which there is). Similarly, if Warden's sources were specifically focused on Grand Masters, sure, but they aren't, and I have a real problem with it being asserted otherwise. So that's one item. The issue with merging is that we do not want to have lists of Grand Masters for every Grand Lodge in the world, because 99.9% of them are really not notable at all, and the Freemasonry WikiProject is pretty much dead-set on Grand Mastership in and of itself not being notable, precisely to prevent this sort of thing. As an example, Roger W. Pageau was deleted as NN a few years ago, because he was a recent GM of Massachusetts who was simply an accountant outside of that, with no other assertion of notability outside being Grand Master for a whopping three years. We simply can't write quality articles on these people, because they just don't meet GNG. Yet that is an issue that is opened up if we merge this list as opposed to deleting it outright. There is also a huge potential for BLP issues and vanity edits, with no real way to hunt a lot of it down other than looking through proceedings for every Grand Lodge worldwide, and there are probably upwards of 600 in the US alone in all the different streams, bogus or otherwise. So it's not even manageable. However, if we strictly limit the list to only what we have reliable sources on, that's fine. We have ascertained that we do not have reliable sources past 1936 until the current GM (who started in 2008), so those in-between absolutely should not be kept until we can get a source for them. MSJapan (talk) 04:20, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But we do have a list of apple cultivars. That seems to be quite uncontroversial and the chances of it being deleted or merged away are just about nil, in my experience of AFD. Separate lists of that sort are common when the number of entries is large and the entries in the list are mostly blue links, as in this case. The list then functions well both as indexes and a source of structured information. A list with 100+ entries does not seem suitable for inclusion in a main article because its length will tend to make the page too long, requiring the reader to scroll too much. Our readership increasingly uses mobile devices with small touch screens and no keyboard or mouse. We don't want to be wearing their fingers out and so the current structure seems best. Warden (talk) 10:10, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have you looked at the Grand Lodge of Scotland main article? It is extremely short (five paragraphs... but most of them are one sentence long). Merging the list of GMs into it will not make that article "overly long". We have a lot of articles that are longer than a merged page would be. As for the "scrolling issue"... a little creative thinking can resolve that... for example we could re-structure the list so it is presented in two (or even three) columns... which would shorten the length of the merged information as it appears on the page, and resolve the issue of those with mobile devices needing to wear their fingers out as they scroll down the page. Blueboar (talk) 12:33, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:19, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The obvious answer here is merge to Grand Lodge of Scotland p b p 13:33, 28 May 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, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

HyeFighters[edit]

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

The article has no independent reliable sources and gives no reason why this group is notable. It's not clear exactly what this organization does--the articles on some of the more notable fighters listed don't even mention it. The issue isn't whether or not some of the fighters are notable (some are, some aren't), but whether this organization is notable.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 21:32, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:46, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:46, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's no indication of notability. In fact, I can't even tell what this group does to promote Armenian fighters--PR, coach, matchmake, or what? The lack of any independent reliable sources cements the decision for me. Mdtemp (talk) 22:55, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, and this type of thing will eventually push Wikipedia towards Craigslist. Should stop. History2007 (talk) 01:27, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable company/organization. I was unable to find any coverage in WP:RS; as such, organization fails WP:CORP. None but shining hours (talk) 15:02, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG as I couldn't find any secondary sources and the only source the article cites is the domain registration information for the organization's website. --TreyGeek (talk) 18:49, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no notable results on google and nor looks like one. →TSU ^tp* 21:45, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above reasons and lack of third party sorces to establish notability-- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 06:20, 27 May 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. G12 -- Copyright violation — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 13:56, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hanwen – Pearl Delta International School[edit]

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

Non-notable school. Hill Crest's WikiLaser (Boom). (talk) 20:56, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some, at least, of the material, seems to be a copyright violation from http://www.giaguangzhou.com/pearl-delta-international-school.html. - David Biddulph (talk) 07:49, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:43, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

David Lyttle[edit]

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

Non-notable. can only find passing mentions and self promotion. No substantial coverage in reliable sources as far as I can. Also appears this maybe an autobiography. Ridernyc (talk) 20:51, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References to Hot Press (biggest music magazine in Ireland), Jazzwise (biggest UK jazz magazine), University of Ulster and the BBC indicate notability. Williamcrosswiki (talk) 22:56, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the bbc reference you are referring to? [4] If it is that is far from substantial coverage. Same for this [5]. Simply having an artist mentioned is not substantial coverage. This is simply an announcement of a performance [6]. Sorry but only one of the sources you provide come anywhere near establishing notability. Before we proceed further is there any conflict of interest you might want to disclose? Ridernyc (talk) 22:27, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:07, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Looking through the article's sources, I'd say that Hot Press, All About Jazz, JMI/Journal of Music, and Culture Northern Ireland each contains non-trivial coverage on the subject - enough to meet WP:GNG and criterion 1 of WP:MUSICBIO. Gongshow ^Talk 06:31, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The topic passes WP:GNG, having received significant coverage in reliable sources:

The Journal of Music – Live Reviews: David Lyttle Group featuring Greg Osby
Hot Press Magazine – Interlude: Homegrown urban soul at its finest

There's also this article, which may not quite be significant coverage, but is comprised of more than just mentions about Lyttle:

Guitar Player Magazine – Following the Footsteps of GIANTS

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:58, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it passes WP:GNG and it is improved since nominated for AfD. I suggest withdrawing this. →TSU ^tp* 21:47, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because of sources pointed by Northamerica1000 good work -- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 06:22, 27 May 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, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Love Story (Yelawolf album)[edit]

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

The album which may be sometime will be recorded. Souds like WP:CRYSTAL Ymblanter (talk) 20:24, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:03, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:CRYSTAL. I would otherwise suggest a redirect to the artist's page, but in this case it seems there's no telling whether the album's title will be changed by the time of its release. The creation of this article is perhaps a bit premature. -- WikHead (talk) 19:41, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL as the only verifiable information about this album is that there's no verifiable information about it. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 12:02, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WikiHead. This could be redirected, but as the name isn't confirmed, it should be deleted. →TSU ^tp* 21:48, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:CRYSTAL-- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 06:23, 27 May 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 L'Oreal. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:45, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of L'Oreal spokesmodels[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, no sign of notability. Bulwersator (talk) 20:18, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but transfer info if appropriate to L'Oreal into a separate section. There is a similar list on Chanel Mabalu (talk) 09:14, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to L'Oréal; all the models listed are notable, and it would be a sensible part of the article, which should be able to accommodate these names (particularly if grouped in columns). postdlf (talk) 13:51, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per postdlf's comments. Based on WP:SALAT, I don't see any need for this list separate from the L'Oreal article. NJ Wine (talk) 03:40, 27 May 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. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:37, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Phishing employees[edit]

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

Unsourced essay/how-to like article that looks like a coatrack to hang a bunch of external links on. Other than that, it's swell. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 19:31, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:57, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:58, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Phishing#Anti-phishing. Fails WP:N: No independent coverage found. --Kvng (talk) 03:33, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge is fine, but currently it is nothing but a how-to essay with spam links. Bearian (talk) 19:18, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If there's anything sourceable, it can be re-written in the Phishing article.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:28, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above; spammy howto, topic can be mentioned in the main article but would need a full rewrite with proper sources. Sandstein 16:11, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with no prejudice for recreation if a proper article can be created. Don't merge, as the article as-is is a mess, but perhaps add a sourced paragraph to the main phishing article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:34, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Crisco. There's nothing here of value to merge with anything else; it's just an unsourced how-to guide. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 22:47, 29 May 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, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With One Last Breath[edit]

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

Only sources found were directory listings for upcoming events. Asserts notability with a member of Asking Alexandria, but utterly fails the WP:RS test. The band has not had any notable releases on a major label, nor have any other media given them attention. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:01, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:54, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm seeing mostly non-notable blogs, social networking sites, torrent pages, etc. Ironically, the best article I found had the opening line: "Who the hell are With One Last Breath?" For now, I'm not convinced there is enough significant coverage in reliable sources for this group to meet WP:GNG or WP:BAND. Gongshow ^Talk 06:43, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:19, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. My web searches turned up nothing better than Gongshow's. They are quite new and do seem to have a small audience, so perhaps they will merit an article in time. Fail WP:GNG and WP:BAND at present. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 00:31, 27 May 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, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Emi coco[edit]

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

Not notable. Refs consist of blogs and material submitted by article subject. No RS hits via Google, Bing, NYT or MS. GregJackP Boomer! 18:11, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This person may be notable someday but I see no indication of meeting WP:GNG. Mentions in magazines like Vogue aren't through stories but are through spotlights on readers. Ryan Vesey Review me! 19:11, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:51, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:51, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:51, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable (yet). Mabalu (talk) 22:06, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Someday, perhaps notobility will come. Not now though. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:17, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG. There are not many notable results (in fact rarely few). Not notable enough. →TSU ^tp* 21:50, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable person ans as per above -- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 08:04, 27 May 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) 23:36, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Luquan protest[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS. No significance. Orphan. Not encyclopedic. Colipon+(Talk) 19:29, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Those last two sentence fragments aren't reasons for deletion, but I agree that this has no lasting significance. DoctorKubla (talk) 08:16, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:49, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is the type of thing that should only be covered if it gets coverage in books and/or journal articles, or if news sources continue covering it years later. Nyttend (talk) 12:24, 21 May 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. Consensus is to delete: non-notable company as per WP:CORP (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:22, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clampco Sistemi[edit]

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

Originally prodded with "the article fails the WP:ORG criteria and limited sources available on GNews (mainly showing little more that they are a supplier of these products) indicate that this is unlikely to be fixed in the near future." Refs added since are not impressive. The main company Calzavara S.p.A does not yet have an article either here or at it:Calzavara S.p.A — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:45, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - According to me references are sound and consistent Gmenta (talk) 15:34, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:49, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - None of the references are of high-quality and discuss the subject in-depth. Notability not shown. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:36, 29 May 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 Ahmedabad#Transport. Redirected by the author (non-admin closure) →TheSpecialUser^Talk_{Contributions}* 04:11, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Transport in Ahmedabad[edit]

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

Article is a blatant copy of the transport section of Ahmedabad. Rsrikanth05 (talk) 17:49, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect it to Ahmedabad article (transport section). Transport article with this kinda length and encyclopedic info deserves an article. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 17:58, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 21 May 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) 23:38, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ric Thomas[edit]

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

A person who edits film trailers. No reliable, independent sources about him to be found. No ref in the article actually mentions him. The "Golden Trailer" award for Cemetery Junction was for creativity, not editing and Thomas isn't mentioned. The IMDb listing for the short film, Curses and Sermons, does mention he was the editor. Prod was contested. On a bright note, the Cemetery Junction trailer is very funny and I can see why it was nominated for an award. Bgwhite (talk) 21:42, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 21:43, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources, and I'm not convinced the Golden Trailers are a significant award. But as pointed out in the nomination, the award itself wasn't given to Thomas, and he is not mentioned on the award presentation page. -- Whpq (talk) 15:00, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:44, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not surprisingly, there's no media notice. Time to take out the trailer trash. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:49, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I'm sorry Supertick. You said what it is and why it's useful but you failed to demonstrate that it's notable using reliable sources. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:42, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MyRobotLab[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Google News search comes up with virtually (no pun intended) nothing. Bbb23 (talk) 01:18, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 02:03, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No indication of possible notability. SL93 (talk) 01:49, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It is an open source robotics framework. Unlike another text editor, there are very few of these types of software packages currently available. Since it's much more graphically oriented than other robotic frameworks (e.g. ROS_(Robot_Operating_System)), it might be useful for those students who are interested in robotics, but who's primary focus is not programming. --Supertick (talk) 13:11, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Interested students are always free to go to the framework's web site. -- Whpq (talk) 20:55, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:43, 20 May 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. SNOW. Drmies (talk) 18:04, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Steponavičius[edit]

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

no surname bearers have a wikipedia article A:-)Brunuś (talk) 17:28, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep. Nomination irrelevant. This is an article about a surname. Also, all bearers are notable per wikipedia gudeline and wikilinked from many wikipedia articles. Mind you, if deletionism will start to prevail here, I will be forced to waste much more of my time and create perfectly survivable article stubs for redlinks, so this twinkle nom no pasaran here. - Altenmann >t 17:34, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, four notable bearers are listed, there is nothing wrong with the article--Ymblanter (talk) 18:21, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - more used to saying keep when the links are blue, but the evidence for notability is clear here. But creating new stubs or fully-worked articles on those topics certainly wouldn't be a waste of time. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:54, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It is waste of time when I have to do it in a rush, in areas outside of my knowledge. Of course, driven by editcountitis, I could have created single-sentence nanostubs, but the dicsussed page perfectly serves in lieu of them. - Altenmann >t 19:07, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep obviously.♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:31, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question What do you mean by a "surname bearer"? Nyttend (talk) 12:22, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I guess any person who bears this surname.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:29, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:49, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:49, 21 May 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 without prejudice. Can be recreated or restored upon request at WP:REFUND. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:45, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Serge Schoemaker[edit]

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

Looks like a promising young architect, but not notable yet (no major building, no major publication, no major award). Also the article reads like a CV. ELEKHH^T 04:19, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. ELEKHH^T 04:22, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He did win the Archiprix International competition; but there really is very little mention of him in most sources I can find. Weak delete. dci | TALK 16:30, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 13 May 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, ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 17:21, 20 May 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, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Something to Dance For & TTYLXOX[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Something to Dance For & TTYLXOX

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

This is just about a mashup of two other songs which already have individual articles. I already removed background and chart info that were borrowed from those articles. There is nothing about the mashup specifically that warrants its own article that can't be merged to the song articles or its album. Title of article doesn't lend itself to an obvious redirect target. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 18:05, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see how this particular mix could satisfy WP:MUSIC. Pburka (talk) 22:08, 13 May 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, ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 17:20, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Details on the music video are contained in the invidivual song articles. No compelling reason to justify a separate article for this mashup, particularly with little-to-no significant coverage, chart appearances, or other factors which might indicate it meets WP:NSONGS or WP:GNG in its own right. Gongshow ^Talk 08:12, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This mashup is already addressed in the articles for the album and each of the two constituent songs. I don't see a compelling need or sufficient critical notice of this mashup qua mashup to justify a freestanding article. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 15:51, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:48, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Robbie Curran[edit]

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

Contested prod. Non-notable article that appears to have been created as an autobiography. Ridernyc (talk) 17:07, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence rather blows the gaffe: known for his role as Max in the upcoming thriller Island. Famous for being in a film that hasn't appeared yet? I think not. Delete. Can be re-created if and when he is famous. Emeraude (talk) 17:47, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - That opening sentence is not the way the article was originally worded. The HorrorBid article outright states the film premiered in December making this a 2011 film. I am attempting to cleanup the article to help address the issues raised. There are sentences particularly in the Early life section that I will remove as they are unreferenced. Can anyone help me improve this article? FilmFan2011 (talk) 17:53, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOSOON. While I would otherwise be glad to assist, we have a three major problems: 1) Apparently Robby has done only one film,[7] and that has him fail the criteria set at WP:NACTOR. 2) We have a lack of multiple and reliable sources speaking about him. The citation to Gather.com is a social networking site, and it and IMDB and Casting Call Pro are unacceptable as citations. While it is nice that he can be sourced to Buried, and Horrorbid, those sources are generally considered unreliable for Wikipedia use. 3) But what is worse, is that at this current time in his career, the limited coverage he does have is for only one thing. I would suggest this be userfied to editor FilmFan2011 as an userspace work-in-progress. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:15, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that FilmFan2011 is suspected of being a sock of an account whose main purpose here is to create promotional articles for this small group of film makers. Ridernyc (talk) 14:46, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If suspicions about this 16-month-old account are proven to be true, then yes... userfication would be inappropriate. But if they remain only suspicions, then userfication might allow a problematic editor to better learn our ways. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:13, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable - hasn't had significant roles in multiple films, hasn't originated a new style/technique of acting, doesn't have historical importance, hasn't received wide press coverage. Note that the film he's been in, Island (film) hasn't been widely released and the article is subject of an AfD. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:11, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable - Robbie21192 (talk) 17:01, 21 May 2012 (UTC) I am the subject of this article, and I do not want this page to exist for a number of reasons.[reply]
1) I am not a notable actor and wish for this to be removed, for I wish for my privacy to be respected.

2) I have not given 'FilmFan2011' permission to write this article about me, and I wish for him/her to reveal him/herself so I can find out why he/she has posted false "facts" about me on the internet without my permission and without concrete proof.

3) The existence of this page has caused me and my colleagues unnecessary stress and many of my associates believe that I wrote this article, which I did not. Please, I would like to put an end to this as soon as possible.

Thank you for reading, Robbie Curran Robbie21192 (talk) 17:01, 21 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robbie21192 (talk • contribs) 16:56, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Blanking the page as either an anonymous IP or as yourself[8] is not the solution. But with the article lacking proper sources and verifiability, it looks like your wish will be granted soon enough. As for wanting the identity of another contributor, he's anonymous and no one here knows just who he is. However, you might ask him questions on his talk page. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:13, 21 May 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. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:38, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sexposition[edit]

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

Neologism. Fails WP:NEO. Possible candidate for Wiktionary. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:47, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Urban Dictionary is thattaway. ---------> Carrite (talk) 17:26, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep nj.com, Bangor Daily News, NYTimes blog, Salon, National Post. WP:BEFORE fail, term clearly meets GNG. Jclemens (talk) 17:39, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You may notice a certain similarity in those pieces, all of which relate back to the same source of this neologism. This is a recently coined word of little general applicability. It is not in wide use and likely never will be. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:06, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sure, but multiple RS'es commenting on the same source of an event does not impair notability in any way. The fact that multiple high-quality RS'es have taken note of the term in reference to a current, critically acclaimed TV series supports, rather than impeaches, its inclusion-worthiness. Jclemens (talk) 20:06, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm... which one of the above exactly do you consider "high-quality RS'es"?VolunteerMarek 21:56, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as creator. The article is not about the word (in which case it would be a neologistic dictionary entry unsuited for Wikipedia). It is about the narrative technique, which is older than the word. As such, it is a subarticle of Exposition (literary technique) and a companion article to the other entries in Category:Narrative techniques. I first drafted it as a section in the main Exposition article (which, if necessary, it could again become), but that article is already reasonably long, and this sub-topic has both sufficient coverage for notability (as shown above) and expansion potential to stand alone: The Guardian article cites a number of earlier works in which this technique has been used, which means that there is room for sourced analysis and examples that pre-date and go beyond the use in Game of Thrones that caused somebody to coin a word for the pre-existing technique. Sandstein 19:08, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Exposition delivered in sexual situations doesn't seem worthy of its own section, let alone its own article. Without the neologism to suggest that it is somehow different from, say, exposition delivered while walking, it is simply exposition. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:27, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, no; according to the sources, sexposition is functionally different from exposition delivered while walking in that it also serves to distract and/or titillate the part of the audience that is not interested in the exposition, which allows narrators to get away with infodumps that would otherwise be too boring. The sources also discuss the other effects of this technique, such as its implied insult to the audience's intelligence or maturity: "We think you are too stupid or juvenile to pay attention, so here are some boobs to look at." Sandstein 06:47, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, say about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term." Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:42, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge. I find the arguments of both User:Sandstein and User:Jclemens to be compelling reasons for inclusion in this encyclopedia as a sourcable and improvable subarticle of Exposition (literary technique). At the very least, we might discuss its content being merged to Exposition (literary technique)#Sexposition to improve THAT article, but an outright deletion of this searchable topic does not serve the project nor its readers. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:33, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, Carrite, and Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. See [9]. Draco^E 08:43, 21 May 2012 (UTC) Changed to Merge, per my reply to Schmidt. Draco^E 03:54, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not see that there being an unsourced one-sentence definition in Wicktionary as a reason to delete our well-sourced article on the topic. Thank you for sharing, but the existance of one does not automatically require deletion or retention of the other. No doubt that in our efforts to build an encyclopedia and expand a reader's understanding of various topics being discussed, there may be other terms with brief definitions there, that have similar in-depth expansion and coverage here. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:52, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Schmidt, I thought long and hard before voting; and this short article is well written. However, it only has two sources and looks like a case of WP:RECENT. I will change my vote to Merge, as in use to expand the existing paragraph about this term in Exposition (literary technique), based on the quality of the writing. Can you live with that? Draco^E 03:47, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Jclemens and Sandstein. Could even be naughty and say keep per Hullaballoo Wolfowitz , as there are are multiple sources that dont just mention the term, but which are entirely about this important concept: (.e.g. nj.com and Guardian article ) FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:16, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The term is certainly not notable; the concept might be, but I don't see any long-term evidence for it. Powers ^T 23:31, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jclemens & Sandstein, looks like it meets WP:NEO. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:30, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Sandstein & Schmidt, sourcable and improvable subarticle of Exposition (literary technique). Cavarrone (talk) 20:57, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jclemens , Sandstein and Cavarrone-- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 08:08, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I see that the term is not able to get enough notability, very low in fact but not zero. The concept is notable though. →TSU ^tp* 16:38, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, new, not yet notable neologism. Even the refs use it in scare quotes. Hairhorn (talk) 14:57, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Exposition (literary technique)- Sexposition is notable enough to be a section in the Exposition article, but I don't think it needs its own article. WoundedWolfgirl (talk) 18:00, 30 May 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 nothing really/invalid nomination, since this is not a deletion request. Merging doesn't require administrative intervention, and it doesn't seem anyone objects, so that's at normal editorial discretion. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

XBRLS[edit]

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

I doubt that this notable to get it's enough article, maybe merge it to XBRL. mabdul 19:57, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural closure This is AfD, not Articles for Redirection. Unscintillating (talk) 04:41, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Although you are right with that, the outcome of an AfD can be a merge/redirection or even a cleanup. mabdul 14:11, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question did you consider doing the merge/redirect WP:BEFORE opening this AfD? --Kvng (talk) 17:02, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: This may have been a little hastily created but let's get consensus before closing it

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 16:27, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural closure as per user:Unscintillating and lack of response from user:mabdul. --Kvng (talk) 17:11, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sry, for the late response. Really: yes I considered placing simple tags on two pages and waiting two years (or more) before somebody is doing anything. I still doubt that there should be two pages and thus nominating this page at AfD. The result of an AFD doesn't have to be a deletion, it can also be a merger, cleanup or redirection... so why didn't you (Kvng) collecting some arguments against any changes of this article? mabdul 17:17, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After discussion, result of an AfD can be a merge but the procedural complaint by myself (and I presume user:Unscintillating) is that you shouldn't open an AfD unless you want the article deleted wholesale. If from the outset, you think a merge is in order, WP:SOFIXIT. If you're not up for the work, it can indeed take a while for another volunteer to get around to doing it for you. --Kvng (talk) 17:43, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The "deletion guideline" that includes WP:SK#1 is marked as being "a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow..." Unscintillating (talk) 19:45, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to XBRL, per WP:PRODUCT (it is a product, isn't it?) and nomination. -- Trevj (talk) 09:51, 30 May 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) 23:49, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel Vasconcellos Ferreira[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by an IP without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:21, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:21, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:21, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:21, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 16:32, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFOOTBALL as he has not played in a fully pro league, and also fails WP:GNG. --sparkl_!sm ^hey! 07:51, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Mentoz86 (talk) 09:22, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:43, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Thus, is not WP:N →TSU ^tp* 21:52, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. →B music ian 00:12, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NFOOTBALL and all above -- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 08:10, 27 May 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. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:39, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unison Operating System[edit]

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

Non-notable Operating System. Ridernyc (talk) 15:46, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't see how this will pass WP:N, lacks significant coverage. It doesn't seem like it's in wide usage at all. I'd expect an operating system worth mentioning to include details of where it is deployed, at least. All (one) sources fail WP:RS too. -Rushyo ^Talk 16:56, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not pass WP:SOFTWARE and WP:GNG — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:40, 29 May 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) 23:50, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Silverbird Group[edit]

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

1. notability - fails verification of refs - a passing mention in a BBC article does not an article make 2. multiple issues - requires complete rewrite Widefox (talk) 13:59, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no notability asserted, sources are bad. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:24, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- Dewritech (talk) 08:38, 21 May 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 Genetic memory (psychology). Any useful content can be merged from the history if deemed useful by editorial consensus. Sandstein 16:13, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blood memory[edit]

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

The article seems to have no basis in fact. It cites legitimate scholarly sources in order to support a pseudoscientific notion of genetic memory. I will note that the article is written by someone who chose the name Bloodmemory, who has only ever edited this article. Bananabananabanana (talk) 13:53, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Genetic memory (psychology). We already have an article on this stuff and this adds little, being pretty much incoherent. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:13, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Genetic memory (psychology), condensing this article down to a small section or paragraph. Some of the sources are useful but subject matter doesn't appear to merit a full article. Interesting enough from a historical viewpoint to warrant at least a mention IMO. -Rushyo ^Talk 14:35, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect Seems to cover same topic as Genetic memory (psychology). If it can be shown to be clearly different, it might merit its own article due to the included refs, despite the weakness of this article at present (just because something's untrue or pseudo-science isn't reason for deletion). --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:21, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge - currently this is a WP:FORK, and even in the lead, admits is the same thing as 'genetic memory'. In common parlance, 'blood' is used an a synomym for 'genetics' or DNA. Bearian (talk) 19:23, 22 May 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. There is a very clear consensus that the subject is not independently notable enough for an article. Consequently, I am closing this discussion as resulting in deletion, because the editors in favor of a redirect do not indicate in their comments that there could be any reason for the edit history to remain visible. There is no consensus about whether there should then be a redirect from the title "Priscilla Chan (Mark Zuckerberg)" to Mark Zuckerberg#Personal life (or whether a link from Priscilla Chan (disambiguation) is enough). That question, however, does not need to be answered here. If deemed necessary, anybody can create such a redirect, and anybody can then request its deletion at WP:RFD, which is where the appropriateness of that redirect can be discussed more extensively. Sandstein 16:07, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Priscilla Chan (Mark Zuckerberg)[edit]

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

Not notable, notability is not inherited. Speedy deletion tags have been removed by article creator 4 times. GregJackP Boomer! 13:50, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - absolutely no claim to notability is present. --Onorem♠Dil 14:06, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - FYI, speedy delete was also declined, due to press coverage of marriage to Zuckerberg. There is no separate coverage of Chan, and since notability is not inherited, I brought it to AFD. GregJackP Boomer! 15:52, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability is usually not inherited, and I don't think it has been inherited in this case. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:46, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E Lugnuts (talk) 17:59, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
clear Delete, not notable. At best this could be a redirect. Hairhorn (talk) 18:45, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mark Zuckerberg#Personal life Not notable, but people will look her up on WP. This way they'd reach helpful info. Boleyn (talk) 19:22, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mark Zuckerberg. Plausible search term, probably satisfies the GNG, but per NOTINHERITED principles doesn't sustain an independent article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:30, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I suppose I'm not against a redirect, but the current title is just silly. The disambiguation term is (Mark Zuckerberg)? Seriously? Put Priscilla Chan (singer) back at Priscilla Chan and add a hatnote to ~~Priscilla Chan (not actually notable but married someone famous)~~ some better title. --Onorem♠Dil 19:41, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I agree (Onorem). A redirect with such a name would indeed be implausible. -- WikHead (talk) 20:02, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 21:19, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 21:19, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Obvious vanity, article doesn't assert any kind of notability. The fact that someone might be notable enough to have their own article, doesn't make that person's girlfriend, sister, mother, father, teacher or neighbour notable (WP:NOTINHERITED). Josh Gorand (talk) 21:44, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rename & Redirect- To Priscilla Chan Zuckerberg & Redirect as above; whether she takes his name or not, better than current disambiguation, and will be recognizable in search box. Once independent notability is achieved, title will resolve. Dru of Id (talk) 21:50, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOTINHERITED. Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:33, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:16, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Not significant enough to have an independent article, but it's a reasonable search term. I would redirect to Mark Zuckerberg. Gnayshkr3020 (talk) 08:09, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Not notable but it's reasonable for her to be mentioned in the article on her husband. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:23, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect; this is what we generally do to articles about nonnotable relatives of notable people. Nyttend (talk) 12:21, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~ - Not notable enough, but maybe one day this will change. While closing, please take out the links from the Zuckerberg article. I had removed the ones to the disambiguation page before. Now there are new links to this article with a strange name. gidonb (talk) 14:42, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete this complicated term. A link from the disambig page to the personal relations of the husband is sufficient for now (changing from redirect). gidonb (talk) 19:20, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't keep this name: I don't think a redirect at this title follows our nomenclature. Better to have a redirect at Priscilla Chan Zuckerberg or just Priscilla Chan, and if either of those articles exist, hatnote to the related section in Mark's article p b p 16:31, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Not notable enough to warrant an article, consider redirecting to page Mark Zuckerberg where relevance and notability are more even. -- Sleegi^[✆Talk] 17:13, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, DO NOT redirect, doesn't meet notability requirements, and no body's going to search the exact words "Priscilla Chan (Mark Zuckerberg)" to get information on specifically her. Furthermore, there are only two articles linking to this this article: a disambiguation page and Mark Zuckerburg, so there's no need for the redirect at all. Trinitresque (talk) 18:48, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mark Zuckerberg#Personal life WP:NOTINHERITED, but people might look up "Priscilla Chan (physician)" or "Priscilla Chan Zuckerberg" (if Chan changes her name). For now, redirect "Priscilla Chan (physician)" to "Mark Zuckerberg#Personal life". A hatnote should be placed at "Priscilla Chan" or "Priscilla Chan Wai-han" to direct people to "Mark Zuckerberg#Personal life". Perhaps the info add at "Priscilla Chan" should be moved to "Priscilla Chan Wai-han". Thoughts? I also oppose speedy delete unless WP:SNOWBALL is invoked.--Jax 0677 (talk) 00:16, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this name-space entirely per WP:NOTINHERITED, create redirects and a hatnote(s) (at Priscilla Chan) as indicated by User:Jax 0677 (above), and delete Priscilla Chan (disambiguation) as it will no longer be serving a useful purpose. -- WikHead (talk) 00:59, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, DO NOT redirect, agree exactly with Trinitresque above. I assume any wikipedia search for "Priscilla Chan" will also bring up Zuckerberg's entry anyway. 128.253.43.15 (talk) 03:44, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete InverseHypercube (talk) 06:31, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - She isn't notable on her own, redirect to Mark Zuckerberg#Personal life is the best option. -Abhishikt (talk) 06:48, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Denysmonroe81 (talk) 14:48, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Notability is not inherited, but she will be searched relatively often. Vincent Moon (talk) 15:50, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - If notability is usually not inherited, then why is so much fussing over her? - Smmmaniruzzaman (talk) 19:04, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Because the term might be likely to be searched, we are having the discussion about whether or not have it redirect to Zuckerberg.--Jax 0677 (talk) 19:41, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - millions on facebook are talking about it. shes appeared in numerous news feeds (like CNN, Washington Post, ABC News, Forbes to mention a few), thus i assume allot of people will try to check her up on wikipedia. This warrants a redirect IMO. Divinity76 (talk) 01:37, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets GNGLuciferWildCat (talk) 01:29, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would respectfully request that the article not be deleted. Ms. Chan is an emerging web personality and celebrity in her own right. Having been referenced in over 50 major newspaper articles and over 25 interviews, Ms. Chan is a topic which needs to be included in Wikipedia. In additional, Ms. Chan is a cultural treasure of both China and the U.S. and should be considered as a kind of "Royalty" in the U.S. Evan1261 (talk) 15:35, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no royalty in the US. It doesn't make you royal being married to someone who owns a website (which had its heyday in 2007) in the US or anywhere else. Josh Gorand (talk) 22:23, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It must be deleted, otherwise all family members of each famous person will have a wiki page. She has not done anything that requires attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.26.64.37 (talk)
Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.148.135.151 (talk) 15:17, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mark. Right now, she is notable only for her wedding to Mark, which is a pretty classic case of inheritance and 1 event. She COULD become highly notable, but we cant predict the future here. Actually, after thinking it was horrible, i realized this isnt a bad search term, considering that the parenthesis doesnt have to be in the typed term to find it. I think having a collection of search terms to redirect to his article is fine, including Priscilla Chan (Facebook), Priscilla Chan Zuckerberg and Priscilla Zuckerberg (they dont have to be correct, just have to be strings people are likely to type. having a hatnote at the singer is fine too. absolutely no prejudice to recreating an article, though probably not at this article name.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:55, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not independently notable for anything - as per Trinitresqueno , there is no added value to a redirect - Youreallycan 20:58, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Looks like snow, can we delete this thing now? There is no assertion of notability of any kind in the article. Josh Gorand (talk) 22:26, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I think that we should let the AfD run its course. I think that a tossup between Delete and Redirect should default to Redirect. I have started a discussion about this at Wikipedia talk:No consensus#I have initiated a discussion about what the default should be for WP:NO CONSENSUS between .22Delete.22 .28the article.29 and .22Redirect.22 .28the article.29--Jax 0677 (talk) 02:08, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I fail to see anything controversial about creating useful redirects once this article is deleted. -- WikHead (talk) 04:51, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mark Zuckerberg's page. Right now the only thing notable about Priscilla is that she married Mark Zuckerberg; this is especially evident in that even the current title for the page has "Mark Zuckerberg" in it. It's still worthy of being in Mark Zuckerberg's page though because of 1) media coverage (there've been several mentions of her) and 2) immediate relevancy (a wife is one of one's closest family, on par with parents, children and siblings). If Wikipedia covers Mark Zuckerberg's personal life there's no reason to not include mention of Priscilla. Perfectly reasonable to search for "Priscilla Chan" too, especially given the media coverage, and it would be a shame to turn up nothing. Banedon (talk) 04:14, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Redirect This page is currently one of the top links on the Google News item on the marriage. We should redirect immediately (per Mercurywoodrose) to Mark Zuckerberg#Personal life so that readers don't click on the link and find a poorly written article with a big unsightly notice at the top. Can we take steps to avoid this kind of thing happening in the future? --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 10:06, 28 May 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) 23:51, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Teh 999[edit]

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

Looks like a dime-a-dozen brand of tea. Trivial third-party coverage, fails to establish notability. Proposed deletion contested by creator. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 13:41, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Web searches are showing me images of the product but nothing to establish notability. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 15:10, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no notability established. I also note that the creator's only edits are related to Teh 999. --Merbabu (talk) 22:19, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I concur that notability is not established. I couldn't find reliable references in various gSearches. Geoff ^{Who, me?} 01:02, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 21:08, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 21:08, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable or referenced. Also can't find any refs. →TSU ^tp* 21:53, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable advertisement without sources to establish notability-- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 08:12, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not an advert precisely as there is just one line and it is too short to attract people to the brand. →TSU ^tp* 16:41, 27 May 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) 23:51, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anton Christodoulou[edit]

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

Non notable, created by subject apparently, no evidence of any notability in any of the references Justinc (talk) 13:11, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 20:53, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 20:53, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 20:53, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've just ploughed through the first 15 references looking for instances of "Christodoulou" — there were none on most of the referenced pages, and the remaining pages were inaccessible for one reason or another.--A bit iffy (talk) 21:15, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I checked all of the source, as per the above, and found that six mentioned this guy. The problem being that they simply quote him as being CTO of a non-notable company, which doesn't establish notability. Nik thestoned 09:32, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After some Googling I cannot find anything that indicates why he's notable.—A bit iffy (talk) 10:48, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: After screening >200 Google-hits: nothing substantial. -- Dewritech (talk) 11:03, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Dewritech. →TSU ^tp* 21:55, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agreed per User:Dewritech and above -- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 08:14, 27 May 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. Dipankan ^{(Have a chat?)} 10:25, 27 May 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)}[reply]

David E. Williams Middle School[edit]

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

nn middle school, doing what every other middle school does Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 12:05, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article has been around since Nov 2008 and hasn't bothered anyone. What is wrong with having an article about a public school? --Mjrmtg (talk) 12:48, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To keep an article, you must have a better argument than "it hasn't bothered anyone" (WP:NOHARM) or "it's been around since such and such a year" or anything else that falls under WP:AADD. Even schools must show that they have notability per Wikipedia guidelines. I don't have an opinion either way, but none of your arguments are valid. You need to show how it's notable per guidelines and back this up with reliable sources.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 13:15, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You guys kill me. So much for discussion? Redirect. I am so trying to be civil and not call you guys what you are but you're making it pretty difficult. Is wikipedia running out of room on their servers? Try to be un-routine for once. I took a wikipedia survey not to long ago and it asked if I edit more or less often than thee past and why. I stated I edited less often and it was because of users that like to delete articles instead of trying to find ways to improve them (among other things). --Mjrmtg (talk) 15:59, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I never said I wanted it deleted, just that if you want it kept, you have to argue your point differently as none of those arguments will help keep the article, unfortunately. I have to admit that I don't see the harm either in keeping articles about different schools, but that's not a reason to keep articles around and in the end the keep arguments need to be backed up with sources that prove that the school in question has notability. Not all of us are die-hard deletionists. Some of the rules are overly strict, but unfortunately that's because there have been people in the past (mostly companies and individuals looking to promote themselves or their products) that have abused the system enough to where it's necessary. I think I speak for a lot of us when we say we wish it wasn't necessary, but when you have people like "E.A. Blayre III" using Wikipedia to promote his book to the point of extreme abuse, you have to create stronger rules that end up removing the semi-notable authors in the process in order to keep out the truly undeserving. (I know that this is a school AfD, but the basic premise is the same.) I never meant to be rude, just letting you know that you've got to argue from a different standpoint. It's frustrating and I've seen a lot of articles deleted that I personally think has notability (such as a lot of ones about NYT bestselling authors and their books) yet doesn't have notability per Wikipedia guidelines. It's unfortunately just the way it is and it's unlikely to change back to the old ways anytime soon, if at all.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:03, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

not call you guys what you are? You've never read WP:CIVIL, so I will direct you and the horse you rode in on to do just that.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 17:02, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith and consider that WP:CIVIL is not just for newcomers. -Rushyo ^Talk 17:06, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect- To Montour School District, where it is already appropriately listed, as a uniquely named verifiable primary school with an identifyable anchor destination per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Schools. All coverage is routine. Dru of Id (talk) 13:30, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Fails WP:N for an article in its own right and is a perfect candidate for WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. -Rushyo ^Talk 17:09, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per standard practice for all but the most exceptionally noteworthy elementary schools. Carrite (talk) 17:28, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as is standard practice. It amazes me that we as a community continue to waste time on discussing something where the outcome has been so obvious for so long. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 18:49, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 20:46, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 20:46, 20 May 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. Dipankan ^{(Have a chat?)} 10:28, 27 May 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Omega Elementary School[edit]

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

nn grade school, doing what every other grade school does Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 12:00, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article has been around since Dec 2009 and hasn't bothered anyone. What is wrong with having an article about a public school? --Mjrmtg (talk) 12:48, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As User:Tokyogirl79 explicitly stated in your last deletion discussion, "hasn't bothered anyone" isn't a valid keep reason. Please take a look at WP:NOHARM. Articles on Wikipedia must meet Wikipedia's notability guideline, if a subject meets these guidelines, then it is suitable for inclusion in this encyclopedia. If a public school shows very little significance, then it's not notable. --Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 14:15, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - You guys kill me. So much for discussion? Redirect. I am so trying to be civil and not call you guys what you are but you're making it pretty difficult. Is wikipedia running out of room on their servers? Try to be un-routine for once. I took a wikipedia survey not to long ago and it asked if I edit more or less often than thee past and why. I stated I edited less often and it was because of users that like to delete articles instead of trying to find ways to improve them (among other things). --Mjrmtg (talk) 15:59, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a place to write articles about encyclopedic things. I learned that the hard way as well. Many tend to forget that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, we can't have the run of the mill by making an article on every single elementary school there is. I agree, once in a while, you should ignore all rules, but we can't have this on the encyclopedia. --Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 20:49, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey whiny-you've been here 6 years, you should know better by now about everything you've been screeching about, from notability issues to your own civility issues.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 17:09, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect- To Tift County School District where it is already appropriately mentioned. Would say Move to Omega Elementary Shool (Omega, Georgia), then Disambiguate here, but Omega Elementary School (Glendale, Arizona) [10] has no viable anchor destination, as Omega Academy Inc. School District not created or listed in school districts in Arizona or Maricopa County, nor is the school mentioned in Glendale, Arizona. Coverage for both is routine. Dru of Id (talk) 13:53, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per long-running consensus for all but the most exceptional elementary schools. Carrite (talk) 17:29, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 20:43, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 20:43, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to school district per the standard consensus established for such articles. Can't find much significance. --Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 02:33, 22 May 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 Colquitt County School District#Middle Schools. (non-admin closure) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:41, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Williams Middle School (Moultrie, Georgia)[edit]

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

nn middle school, doing what every other middle school does Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 11:57, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article has been around since Dec 2009 and hasn't bothered anyone. What is wrong with having an article about a public school? --Mjrmtg (talk) 12:48, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You guys kill me. So much for discussion? Redirect. I am so trying to be civil and not call you guys what you are but you're making it pretty difficult. Is wikipedia running out of room on their servers? Try to be un-routine for once. I took a wikipedia survey not to long ago and it asked if I edit more or less often than thee past and why. I stated I edited less often and it was because of users that like to delete articles instead of trying to find ways to improve them (among other things). --Mjrmtg (talk) 15:59, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Boo-hoo. With a tone like that, who do you expect to listen?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 17:13, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect- To Colquitt County School District#Middle Schools, where it is already appropriately listed, per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Schools. All coverage is routine. Dru of Id (talk) 14:03, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per standard practice for all but the most exceptional elementary schools. Dru has identified the target. Carrite (talk) 17:30, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 20:39, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 20:39, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: p b p 16:26, 28 May 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 Florence Public School District One#Middle schools. (non-admin closure) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:44, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Williams Middle School (Florence, South Carolina)[edit]

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

nn middle school, doing what every other middle school does Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 11:53, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article has been around since May 2008 and hasn't bothered anyone. What is wrong with having an article about a public school? --Mjrmtg (talk) 12:48, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of notability, for starters, as clearly stated in the nomination.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 17:15, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've come to the realization that there are editors that live for killing articles. It doesn't matter if the article has been around for 2 years or 2 days. Any school elementary, middle, high school should be able to have its own article. Elementary schools feed middle schools, middle schools feed high schools. --Mjrmtg (talk) 00:00, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect- To Florence Public School District One#Middle schools, where it is already appropriately listed, per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Schools. All coverage is routine. Dru of Id (talk) 14:08, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per standard practice for all but the most exceptional elementary schools. I wish there were a speedy criterion for such redirects... Carrite (talk) 17:31, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed-who should we talk to about that?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 11:33, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 20:34, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 20:34, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Um...Wikipedia:WikiProject Education, for starters? Dru of Id (talk) 01:58, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, I'd have thought an admin notice board or something.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 11:29, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Never hurts to make a proposal that already has consensus & support from the relevant WikiProject. Dru of Id (talk) 15:28, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: p b p 16:26, 28 May 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. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:07, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chyren selin[edit]

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

Previously a Prod with rationale "Unreferenced original research essay of no notability." The Prod was removed by the article creator without comment, though in fairness with the addition of several references. However these are broad references to matters mentioned in the article (Nostradamus, Indian census, etc.) rather than pertaining to the synthesis here. So I am bringing this to AfD on the grounds that the article continues to be an original research essay with no demonstrated notability. AllyD (talk) 08:40, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is not "unrefernced original research" readers may read the references and go to the other concerned articles that already exsist on wikipedia that support the contents of the article. i was new user to wikipedia so don't really know how to add the refernces and notability so after creattion i have written CONTD (continued)at end to add more.After first notice with help i could add those references,editing,numberings,notability,signature with time stamp and so removed the deletion notice because i addressed the raised concerns. The original source of this article is Nostradamus and his books so given references about him.article only supports the contents of nostradamus prophecy with strong evidences. The content of article supports nostradamus prophecy by simplifing the greek words(selina,hermes) those used by nostradamus. it simply aid the nostradamus original writings so its not original research. i am commited with wikipedia gudlines and terms of use and happy with the disscusion on the article quality evidences that will make it more trustworthy.i will keep on editing the article with more information. thanks --Anilkalsi78 (talk) 10:04, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The reference nostradamus is given to get a detailed introduction about him.It is not possibly to give all details about him and his work on this article.Actually this concept is broad.To understand nostradamus and his way of work it is required to go through the writings of diffrent researchers that helps the readers.--Anilkalsi78 (talk) 11:23, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Wikipedia is not a place to post your personal theories on Nostradamus or his theories. None of the sources provided show that this theory has any notability, nor do they actually back up any of the claims. This is all conjecture and theory, none of which have been proven or commented on by anyone notable or reliable. Please read over WP:RS and WP:OR.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 11:27, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- … while you read Project:Criteria for speedy deletion. Uncle G (talk) 12:41, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "nor do they actually back up any of the claims. This is all conjecture and theory, none of which have been proven or commented on by anyone notable or reliable. Please read over WP:RS and WP:OR." kindly notify the content that made you to think so.--117.254.216.100 (talk) 12:32, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per original PROD. Vague, unencyclopaedic, dreamy OR essay. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 11:28, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
yes sure wikipedia is not place for personal theories and i admitted and to use it as per terms and conditions.without going through the references and understanding the concept it cannot be said that work is fictious.--Anilkalsi78 (talk) 11:54, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please keep replies (if any) very brief, focussing on the key issue, which is whether there are reliable sources for the statements in the article.
Delete, WP:OR. Sources given have scant relevance in this vague and confusing essay. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:29, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pure original research – and I'm wondering what speedy deletion criteria this can apply under... →B music ian 12:39, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
what is ojectionable the way article is written or the person,location indicated with nostradamus quatrains.--Anilkalsi78 (talk) 12:56, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
is the moderation only for deletion? don't help to develop the article.--Anilkalsi78 (talk) 12:56, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There's many things in the article that are original research by you, but I'll limit what I'll list. First off, you give a specific date of birth and nationality for Selin. Nowhere in Nostradamus's book does he mention the exact year that Selin will be born. Also, while Asia is mentioned in the prophecies, it's more commonly believed theory-wise that Selin will be a French king or possibly one of the Popes. There's nothing to say that a person from India couldn't ascend to the seat of the Pope or marry into the French royalty, but there's nothing to prove that they would either. It's all original research and theory on your part. As for sources, the links you've given don't mention your theory at all. While a census might be considered a reliable source on another article about a town in India, it can't be used as a reliable source on your article because it doesn't mention your theory at all. Reliable sources are articles, books, and the like that discuss the subject in depth and are considered to be reliable and verifiable per Wikipedia policy. None of the sources that I can see verify any of your specific theories. You can't just put any article or book as a source and claim that it verifies your research. That's not how Wikipedia works.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 12:58, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- To further show that nobody really has any idea where Selin will be born, there's also evidence to show that he could be either German or Greek, as evidenced by the line "Of Trojan blood he will be born with a German heart". So in other words, there's nothing to show that he will be specifically Indian.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 13:01, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - yes its true nostradamus have not given any nationality or person directly in his quatrains.But he has also explained the reason why he have not given any name in his letters about quatrains to his son and unknown king thats why reffered to these letters.he said if he might have done so this work might be deleted or destryoed long back in history.There would not be any sign of his work due to racism or people of perticular origin want to bias his work for their own glory.Thats why he tried to use confusing language,zodiac sign and the events of a perticular time to prevent misuse of his work.Dont underestimate nostradamus if he can see future long back in past he might also be aware of misuse of his work time to time and that he had already planed to encounter with. The quatrains in the articles are interlinked if read deeply."Of Trojan blood he will be born with a German heart" in quatrains nostradamus no where have written that he is chyren selin.its just view point may be biased.If i write country explored by columbus instead of writing America its one and the same things two sides of a coin.In same way nostradamus have written "The Religion of the name of the seas" means hindus named after hindmahasagar(indian occean).Similarly nostradamus have written in quatrain C1Q32 "The great empire will soon be transferred to a little place which will very soon come to grow:a very lowly place in a petty country in the middle of which he will come to lay down his sceptre"which proves its not france because france is not lowly petty country.While "aquatic triplicity" and "The Religion of the name of the seas" gives very strong reasons to believe it for india. --Anilkalsi78 (talk) 16:04, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - when you go through wikipedia page about zodiac indian and western astrology can understand the evidence about date of birth about certain place and person.nostradamus quatrain C2Q13"The body without soul no longer to be sacrificed:Day of death put for birthday:" and C5Q53 "The law of the Sun and of Venus in strife,Appropriating the spirit of prophecy:Neither the one nor the other will be understood,The law of the great Messiah will hold through the Sun" verify date 29 sept friday western zodiac libra and indian leo.when nostradamus want specify about time he reffers major incidents that takes place during the event of certain quatrain. Quatrains C10Q79 "The old roads will all be improved,One will procedd on them to the modern Memphis:The great Mercury of Hercules fleur-de-lys,Causing to tremble lands, sea and country" improvement of roads refered as govt of india project (NHAI-SOMA) gives solid evidence of improvement of roads and C10Q71 "The earth and air will freeze a very great sea,When they will come to venerate Thursday:That which will be never was it so fair,From the four parts they will come to honor it" the earh go towards mini Ice age --Anilkalsi78 (talk) 16:20, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Anilkalsi78, your opinion of the meaning of various selected quatrains of Nostradamus is just that, an opinion (which Wikipedia calls 'original research'). Wikipedia does not rely on anyone's opinion but on existing written facts from reliable sources. The only arguments that will be of any use are evidence that what is in the article is directly supported by specific books or published papers from reputable historical journals. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:33, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Its injustice if article of new user marked as "original research" or "eassy" without figuring out the contents of article that seems to be original research or essay.It appears to be marked due to some other reasons not due to terms of use of wikipedia.please be specific when you give comment.This topic is broad and required lots of study of refferd material to understand.however objections are welcomed and will be sorted as soon as possible.--Anilkalsi78 (talk) 16:39, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- respected Chiswick Chap sir
  - Is wikipedia article about punjab which is named after five rivers flows from there is not reliable sources?
  - Is wikipedia article about hermes (messenger of god from greek mythology)is not reliable sources?
  - Is wikipedia article about Selina(godess of moon from greek mythology)is not reliable sources?
  - Is govt of INDIA official website NHAI-soma 6 lane project panipat jalandhar is not reliable sources?
  - Is wikipedia article about Nostradamus is not reliable sources?
  - Is wikipedia article lost book of nostradamus is not reliable sources?
  - Is wikipedia article about sikhism is not reliable sources?
  - IS earhquake report 2011 increasing earthquake than normal is not reliable sources?
  - Is wikipedia article about indian occean(hindmahasagar)is not reliable sources?
- These articles link nostradamus quatrains with person,place,time not my words. --Anilkalsi78 (talk) 16:57, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - They are not reliable in the way that you are using them. They are only usable as reliable sources if they directly and explicitly mention your specific theory in detail. That means that in order for any of this to be usable or verifiable, an earthquake report would have to mention your theory in detail. You are pulling things in from different sources in ways that is not what Wikipedia considers to be reliable or verifiable. These articles and links might be considered reliable sources for other articles but they are not considered to be reliable sources when used like this because none of them mention your theory or validate it in the slightest. I could link to an article about chickens and say that Chyren Selin is actually the chicken from the Family Guy cartoons and even work out an equation to where it matches up with the birth date of one of the people who drew him, but that does not back up or prove anything. You can argue until you are blue in the face, but the end result is the same: your article is original research, none of the sources you link to prove anything, none of them mention your specific theory, and we do not have to keep an article just because it was created by a new user. We aren't a collection of theories unless it can be proven that it is a notable theory discussed by very notable persons and backed up with reliable sources that explicitly mention that specific theory. You can't link to an article that might vaguely brush against parts of your theory and claim that it proves anything because it doesn't. Just because Nostradamus and his works are notable does not mean that every theory ever thought up is notable.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:47, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The whole work or the knowledge about the future is done by nostradamus the orginal source of the artical.The reffrence given simplfy his work do not change his words.you are not clear what theory you talking about.Comparing chyren selin with chicken and cartoon etc u making fun of the concept without studing the references and without study of concept.allyD proposed deletion at 8:40 20 may 2012. you proposed speedy deletion at 11:27 20 may 2012 In 2:47 hrs you have studied whole concept and references???. I have not said if i am new user allow me to publish anything xyz.i always shown comitment to wikipedia terms of use.that meant about presentation if it appear like essay then it can be modified but this modification can be done when adviced not only with threat of deletion. You alleged me with violation of WP:OR while i think it is original research of nostradamus i have just given references in support of his words. I could not found word unencyclopediac in oxford dictionary. I am sincere about what i say if it appear wrong to me not upto the wikipedia standards i myself will delete this article. --Anilkalsi78 (talk) 17:15, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Chiswick Chap sir there wont be any long post from me here from now onwards.

Delete as original research. Dawn Bard (talk) 17:37, 22 May 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 G11 blatant advertising (or A7, for that matter). Hut 8.5 10:49, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Baharistan Heray[edit]

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

Article is written like a travel guide and reads like an advertisement as well, violating both WP:NOTTRAVEL and WP:NOTADVERTISING. Also not notable per WP:GNG as it is unsourced and I cannot find any reliable sources. jfd34 (talk) 06:44, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (speedy). A list of the facilities at a hotel, helpfully with its phone numbers? And not even a claim of notability. Feels like a CSD:G11 speedy. AllyD (talk) 09:47, 20 May 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 Kalideres. as usual; merge to the locality rather than just redirect because the information needs to be added DGG ( talk ) 01:31, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blossom International School[edit]

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

Does not pass guidelines for schools. Students are from playgroup/daycare to grade 6, making it an elementary school. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:02, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Kalideres; normal practice for nn elementary schools and the target badly needs content. TerriersFan (talk) 19:13, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:44, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article does not have significant coverage in more than one secondary verified source to satisfy WP:GNG ZachFoutre (talk) 13:00, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Struck per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Birmingham Blue Coat School. Sorry, M. Ritzman. Uncle G (talk) 14:40, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:14, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kalideres some type of merge may be possible, but it shouldn't make up the bulk of the article. Ryan Vesey Review me! 06:33, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the town per R.V. above, or delete if that is deemed inappropriate for some reason, per long-standing consensus regarding handling of articles on elementary schools. Carrite (talk) 17:33, 20 May 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. Jenks24 (talk) 10:58, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IFFHS World's Best Goalkeeper[edit]

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

A list with no sources other than the IFFHS, a barely notable statistics association. ArglebargleIV (talk) 03:59, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 04:01, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 05:23, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 04:01, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because the IFFHS appears in over 6.5 million web pages on Google ([11]) and 1,050 printed publications ([12]). It appears to have been founded in the early 1980s. So, saying it is barely notable seems ridiculous to me.—Best Dog Ever (talk) 07:40, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep and Close per WP:DEL-REASON and WP:NRVE. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:00, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - yes the IFFHS is a notable organisation; however this does not mean that this particualr article is, per WP:NOTINHERITED. I cannot find any evidence this list meets WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 09:35, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the IFFHS may be notable, but that does not make every list they publish inherently automatically notable. There is no evidence that this poll/list got any media coverage in its own right -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:42, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:05, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NOTINHERITED. The list doesn't appear to have much media coverage of its own. JoeGazz84 ♦ 12:05, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete after some thought. This article is nothing more than the presentation of a series of lists published by an independent organisation on their website. The copyright status of these lists is not clear to me but there is certainly no attempt at critical analysis in this article (nor does it seem possible, given the general lack of independent sources referring to the subject). ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 01:01, 22 May 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) 23:53, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dale Rogers[edit]

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

Bringing to AfD after de-PROD. My arguments are the same as ones I gave in a recent discussion to delete Myles Eden, another San Jose State quarterback:

As a former college football quarterback, he did not meet WP:NCOLLATH nor did he become a professional that meets WP:NGRIDIRON. He does not meet WP:GNG with multiple sources of significant coverage from independent sources. There is lots of Google hits, but the sources are mostly just his name mentioned as part of normal game coverage, or a few lines of WP:ROUTINE pre-game coverage about practices or trivial quotes about upcoming opponents. Most of the major sources are from the Bay Area News Group local papers of San Jose Mercury News or Oakland Tribune. Per GNG, "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability." If major coverage can be uncovered and his WP:IMPACT can be explained as more than a WP:Run-of-the-mill college QB, I can reconsider. Starting college quarterbacks as a group are not automatically notable, let alone one that only started a few games. I ask that the discussion not be WP:BOMBARDed with any and all coverage. —Bagumba (talk) 06:00, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Bagumba (talk) 06:07, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I contested the PROD, and not because I believe the subject is notable, but because I believe the subject may or may not be notable and would like to have some more discussion first--and hte article does at least have an assertion of notabilty. My initial reviews lead me to believe that I may come down on the same side as the nominator, but I want to take some more time to research to be sure--it's a fairly common name and sorting out all the information may take a bit of time. To do that process, I've found that input from others speeds up the process.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:07, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 19:51, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't even see an assertion of notability -- being a 1-year starter on a 2-9 WAC team hardly qualifies. I'm also not really finding anything in the way of non-trivial coverage. cmadler (talk) 13:56, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the Myles Eden decision - no awards or notability criteria met for Rogers either. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 06:32, 26 May 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. There does not appear to be any information suggesting this topic meets the general notability guideline. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:57, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proto-anticodon RNA[edit]

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

This article is on one paper written by one professor which has had one citation. I tried prodding it, but the one user who created the article on this one idea and on the one professor deprodded it. Since this kind of academic boosterism is unfortunately common, let me just say that the idea might or might not be good and it might or might not be true, but that Wikipedia is not the place to publish or promote one's new ideas. No secondary sources (in science, review papers) have mentioned this idea, and it should be removed from Wikipedia as soon as possible. Speciate (talk) 04:59, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 05:29, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I checked for other sources -- new idea in a recent paper, cited once. EEng (talk) 07:05, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of coverage in independent, reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. Maybe this will become notable in a couple of years, but for now it's WP:TOOSOON. Qwfp (talk) 13:42, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (in condensed form) and redirect to Albert Erives. --Lambiam 22:27, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it has only been cited once. I will fight you forever on this. Speciate (talk) 18:07, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please see WP:NOTBATTLE. The topic of a stand-alone article has to be notable, but separate notability is not required for all items of information given in an article. --Lambiam 23:20, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Secondary sources are required for all important parts of an article, and this piece of shit idea has none! Have you forgotten that? I haven't. Speciate (talk) 21:19, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - I find your belligerent tone disconcerting. I don't know what brings you to use that qualification for the paper, which was published in a respected peer-reviewed journal, but it is needlessly insulting to its author, reviewers, and the editors of the journal. Can we, please, keep this a civil discourse? The paper is cited in the paper by Fournier et al. (doi:10.1007/s11084-011-9261-2), which is a secondary source. The research was further reported on under the title "Dartmouth College Describes Research in Amino Acids" (paywall) in Health & Medicine Week of February 10, 2012. Also, while material based purely on primary sources should be avoided, per WP:PRIMARY primary sources are permitted if used carefully. --Lambiam 23:57, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Do you have any idea how many ideas there are in primary sources? Billions, I'll bet. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of things that have attracted secondary sources. If you read the WP:Five pillars, you will see that including this idea anywhere on Wikipedia violates Pillar One; "not a ... vanity press, ...an indiscriminate collection of information", and Pillar Two; "...strive for articles that document and explain the major points of view". Speciate (talk) 06:27, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 05:57, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relister's comment: I must discount the nominator's arguments in assessing consensus because of their battleground demeanor and tone that is completely inappropriate for a discussion among editors of an encyclopedia. Sandstein 05:59, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A single citation (per a Google Scholar search) falls far, far short of notability guidelines. In fact, I also have my doubts about Albert Erives, which seems to fail notability (h-index of 10, nothing else to meet WP:PROF). -- 202.124.72.54 (talk) 09:30, 21 May 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. WP:NOT joe decker ^{talk to me} 21:25, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dayton Ohio Streets[edit]

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

This "article" is simply a street and Zip Code Index to Dayton, Ohio. Fails WP:NOTSTATS Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 05:45, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NOTSTATS. Ryan Vesey Review me! 06:10, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above.--Chimino (talk) 06:22, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I Think That this page should Not be deleted because it has all references proving that every single,street on this list;and ever single zip code - is one hundred percent true, and accurate. This Article also has valuable sources, in the references. At this Point thats all I have to say. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Flaawless — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flaawless (talk • contribs) 06:21, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Accuracy is not a concern here if you follow the blue links provided you will see the Wikipedia policies we are basing our arguments on. Ryan Vesey Review me! 06:29, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:35, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. HouseMoney1 (talk) 07:44, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the present form delete, out of scope.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:07, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If Any one can Think Of anything to Help This page Dayton Ohio Streets. Please edit it. Flaawlss (talk) 04:57, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Flaawlss (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. -Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 14:22, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not what Wikipedia is for per WP:NOT Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 12:26, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wow, this is very inclusive and must have taken a long time to write this, but still, Wikipedia is not a directory and this blatantly fails this. --Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 14:20, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is not an article by any means. This is a photograph of the city of Dayton and a list of city streets. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 18:51, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 19:46, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 19:46, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Wikipedia is not a directory. SL93 (talk) 19:50, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Referenced, probably. Needed here, definitely not. It's a map index of one city's streets without a map to index to, an orphan article that will never find its parent because the Internet doesn't do grid maps well. A list with no use. Nate • (chatter) 22:26, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not suitable for this site. Perhaps the City's website should have this? Not Wikipedia, anyway -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\^{[alternative account of Phantomsteve]} 03:13, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Perfect content for the back of an all-inclusive printed map (to help users find streets that appear on the front), but not an encyclopedia article. We could produce a list of the notable streets, but given the city's population of 141,000, it's likely to have just three notable streets — really not enough for a list. Nyttend (talk) 12:18, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I like what was trying to be accomplished through this article, but this is definately not suitable for Wikipedia. Another website might be more appropriate. I would kindly disagree with Nyttend about one point though. Dayton would really have about a dozen notable streets that could be listed. Population isn't the key, it's the history and notability behind the subject matter that counts. Texas141 (talk) 12:27, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike you, I'm not from Dayton, and I don't know the city well; besides the numbered streets, the only street name I know (without looking at a list) is Far Hills Avenue. If you look at the link, you'll see the reason why I paid attention to the population instead of attempting to consider the historical sources about which I simply know nothing. Nyttend (talk) 13:01, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, and it's a valid one at that since you are not from the area and familiar with the historical significances and backgrounds of the city. I was just pointing out that a city should not be judged by it's populaion alone. Some larger cities may hardly have anything to talk about while some smaller cities may have a much richer history. It really varies place to place. Texas141 (talk) 19:16, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely agree with that. Smaller cities generally wouldn't qualify to have any street articles based on the "it's likely" link, but we have Court Avenue in Bellefontaine because of its historic significance. Nyttend (talk) 13:58, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"The Reality Of Dayton Ohio Streets"

I Think That this is a reference guide to every single wiki page on Dayton Ohio - it is to be included as an extra to all articles that deals with Dayton Ohio, wiki-pages and Montgomery county and Ohio and zip codes and streets in wiki - it's simply a guide to all streets in the Dayton Ohio Metropolitan statistic area. It's not as if someone couldn't find more information online about these streets;Plus there is hyper links in the begging paragraphs directing to more information on streets and zip codes.

It seam as if someone is just not ready for the research process of streets. So they stop @ a listing of all streets - supposedly - with out realizing that they really want more;Or that they can use this to remember zip codes they forgot or never knew.

After all who, if handed a blank sheet of paper can remember one hundred percent - every single zip code and street name in the Dayton Ohio streets listing? In my eyes no one can pass that test with a one hundred; So this could be a study or memory guide on any.

Though I am Plotting on making sentence descriptions right next to each street;which i'm working on @ the moment. I don't think it's needed with how much info is on the net. This could be simple as redirecting ever street to a new website by hyper-linking. Or hyper-linking each street in the Wikipedia list /article. (Then again i do think that descriptions are needed next to each street;though population is not my main concern, it's still part of the education and city and is possible to be Known.

Now Wikipedia has aced this being a valuable piece of information in Dayton Ohio streets. I also have changed The Article to a Wikipedia list - so it's not supposed to be an article anymore it's supposed to be a Wikipedia listing. Flaawless (talk)--HDJ 00:31, 21 May 2012 (UTC)(UTC)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Flaawless[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dayton_Ohio_Streets http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_Of_Dayton_Ohio_Streets — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flaawless (talk • contribs) 00:23, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article was moved to Wikipedia:List Of Dayton Ohio Streets and into the wrong article space. Sorry, that's not how an AfD works Flaawlees; the WP: space is only for articles and administration regarding Wikipedia processes. I've moved it back to the article space. Nate • (chatter) 01:01, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment Moved back to original title completely. Nate • (chatter) 01:15, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Though I am Plotting on making sentence descriptions right next to each street;which i'm working on @ the moment. I don't think it's needed with how much info is on the net. This could be simple as redirecting ever street to a new website by hyper-linking. Or hyper-linking each street in the Wikipedia list /article.(old comment)

New comment: Then again I do think that descriptions are needed next to each street;though population is not my main concern, it's still part of the education and city and is possible to be Known. I think that if the Dayton Metropolitan statistic area is notable with-in, it's self - that everything with-in it should be noted. Unless The City Plan on closing each street and having zero population. Though I realize to myself Dayton Ohio and there streets is more notable over the whole intire Dayton Metropolitan statistic area. Though that's gone only get me to why Dayton is the county seat.Flaawless (talk --HDJ 17:42, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think the real question is whether this list is the kind of information Wikipedia would want to have for any city. I don't think we have lists in this format for any other city. And if people need to know the zip code for any address, they can look it up on the U.S. Postal Service web site, which already exists and covers the entire United States, rather than trying to use a list like this on Wikipedia. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:23, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New comment: That was the goal and objective to be the first and or only list at this exact way - some people in this world need this kind of information - I also added a USPS Locator link in the Wikipedia list Title For instances they need this kind of info if they use USPS and or Google or any search engine based on this - that's why this can be useful in Wikipedia also. The Format on the list will change. So that's understanding. That's about it - that's understood - at this moment. This list in my eyes is still possible to be used with Wikipedia and other services.Flaawless (talk--HDJ 21:21, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of ZIP Codes in the United States by state, which resulted in the deletion of comparable pages — while those lists were of ZIP codes rather than streets, both those lists and this list were/are long directories of information much better suited to other types of projects, not to encyclopedias. Nyttend (talk) 13:56, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY-- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 08:17, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wiki is not a directory and it fails WP:NOTSTATS →TSU ^tp* 16:51, 27 May 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. Closing early for WP:SNOW and WP:IAR, to save the subject further embarrassment through this AfD and because of the WP:BLP concerns regarding the article content. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:03, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shardul Pandey[edit]

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

A user on Hindi wikipedia (hi:user:शार्दूल created page on Hindi and was deleted, I had tagged delete notice here also the person is not notable and is a mere user, but it was removed by some one pl see this-Bhawani (talk) 05:29, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:CSD G11 Ryan Vesey Review me!

The idea that anyone averaging 10 comments per day in AfD discussions was canvassed to a particular discussion would need a diff. Too funny. Dru of Id (talk) 19:01, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) Although I don't think I average that many. I haven't even hit 100 discussions yet and I've been here for a year and a couple months. I'm going to head that way again now. Ryan Vesey Review me! 19:08, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Although I have a strong sense of not arguing in favor of my works just to let my sense of contribution benefitting by other Wikipedians’ debate but here I will have to make a few things very clear as a matter of public truth in the interest of Wikipedia: -

This user Bhawani wrongly claimed that user hi:user:शार्दूल had written this article and subjected to deletion without seeing that article was created by me and is within the scope of WikiProject Biography already rated in its category as stub class.
Once this user Bhawani made a mistake of wrongly subjecting and getting deleted its hindi version so now tricking most of Wikipedians make another mistake here by spreading false information like on user Al Ameer son’s talk page user Bhawani had written that "please see Shardul_Pandey, an article written by a user. His user name on Hindi wikipedia is hi:user:शार्दूल." No not him nor anyone else but I started this article about a notable person who is very much notable always topping all possible results in google search and the article started by me itself attracted 2090 curious visitors in last 60 days proving the subject notable enough. Thousands of people are coming on Wikipedia wants to read about him and millions search him on google so only he tops the result.
Bhawani evidently shows habit of wrongdoings as is shown on all over his talk page including his failed attempt of creating a page about a not notable person Panakj sharma and he was clearly warned "I deleted the Panakj sharma page that you created, because it was not an encyclopedic article. Please do contribute constructively to Wikipedia—the "Welcome" text at the top of this page contains some helpful information." by user User:Ucucha. Later on a page on Wikipedia about Pankaj Sharma got made with correct spellings (as first one was made so hurriedly that spellings too went wrong perhaps: WHAT KIND OF THIS WIKIPEDIAN HAS ENFORCED THIS TIME-WASTE FOR ALL OF US), which attracts only 640 readers in 60 days. Should we subject that too for speedy deletion?

Whenever I get some time I always try to create some article for Wikipedia as value-addition to this commonwealth of humanity and whatever suits to most of Wikipedians stays and whatever is not not but user-behavior here is not a lesser subject to keep under check than our articles are.--SearchinUnMentionedInformationThrough8158 09:33, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete no significant coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:BIO; article also is overly promotional. The SPA IP's should note that Wikipedia is not a democracy and that deletion arguments should be grounded in policy. →B music ian 12:46, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

loads of speedy keep votes from single-purpose IP editors

Strong Keep as this article is certainly not a case of WP:CSD G11. you have not read it perhaps as anyone can see that it is not. Read Early Years--101.63.211.57 (talk) 07:45, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP article is neutral, categorically rated, adequately popular among readers and the subject is notably mentioned in the list of notables as Pandey in wikipedia so keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.242.231.162 (talk) 09:53, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep I have checked sufficiently to agree with creator of the page in all his three arguments above. Nominator for deletion is not mature enough for Wikipedian behavior. See this article Bharatiya Gorkha Parisangh made by him. Such things are subject to WP:CSD G11 and niether he did bother to put references in context nor the article is popular enough. Only 50 times it was seen in last 30 days perhaps by user Bhawani and his subject to celebrate success.--115.184.13.151 (talk) 10:17, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep- yes alexa.com shows no data for official website of Bharatiya Gorkha Parisangh Nominator of this deletion is dubious by behavior. Better someone put Bharatiya Gorkha Parisangh for speedy deletion. This discussion must get closed on the basis of Nominator's inappropriate record of practice and not adequate reasons involved since this article about a suitably notable person is quite popular also. It is a perfect case of speedy keep--115.241.97.165 (talk) 10:35, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Article is nohow promotional but nomination for deletion is self-promotional and such concerted effort to not reply real questions but questioning unregistered users is VANDALISM. IP is just enough to make a point and only making real points count at the end Mr Be Musician!--101.63.238.110 (talk) 13:22, 20 May 2012 (UTC) — 101.63.238.110 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
KEEP I support reason. Very well said about pseudo-Wikipedians who fail to address reasons and hide behind UserIDs. Up to this extent we can excuse but how they dare to question the integrity of unregistered users. Wikipedia is made to this extent by unregistered users only. Better face real questions and stop talking nonsense jargon. Anonymously telling truth doesn't degrade reason. In this case article is ok and nomination to deletion is not ok.--115.184.57.32 (talk) 13:30, 20 May 2012 (UTC) — 115.184.57.32 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Speedy Keep what is so strangely going on here. whole internet is populated by us. always expect us whenever u do something wrong online. we made wikipedia and not duffers like u who think that notable persons shall never be a user or opposing something by someone cannot be taken if he has no standing involvement. it is not only an article but u have outraged a whole community of anonymous internet users by insulting independent opinions. one thing ur peers know better that wikipedia cannot continue without us anonymous contributors and a very significant development of this has come by one-time contributors only. better behave rationally in the interest of wikipedia's future rather than doing nonsense for this or that article.--115.242.172.205 (talk) 13:59, 20 May 2012 (UTC) — 115.242.172.205 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Speedy KEEP Ok Ok calm down! we shall send this vandalism to its logical end. Perhaps the time has come when Wikipedia has to rethink about its user system and promotional pattern. Such wrong nominations are done due to that only. We will see to it systematically. Internet is independent and whosoever is not so won't be here for a long time to come.--115.242.138.89 (talk) 14:11, 20 May 2012 (UTC) — 115.242.138.89 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Speedy keep yea it is right vote that they don't want to count perhaps as is clear from the signboard above everything else. anyway it looks most interesting place to hangout today so i am also here. wikipedia is not a democracy is a good thing. it can't even be. i don't like democracies. i like morons like who created this page to f..k whatever it is. i condemn everything about it and the way it is going on. internet is primarily IPs and if u r that sort of thing why your admins made it (whatever it is) open to everyone around? u have insulted democracy also. even internet doesn't yet have dared for that. i came to read the article about not a notable but a notorious fellow (do u know the difference amid being notable 'n' notarious that exactly stands as being OBAMA or OSAMA) like everybody else perhaps and there i saw signboard directing to this place and here another signboard doubting my arrival. it is u damn-fools who invited me here by first signboard before to insult my arrival by putting another signboard. u certainly r not democracy but do u know what u look like by opening this page? i won't write as whatever reasonable is written perhaps u don't bother for that and whatever u bother for whole world will now understand much better.--115.241.81.209 (talk) 14:45, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SPEEDY KEEP and expand What is ur argument baby? Do you know atleast? You better read article or learn meaning of words. We come to read interesting information and the article under discussion is a such one about a well-known person although written with very little information. I think that should better get expanded in to an encyclopedic one by putting some more interesting information. subject is good enough to carry a feature article. Whosoever is demanding deletion has no convincing reason for doing so. Wikipedia has a lot of garbage instead that deserves speedy deletion.--101.63.142.196 (talk) 15:44, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Ryan Vesey Review me! 15:50, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep no nonsense will prevent truth from prevailing. the article is about a highly notable person with very strong readership that is coming here because of ur biased signboarding on article page. If u r not dumb or dishonest read this data from ur sources Any untoward action won't get tolerated by us people. this debate is exposing u so u want closing this but we disallow. and we must continue debating ur dubious intentions of vandalising wikipedia which is not ur property for ur kind information. THIS ARTICLE SHALL STAY and we are going to count every vote.--115.242.227.200 (talk) 15:54, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey! so many people here and this f..k..g thing is getting longer than the article being discussed. is this a parliament going on discussing LOKPAL or SOPA like that. What is the problem buddy. Article is already there. Just remove that f..k..g signboard and shut down this shop. Wikipedia has a lot better to do than just deleting one good thing for nothing. Oh I forget to vote but whether that can really remove that signboard. If so I say REMOVE THAT BOARD and Speedy KEEP to expand into an encyclopedic one u good for nothing self-proclaimed watchdogs of not a democracy or whatever also not--115.241.119.33 (talk) 16:05, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article is neither biased nor promotional and citations are of high page ranks about the very notable Internet activist. I say KEEP and almost evrybody has said that except only few users who made this concerted effort to make wikipedia do a blunder.--115.242.222.250 (talk) 16:27, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
SPEEDY KEEPas nominator of dubious record has fled the scene and failed to duly reason here so it is a crystal clear case of speedy keep.--115.242.128.12 (talk) 16:33, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep as only keeping is rational while deleting shall be dubious like the nominator is proved. writer of the article is very sensible contributor always away from vandalism of all sorts & cheap tactics as is played in this undue nomination for deletion. citations are from adequately good sources. I believe the article and doubt all doubts artificially shown by a few registered users in alliance vandalizing Wikipedia.--115.242.213.4 (talk) 17:07, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
speedy keep the article is getting popular since it is written. in fact it is very well written although needs to be expanded as it is about the most dynamic personality of India who did a lot since very early age. He was extremely popular even as a kid when he made strongest possible arguments to make elders respect children's individual freedom. almost all Hindi newspapers respect him as youth icon. Citations beyond Internet are also available and must be brought on web if someone can do so and make it a featured article of Wikipedia.--115.184.76.72 (talk) 17:22, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My speedy delete argument still stands. If it is not to be speedy deleted (I suppose it may be the most contested speedy deletion if it were) it is still written from a highly promotional tone and does not have significant coverage in reliable sources. Ryan Vesey Review me! 15:39, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article, as written, is a load of crap. There may be a case for keeping it, but it needs to be rewritten from scratch by someone with a command of the English language, without the hagiography and with some genuine verifiable evidence of notability. I have never suggested an article should be deleted because of the quality of the writing - after all, it is open to other genuine editors to edit - but in this case I'm prepared to make an exception because I can't even imagine where to start. Delete. Emeraude (talk) 18:00, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 19:39, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 19:39, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 19:39, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 19:39, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Terribly written, filthy with WP:PEACOCK terms, promotional, fails notability and is in violation of Biographies of Living Persons. ` BatteryIncluded (talk) 20:09, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article is so poorly written that I was laughing as I was reading it. The IPs' "rationales" for keeping it actually further strengthen why it should be deleted. The sooner this article is salted and gotten rid of the better. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 21:19, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an only intermittently comprehensible hagiography. It does seem to suggest that the activities of the biographee have been discussed by Richard Stallman; but when you click on the link to see what this consists of, you find that it is no more convincing than this wretched Wikipedia article. -- Hoary (talk) 06:28, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I'm the one who deleted this on Hindi Wikipedia. There's no coverage about the subject in any independent reliable source, so fails our notability guidelines. — Bill william compton^Talk 14:13, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please to make deleting: Best poor writings of boy inconsequential. Structure of encyclopedia with unverified mouthings unreliable does this jeopardize. Following of languages should also be doing. Ravenswing 16:37, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't normally call an article crap, but this one is a crap. Salih (talk) 17:23, 22 May 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 California State Assembly elections, 2012#District 74. With the history deleted. Most commenters agree that there should not be a separate article on this subject. T. Canens (talk) 04:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Leslie Daigle[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Previous discussion was closed as no consensus due to ARS canvassing. Again nominating on the premise that local politicians aren't notable enough to pass WP:POLITICIAN. Article should also be deleted because it's the subject of a VERY messy content dispute involving a number of edits and almost half the content in the article. Would note that "attack page" (which much this article seems to be) is both a CSD and a reason that several articles related to the 2012 presidential election have been deleted p b p 04:00, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Neutral. My take is that the content dispute is primarily an edit war with an interest in trashing the subject, and I agree with Drmie's characterization of the edits as WP:BLP violations and vandalism. That circumstance ought to be separated from the notability concern, and isn't itself a rationale for deletion. 99.136.254.195 (talk) 04:11, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It can be a consideration...and if you were to take out all the uncontroversial information that hasn't been challenged by someone, the article would be about a paragraph long. When you add in that she doesn't have any coverage in major publications and fails WP:POLITICIAN, you've got a pretty good argument for deletion p b p 04:15, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's a distinction regarding motive for challenging content: that which is challenged in good faith for violating WP:BLP, and that which is challenged where a primary interest is in creating a negative piece. That said, I'm not strong on notability for local assembly members. But I don't think this version can be viewed as particularly controversial [13]; whereas this version, including the poorly sourced 'Being Passed Over for Mayor', speaks for itself [14]. 99.136.254.195 (talk) 04:30, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - minor politician of no real note. I'm sure every local politician has made some people happy and ticked off others, resulting in local coverage - they don't all need to be in the encyclopedia, and this is a case in point. LadyofShalott 04:20, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To the people arguing that I need to read Politician because I said delete, I don't care if a redirect is made (I'm all for anything that helps the reader find the right article). As a stand-alone article though, this needs to go,, and that was and still is my main point. LadyofShalott 18:34, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right on, Lady. Drmies (talk) 17:44, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LadyofShalott below states "this person does not meet our notability requirements", but no such requirements are found in the above !vote. The analysis says "no real note", which is an argument that falls between WP:ATA#Just not notable and WP:ATA#Just unencyclopedic. See WP:ATA#Just unencyclopedic, which says,
"Unencyclopedic" is an empty argument. It means "not worthy of being included in an encyclopedia", which is synonymous with "should not be included" or "I want it deleted". So when you use it as a justification for deleting something, it's a circular argument: "Delete, because it should be deleted"...What we want to know are your reasons why the article shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Simply answer the question, What guidelines does it violate, and how?
How do we view the the two-hundred reliable newspaper articles available on this topic to reach a conclusion that this topic is not WP:N "worthy of notice", i.e., what is it about this particular topic that makes it a special case such that we are empowered to ignore the WP:GNG general notability guideline? What quantifies the claim and guideline relevance of "local coverage", "local politician", and "minor politician" as being relevant to WP:GNG and being anything other than "I-don't-like-those-things" arguments? Articles like this one that are filled with reliable material do not go directly to the chopping block if they fail notability, see WP:N#Articles not satisfying the notability guidelines, which states,
For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort.
The next step in a deletion argument is to consider the WP:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion AKA WP:ATD. If the topic fails notability, what should be done with the WP:V reliable material and the topic title? Are there suitable target topics for a merge? Is there a topic missing in the encyclopedia that were it to be created would be a suitable merge target? If not, is there a suitable target for a redirect, allowing the WP:V reliable material to be retained in the edit history of the redirect? Unscintillating (talk) 12:57, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You don't like my phrasing above? Fine, she is not notable. A bunch of little mentions in a local newspaper do not add up to passing either the GNG or POLITICIAN. That is my argument. The article should be deleted, but as she is a candidate in an election for which there is an article, her name should then be redirected to that article. Do I need to make my argument any clearer? LadyofShalott 22:19, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm commenting here to re-emphasize the fact that consensus was reached on a fair version of the page with some Mod input, until a few editors decided to delete sourced information due to being "trivial" to them and in their judgement the sources weren't reliable enough, even though the source is one of the biggest newspapers in the County of Orange. If the article is to be deleted, so be it. Any modicum of fairness has been lost in this page due to corrupt editors like the ones recognized by IP addresses only and also Drmies. --Socalpolitik (talk) 04:32, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Corrupt editors" is a personal attack, which I suggest you withdraw by striking it out. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:31, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect- To California State Assembly elections, 2012#District 74 until the election, restore if elected. Viable discrete search term, and readers deserve to find the election until then. Dru of Id (talk) 04:34, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The previous response seems to be saying that deletion should be scheduled if and when the candidate fails to win in the Fall. Implicitly, this also means that the topic should be deleted on June 5 if the topic fails to advance in the primary. I respond that such a position falls to WP:NOT#NEWSPAPER. We need to be building the encyclopedia with a long view, and also not with content that is based on future events. Unscintillating (talk) 12:57, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Councilpeople aren't automatically notable; there is some positive spin (I toned it down in an earlier version) but it's absolutely minor. Being ninth on the list of influential people of a given community isn't much. That she was rude to a security guard (and/or vice versa) shouldn't make someone notable, and it's pretty obvious that this incident was seized upon to make this a name and shame article. Bottomline, though--not notable either via her job or the GNG. Drmies (talk) 04:56, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Amend to Delete and create a redirect (rather than merge), per MelanieN, below, and LadyofShalott, above. Drmies (talk) 17:44, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why should all of the WP:V reliable material in the edit history be deleted? Is this to avoid the work of REVDELing the attack revisions? The refutation of WP:GNG here, "not notable...via...the GNG" is right out out WP:ATA, WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Just not notable , and the previous points do not address the hundreds of reliable non-trivial sources and sufficient WP:V reliable material to write an enduring biography. Unscintillating (talk) 19:23, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, that's not where I got my argument from, though I appreciate the pointer--next time, I'll simply copy from there. Since you have "responded" to just about every opponent of yours in this AfD, allow me: it should be deleted because this person is not notable. No, it is not to avoid the blah blah...there is nothing in the history worth rev-deling, as far as I know; if there were I would have done that already. "Not notable via the GNG" is shorthand for a lot of words which boil down to "not notable via the GNG", and you know exactly what I mean. Your "hundreds of reliable sources"--yeah, well, you know, there aren't hundreds of them. There's a bunch of articles in the local paper on a city council person, that's it. Melanie has already pointed to a relevant policy--rather than clutter up this AfD with your repetitive badgering, why don't you go write enduring biographies on every single city council person in your municipality? You could have covered the entire county (including county commissioners, BOE, and water board) already with all the time you spent on this one. Drmies (talk) 20:15, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Regarding the word "opponents", Wikipedia is not a battleground, and the words "badgering" and "clutter" are not part of a policy-based argument, so please don't bring those words into this discussion. Unscintillating (talk) 01:25, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Wow. Thanks for adding some more blah blah blah. Please stop fucking wikilawyering. Oh, I got one for you: don't tell me what not to say: Wikipedia is not censored per WP:CENSOR. Drmies (talk) 03:32, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject is a local councilwoman who does not pass WP:POLITICIAN. Her candidacy for state assembly is not sufficient to satisfy WP:GNG -- if she wins, that's possible a different story. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:25, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(1) As MelanieN said, there is no case for deletion at this AfD. (2) The argument that Daigle's "candicacy for state assembly is not sufficient to satisfy WP:GNG" in no way explains how WP:GNG fails, it might reasonably be seen as consent that there is no decent argument to be made against WP:GNG. Given two hundred reliable sources with non-trivial coverage, I suggest that the encyclopedia as a whole would be better off with your abandoning the claim against WP:GNG and instead arguing that the topic is not "worthy of notice" as per the lede of WP:N. And then focus on what would be an appropriate merge target for the WP:V reliable material, if any. Unscintillating (talk) 19:23, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you get the feeling that this article exists in part to prevent that story from happening? Drmies (talk) 14:20, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then it's an attack page, which is a CSD... p b p 16:01, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even if everything in the article was accurate, it's not clear that she's had enough secondary coverage to satisfy WP:GNG (she certainly doesn't satisfy WP:POLITICIAN as a member of a city council). However, some of the claims are not accurate. Some of the inflated assertions come partly from her Newport Beach government website bio ([15]). If you read any of the councilmember's bios, they are all written like advertisements. Even if we accept the "facts" in her bio as true, there are still inaccurate representations in our article. We say she is a "leading member" of the finance committee. She is (or was) not, she's described as a member (there are 3 members on the committee, one of whom is chair - ([16])) in the bio. We say that thanks to her, the city got a AAA rating (perhaps the most important claim in the article, in my view), and yet the secondary source we cite ([17] doesn't even mention her name, and her bio says, that she "worked with her colleagues" to obtain that rating, not that she obtained it somehow on her own.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:17, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN spectacularly. Coverage incidental to the minor office and doesn't quality as significant coverage. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 12:33, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Lacks coverage in reliable third-party sources. →B music ian 12:48, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My original rationale for nominating this article for deletion still stands: Non notable local councillor, who fails WP:POLITICIAN, has only minor coverage and is really a case of WP:BLP1E Valenciano (talk) 13:51, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 13:14, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 13:17, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Agreeing with Shalott. This local council member fails WP:POLITICIAN; the position itself is not notable. The position and coverage are local, and much of the coverage regards a non-event, biographically speaking. JFHJr (㊟) 16:17, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Valenciano. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. - UnbelievableError (talk) 03:43, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Please note that several additional reliable sources have been found regarding this topic's notability. See below in this discussion. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:05, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Dru of Id. Non-notable candidates in notable elections should be redirected to said elections. -LtNOWIS (talk) 06:25, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Dru of Id and per standard Wikipedia practice for political candidates. Those who are arguing for "delete" should reread WP:POLITICIAN: "In the case of candidates for political office who do not meet this (notability) guideline, the general rule is to redirect to an appropriate page covering the election or political office sought in lieu of deletion." --MelanieN (talk) 15:23, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. LuciferWildCat (talk) 20:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This rescue tag is highly inappropriate for two reasons: a) the article can't be rescued because it is fully-protected, and b) it was already tagged as rescue once. As such, it basically amounts to yet more canvassing of the ARS p b p 21:26, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that its currently protected doesn't mean one can't search for sources, and its previous tagging doesn't mean anything either. We have articles that are 9 years old that remain terrible and need improvement. The fact that ARS was alerted to this AfD doesn't mean we come in slobbering to vote keep.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 23:36, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pbp, while I fully agree that this person does not meet our notability requirements, I think this argument is ridiculous. That the article is fully protected just means that people have to discuss changes on its talk page. If and when consensus is reached, a request can be made to have the edit implemented. LadyofShalott 03:56, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, what the Lady says is what I just said on my talk page. Pbp, that argument doesn't fly. We'll talk it out here. Milowent, you can prove your point by making Dream Focus say delete--there's a first time for everything! Drmies (talk) 04:10, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that the savings clause under WP:POLITICIAN applies here. The only parts of that guideline that address local politicians also mention significant coverage outside the local area. I believe that treatment per WP:OUTCOMES would be appropriate. (Local politician) - (demonstrated previous notability) = (delete) . UnbelievableError (talk) 01:20, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your math is missing a term. Per WP:POLITICIAN, (Local politician) - (demonstrated previous notability) + (candidate for a notable office) = redirect. --MelanieN (talk) 15:24, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all the delete votes notwithstanding I do not see anyone refuting how the multiple non trivial third party sources in reliable sources that cover the subject in depth are invalidated simply because some dislike this entry. I also note extreme prejudice that most have not seemed to consider any alternative such as a merge nor have they provided any evaluation of the sources.LuciferWildCat (talk) 20:20, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes the subject specific guideline for this sort of thing WP:POLITICIAN. See item 2 Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage. This person has gotten ample coverage, as found and linked to in the last AFD and in the article now. Dream Focus 00:10, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Um, since when did a few mentions in the local paper become "significant press coverage"? Apparantly never, at least according to the almost a dozen !votes who weren't ARS canvassed. Also, how do you get around the issue of the fact that 70-80% of the article is challenged by one party or another p b p 00:57, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

She gets quoted in the Honolulu Star, The Seattle Times, and The Virginian-Pilot about the lifeguard pay issue. Most of the Google news archive results are from Daily Pilot and The Orange County Register(circulation 250,724 Daily, 311,982 Sunday), but I see results from elsewhere as well. She gets quoted and mentioned elsewhere. A lot of search results to look through. And the fact that some are edit warring on what to put in or out of the article, isn't relevant to this AFD at all. The Alicia Silverstone article was locked to stop edit warring awhile back, no one suggested that was a reason to delete it. Dream Focus 01:44, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I find these claims of ARS canvassing by PBP in the nomination and above galling. I see that PDP has nominated this article for deletion, clearly canvassing people interested in deletion of the article. In the last AFD, he could barely scrape up votes and it closes as no consensus. This time a ton of editors show up within 48 hours of the nomination to vote delete. I demand an investigation.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:20, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure of whom you think you can "demand an investigation" be done, or how it's to be conducted. I'll tell you straight up though that before the article was nominated here, there was discussion of it at User talk:Drmies#Leslie Daigle. (By the way, did you ever think of asking nicely if there had been discussion elsewhere?) LadyofShalott 03:40, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not, I was just mimicking PBP's drama. The article should stand or fall on its own merits. If Daigle wasn't in the news for some negative stories, we wouldn't be having the debate, she'd just be a typicaly non-notable city council member.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:59, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Lady, but I got this. Milowent and I are the same sides of a different coin, or something like that. Mortal enemies! Milowent I'll be honest with you: we had some very decent off-wiki canvassing; pity y'all discovered us. I tried to suppress the log with my magic admin bit but damn you! you're just too smart. Doubledrats! (BTW, I agree with you on the drama--Pbp, come one--there's no need for this.) Dream Focus, Alicia Silverstone is notable; this person isn't--the occasional coverage notwithstanding. Drmies (talk) 04:19, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Milowent, a few things if I may: I was not the initiator of the first AfD, the only person I mentioned this AfD to was someone who expressly said another AfD should be started, and most of the delete votes here I have never interacted with p b p 04:48, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Both Milowent and Drmies needed to add a disclaimer I have sometimes used: "Notice for the humor-impaired: the above is sarcasm." --MelanieN (talk) 15:19, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's a place and time for sarcasm. I welcome it. This isn't the place. p b p 15:30, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there is likely canvassing done by PBP to garner these votes. We had a decision a while back where he would not follow me to articles I edit on, specially local politicians and to stop accusing me in a galling and ignorant manner regarding canvassing which he simply refuses to understand is unrelated to the article rescue squad. The closing admin should note that this entry meets POLITICIAN and the GNG and why, and regardless of the canvassed votes and bad faith comments should weigh it on its own merits and sincerely consider a merger or redirect in order to preserve the edit history and or content.LuciferWildCat (talk) 01:02, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please cite Wikipedia guidelines correctly. This person absolutely does NOT meet WP:POLITICIAN, which you should read; it gives automatic inclusion to certain politicians but not city council members. Your argument rather is that the person meets WP:GNG based on sources, and you are certainly free to argue that point, which is a matter of opinion and evaluation of sources by individual editors. There are really only two choices here. If she meets GNG the article should be kept; if she does not, the article should be redirected to the election she is running in. "Delete" is not an option - again, per WP:POLITICIAN, which all the "delete" !voters need to read as well. --MelanieN (talk) 15:15, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good point Melanie, thank you, though I will quibble a bit: "general rule" does not mean deletion is off the table. In this case, a plenty reliable source indicates she is running so such a redirect would make sense. Thanks for setting a lot of us straight; I will amend my vote to "delete and redirect": I still think the content needs to go. Drmies (talk) 17:44, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prove it p b p 02:02, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and stay away from my talk page. I can edit whatever articles I so choose, but you have been told numerous times to stay away from my talk page p b p 02:02, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- - If you live in a dimension where you weren't told to stay away from articles that I am editing then definitely am in one where I don't know what the hell you are talking about.LuciferWildCat (talk) 05:12, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[sigh] Luciferwildcat, will you knock it off. There is nothing to agree with. There was no canvassing; Milowent was using hyperbole to counter Pbp's hyperbole. (And don't tell the closing admin what they do, will ya.) Also, I think the time has come for Pbp to make a promise to stop hyperboling about ARS canvassing. OK? Drmies (talk) 03:22, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break 1[edit]

Comment The argument that a topic fails WP:POLITICIAN does not stand if the topic satisfies WP:GNG. The documentation of this relationship is placed in the lede of WP:N, the relevant part of which is reproduced here. WP:POLITICIAN is a part of WP:Notability (people).

Notability
Subject-specific guidelines

. . .

People

. . .

A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guideline below...

A topic is also presumed notable if it meets the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right.

Note that WP:N continues,

This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article.

Unscintillating (talk) 20:10, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In response to rationales that this topic is only covered in one newspaper ("There's a bunch of articles in the local paper on a city council person, that's it." and "A bunch of little mentions in a local newspaper..."), I did a listing from Google News, and also I skimmed a Google search looking for sources that appeared to be newspapers.

Google news
- Laguna Beach Independent
- Newport Beach Independent Newspaper
- Coastline Pilot of Laguna Beach (published by the LA Times)
- Orange County Register (there is a recent ruling from WP:RS/N that this is considered reliable)
- Bellingham Herald
- Merced Sun-Star
- San Jose Mercury News
- Daily Pilot
- Huntington Beach Independent

Google search
- USA Today
- Pasadena Sun (a community weekly published by the LA Times)
- Reuters
- Salon
- Times of India (circulation 3.14 million)
- Chicago Tribune
- Baltimore Sun
- Santa Rosa Press Democrat (circulation 84,000 in the North SF Bay Area)
- Sacramento Bee
- San Francisco Gate (SF Chronicle online)
- Glendale News-Press
- Los Angeles Times

Unscintillating (talk) 01:09, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please relegate this laundry list of "sources" to the AfD's talk page, or to the article's talk page. Other editors: Note that many of the "sources" mentioned do not provide in-depth coverage. Also, it is entirely unnecessary to repeatedly quote from WP:N. The editors here are already quite familiar with it. Repeatedly quoting it is a) horrendously condescending, and b) a waste of space p b p 01:13, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: This list of papers that mentions Daigle is clearly GOOGLEHITS, and offers no context as to whether the sources offer more than a passing mention. As such, it should probably be disregarded p b p 01:19, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't confuse these as "sources", the point of this list is this, "Do you agree that there is more than one newspaper?" Unscintillating (talk) 01:35, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, since you mention sources, I've listed six of them on the talk page here Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Leslie Daigle (2nd nomination). Unscintillating (talk) 01:35, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If they're not listed as an attempt to assert notability, why are they there? And I'm not sure I agree that there is IN-DEPTH coverage in several sources, as some of the links only mention Daigle in passing p b p 01:38, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you are talking about. Saying "If they're not listed..." seems to be taking a comment I made about the list on this page and applying it to the list on the talk page. Unscintillating (talk) 03:19, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The evidence is solid that this topic passes WP:GNG. WP:GNG is part of "a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow..." None of the notability arguments here have appealed to either "WP:IAR" or to the "worthy of notice" clause.~~, they~~The deletion arguments that mention WP:GNG either claim without suitable evidence that WP:GNG fails, or they don't attempt to argue against it. It is a pattern seen before at WP:Articles for deletion/María Viramontes that because of the footnote in WP:POLITICIAN that has sourcing requirements that exceed WP:GNG for local councilmen, local councilmen fail WP:POLITICIAN and pass WP:GNG. But as I understand it this is why editors came up with WP:GNG so that we didn't have to face arguments about whether or not some given topic was "good enough" based on editors' personal criteria, to merit a place in the encyclopedia as a stand-alone article. WP:GNG in spite of its flaws is more objective than, "local politician", "local newspaper", "local coverage", "minor politician", "local paper", "local councilwoman", "local councillor", and "local council member"; which are versions of "I Don't Like It", "Just unencyclopedic", and "Just not notable". Moving on, as I quoted above from the lede of WP:N, passing WP:GNG is not in turn a requirement that we keep this topic as a stand-alone article. There has been room here to have had a discussion about the balance between a topic that passed WP:GNG with 80 sources before she decided to run for the California assembly; the relevance of WP:BLP1E, WP:NOT#NEWSPAPER, and WP:CRYSTAL to the newer additional hundred sources; and the benefits of identifying a new list article target for this multiply-notable persona. But such a discussion has not developed. Unscintillating (talk) 02:15, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Stating that "local" arguments are equivalent of IDONTLIKEIT is wrong. We have to set a level where a topic has received some type of significant coverage outside of the geographic and informational area to say that it is of note to larger interest, otherwise you allow WP to create walled gardens of information and violating IINFO. Otherwise, nearly every local restaurant, garage band, and high school student could probably be deemed notable with a bit of work. NSPORTS has the right idea that for the types of professions that nearly always get covered as part of regular news reporting (in their case, sports figures) to set a higher bar for what type of news should be expected for showing notability, that excludes local coverage only (though local sources can be used when the article is notable by other means). This would translate directly to a politician at the local level. So, no, when people say "local", they are worried about IINFO, and not because they don't like it. (Also remember: just being name-dropped or even having a one-line quote in a non-local paper is not significant coverage.) --MASEM (t) 13:19, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:GNG, "significant coverage" is coverage within one source that is not trivial, and trivial is defined as the mention of the high-school band "The Three Blind Mice" in a book about Clinton. There have been no trivial sources identified. Unscintillating (talk) 19:19, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look at WP:IINFO, and the only relevant concept I saw there was "See also: WP:Notability". WP:Notability does not have the word "local". So the question becomes, what objective criteria exist to relate your concept to WP:GNG? Unscintillating (talk) 19:19, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – This topic is presently passing both WP:BASIC and WP:GNG, in which this person has received significant coverage in reliable sources. Many of the sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.

Michael J. Mishak; Anthony York (May 19, 2012). "Centrist GOP candidates may offer chance to end California gridlock". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 2012-05-24.
Mona Shadia (May 16, 2012). "Mansoor accuses opponent of willingness to work with unions". Huntington Beach Independent. Retrieved 2012-05-24.
Martin Wisckol (May 17, 2012). "Benefactor now up to $270k for Assembly candidate Daigle". Orange County Register. Retrieved 2012-05-24. Daigle...would be the favorite to beat Rush in a one-on-one race and could be a formidable opponent for Mansoor in a head-to-head matchup.
Jeff Overley (February 2, 2010). "Political cash flows in Newport Beach". The Orange County Register. Retrieved 2012-05-24.
Brianna Brialla (February 6, 2009). "Dredging banking on stimulus funds. City officials have estimated as much as $16 million is needed to complete the project in Newport Bay, Harbor". Daily Pilot. A Los Angeles Times Website. Retrieved 2012-05-24.

Along with: [18], [19], [20], [21], [22].

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:22, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nom comment: There is a pretty clear consensus against keeping this. You'll find that there are more than twice as many delete or redirect votes as keep votes. That means that delete and redirect are the only options p b p 15:49, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The closing administrator will analyze the consesus him- or herself. It is neither necessary nor desirable to tell that person what the result should be. LadyofShalott 16:08, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please cite policies or guidelines to support your opinion. Unscintillating (talk) 19:19, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you kidding? WP:CLOSEAFD says, "After seven days, an uninvolved admin (i.e. one who has not participated in the deletion discussion) will assess the discussion for consensus to Keep, Delete, Merge, Redirect, or Transwiki the article." If that person relied on what some participant said the consensus was, they wouldn't really be doing an assessment, now would they? LadyofShalott 01:17, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Several of the earlier !votes were cast prior to the introduction of several new sources to this discussion. Also, per WP:NOTAVOTE, polling is not a substitute for discussion. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:01, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not really...several voters have reaffirmed their delete votes despite the "sources", which still don't amount to satisfaction of WP:POLITICIAN. p b p 17:17, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin - There's also a side-discussion occurring on the talk page for this AfD discussion: Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Leslie Daigle (2nd nomination). Also, as of this post, the article remains protected, in which only Wikipedia administrators can edit it. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:18, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Additional new sources about Leslie Daigle. This regional coverage further demonstrates the topic's notability, in which the topic now passes WP:BASIC, WP:GNG and criteria #3 of WP:POLITICIAN:

Significant coverage from The Orange County Register: Activist outspends 2 candidates in 74th Assembly
Significant coverage from The Orange County Register: My take on Leslie Daigle (Published in the news section of the newspaper, not the opinion section)
Short article from The Orange County Register: Candidate Daigle gets another $200,000 from Munger
Significant coverage: "No clear favorite in 74th Assembly race." The Orange County Register.
Significant coverage: "Assembly candidate Daigle gets $178,000 boost." The Orange County Register.
Beyond passing mentions: "Eyebrows go up when Daigle mentions Bergeson, Brewer." The Orange County Register.

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:35, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Added three more sources above comprised of significant coverage about the topic. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:51, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No matter how many sources you clutter up this AfD with (sourcing discussions belong there, not here), as a City Council candidate, she still fails WP:POLITICIAN. This is what a number of editors have said, and will continue to say. The protection is irrelevant p b p 19:38, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Actually, the provision of additional significant coverage in reliable sources proves that the topic easily passes criteria #3 of WP:POLITICIAN, which states:

"Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article."

This topic is exceedingly passing the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources. As such, the article should be retained, rather than removed from the encyclopedia.

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:04, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Significant coverage ≠ automatic keep p b p 01:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

She is not a city council candidate, she is a city councilwoman, she is a state assembly candidate.LuciferWildCat (talk) 03:07, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Per WP:SNOW —GFOLEY FOUR!— 02:02, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RINJ[edit]

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

Organization fails WP:N and WP:ORG. My review of the article's sources found only one reliable source that discusses the group. (See Talk:RINJ#Sources in article / Notability.) A Google search was unhelpful. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:56, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The group has no notable sources verifying their importance. Facebook pages and self-referencing don't count. --Turn685 (talk) 04:41, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - OK. I'll play. The attacks on this article seem to have nothing to do with its content. The topic and the article are notable. The present edit is fine. This page needs to be protected permanently and all edits should be on administrator approval. (I am alarmed at the personal attacks, slander, hatred, vandalism and bullying.) Nymphetamine labyrinth (talk) 08:41, 20 May 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Delete This is nothing more than a platform for personal attacks against myself and family. Ruffian Angel 08:46, 20 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mobrien9279 (talk • contribs)

WP:BLP

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

We agree with that. http://rinjmakesuscrinj.wordpress.com/

We believe that Nymphetamine labyrinth who is writing a lot of this page is another Jewish male like Michael who are in fact male rights activists who have banded together from Israel and Canada to attack feminist groups. CRINJ has attacked and defeated them on Facebook exposing them in every aspect of their lives. We know their phone numbers and where they work and have contacted every horrible scheme they have tried against women of the world. Jews have a medieval attitude toward women. Nymphetamine labyrinth is a self-confessed jew. That speaks for itself. No wonder he is in favour of RINJ. http://rinjmakesuscrinj.wordpress.com/ CRINJ (talk) 05:40, 20 May 2012 (UTC) DELETE They are women-hating, rape-approving misogynistic Jewish Males CRINJ (talk) 05:13, 20 May 2012 (UTC) Everyone needs to add their comments to this page and get their page deleted on Facebook too. Visit our Facebook page and ask and I will give you phone numbers. Order some pizzas and make a lot of dentist appointments in their area for each member of RINJ. Convince them to shut down. CRINJ (talk) 05:13, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Do not vandalize Wikipedia. Do not threaten anyone outside of Wikipedia. We are not Encyclopedia Dramatica and we are also not your personal army to use to "get even" with anyone. Fair notice, I'm reporting you to the admins for abusive behavior. Whatever this other group might have done, this does not excuse your actions on here.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:38, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'll have to wade through all of those sources. It's an awful lot of quoting from press releases, so I'm going to try to trim that down some to get rid of the quote farming.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:01, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Holy spumoni, Batman. That's a lot of sources in that article that are either unusable blogs, press releases, or articles that don't even mention the group in the slightest. There's a lot of conjecture, which I'm removing.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:27, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional. I've removed all of the unusable source, which removed over half of everything on the page. I also removed the criticism section, as I didn't see anything in the section that was backed up by reliable sources. If I find anything reliable enough to use I'll re-add it, but my first focus is just finding notability for the group in general.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:41, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. After cleaning out the sheer bulk of self-cites and other links that show absolutely zero notability for the group what so ever as well as looking for sources, I just can't find enough to show that this group has any notability at all. I've found two sole sources that aren't from the group itself and they don't show that the group has received a wide depth of coverage.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:54, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable, and the lack of sources shows it. Doc talk 08:17, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Changing my vote to delete. Nymphetamine labyrinth (talk) 08:44, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, lacks reliable secondary or tertiary sources to establish notability, page seems to be part of promotional campaign by group itself. He iro 08:56, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I was unable to find enough coverage in reliable sources to support notability.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 11:34, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with fire. WP:COATRACK that has been expertly trimmed by Tokyogirl, leaving us with the net total of zero. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 12:01, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can we get someone to snow close this one? I don't think it has a chance of surviving.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 13:16, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 19:19, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 19:19, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see notability here at all. Also Nymphetamine labyrinth, I struck out your Keep vote, as you stated you were changing your vote to delete, making the prior vote null.
Requesting snow close. This has nine delete votes and no keeps, unless you count the struck one. I also want to note that one of the people in charge of RINJ (MoBrien, posting under Ruffian Angel) has posted a delete vote, requesting that the page be removed as it was being used as an attack page. I recommend removing it now, as waiting the full seven days for an end result that looks inevitable (deletion) just invites the same trolls to come back and do more damage.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:57, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Criticism of Facebook. The issue of the rape pages seems notable, even if the group is not. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:57, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This doesn't seem to meet notability standards. Capitalismojo (talk) 17:14, 22 May 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:53, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Matheus Cotulio Bossa[edit]

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Non-notable young player who fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. The article still fails WP:GNG. While it technically passes WP:NSPORT, let's apply some WP:COMMONSENSE here. Playing a grand total of one minute in a regional league doesn't make him any more notable than before the last deletion. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:38, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:38, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:38, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:38, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- most importantly fails WP:GNG, and one minute on the field as a professional is not enough. Giant Snowman 10:38, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - but feel free to receate when sufficient coverage in reliable sources is available. Jogurney (talk) 14:44, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as he fails WP:GNG. Playing for an amazing 60 seconds in a fully professional league doesn't grant notability. – Kosm1 fent 17:57, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - when he passes WP:NFOOTBALL there is no need to pass WP:GNG. And if we apply WP:COMMONSENSE - this article is about a young footballer who recently made his debut in a WP:FPL, it's not like it's a article about a retired footballer who played a total of 60 seconds in a WP:FPL throughout his career. Those 60 seconds is just the beginning of the rest of his career. Mentoz86 (talk) 09:27, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Au contraire, GNG prevails over NFOOTY. The latter guideline assumes that the subject meets GNG without the need to look for sources. In fact, NFOOTY itself states: "The notability of these is accepted as they would have received significant coverage as outlined above in the general notability criteria.". However, if it's shown that the subject has not received such coverage (which makes sense, 60 seconds is far too little time for someone to attract media attention), then the article may well be deleted. Of course, I don't think anyone objects to recreation once he gets more playing time, we just feel it's too soon now. – Kosm1 fent 09:39, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - If I remember correctly, there were another deletion discussion not long ago, where WFC nominated another footballer for deletion as he only had played 1 match, but the closing admin stated that when WP:NFOOTBALL is met, there is no need to meet WP:GNG, but I can't find that deletion discussion (only found this one, which is more or less the same as this one). Mentoz86 (talk) 10:01, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's correct. It's generally understood that if WP:NFOOTY is met then the player can be presumed notable. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 11:58, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - I appreciate being notified of this discussion, and out of courtesy I will not explicitly !vote in this discussion. The AfD in question was of Adam Thompson, who has since gone on to establish notability beyond doubt by playing a lot of league games and international football. If I remember correctly, the closing admin has since left the project under a cloud.
        Either way, it has since been clarified that the GNG does apply to everything in NSPORTS, and that while NSPORTS is considered a good indicator, it is not an automatic free pass to an article. "All information included in Wikipedia, including articles about sports, must be verifiable. In addition, standalone articles are required to meet the General Notability Guideline. This guideline provides bright-line guidance to enable editors to determine quickly if a subject is likely to meet the General Notability Guideline." NFOOTY is simply intended as a starting point – if a player meets NFOOTY, then it is considered likely that the coverage is out there to meet the GNG. But it goes without saying that the more borderline the case, the more convincing the GNG argument needs to be. —WFC— 13:39, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        But still WP:NSPORTS states (bolded in the lead) that "The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline, or the sport specific criteria set forth below." (Though this is contradicted later in the same lead). After reading Adam Thompson's AfD and the following DrV, I get your point, and would probably change my vote if we were talking about a former player, or a guy where the chances for more playtime in a FPL were very limited. But this guy is a 19-year-old that made his debut about a month ago (Even though wikipedia is not a crystallball, he will probably play more then 60 seconds for the next decade) and if it's get deleted it would need a DRV to decide whether GNG is met when he plays his second and third match... Mentoz86 (talk) 09:24, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - NFOOTY is the sensible way to go when it comes to players from a football-crazy country who play for a team with a 40,000 capacity stadium. If they played in England for Chelsea (for example), would they receive enough media coverage to push them past GNG? Almost certainly. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 14:23, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - If he played for Chelsea, maybe he would. But he doesn't play for Chelsea, and his appearance during injury time didn't gather significant media coverage. So he doesn't deserve an article. – Kosm1 fent 15:43, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        That's just regional bias. Corinthians are one of Brazil's top teams and the reigning champions of the top division and it's idiotic to believe their players receive no attention based on coverage by the European and American media. It's systematic bias that NFOOTY's "presumption of notability" is designed to counter. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 23:30, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the subject plays in Brazil. If your (Suriel) claim that he has received coverage is ture, then produce it and I'll happily withdraw the nomination, but until then the existence of coverage is speculative only, which is insufficient to establish notability. I would also like to remind you to please remains civil. Referring to those who disagree with you as idiots does little to advance the discussion. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:53, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. I thought I'd made my point clearly but let's try again. My assertions are:
(1)Players for a major Brazilian team are likely to receive as much media attention in their home country as a player for a major Premier League team does in Europe.
(2) This is unlikely to be reflected in the Western media which focusses on the West.
(3) Wikipedia itself reflects this media bias (WP:BIAS) and steps should be taken to counter it.
(4) WP:NFOOTY's "Players who have appeared... in a fully professional league, will generally be regarded as notable" is a guideline which takes points 1-3 into consideration and should be followed in this case.
(5) If you want to report me for being uncivil then go for it. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 01:47, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You (Suriel) seem to be under the mistaken impression that only coverage in what you refer to as the western media is acceptable as significant coverage. If a footballer has received significant coverage in any media, western or otherwise, he/she is notable. The brazillian media, especially in football related matters is easily accesible. If you want to overcome demographic bais, I would suggest inundating the encyclopedia with the sources you claim exist in the non-western media rather rather than speculating what these sources may or may not cover. All that being said, I feel we are moving too far into the general, and are losing sight of the specifics of this particular article. At present, I have your word against my research as to whether or not sources exist. I mean no disrespect, but I prefer to trust the latter. Given your incorrect assertion about the inaccuracy of the nomination, I can only assume that your your research was less rigorous. My research included searches in the Brazillian news media, and uncovered nothing more than a few statistical player profiles and a few match reports, the very definition of routine sports journalism. Finally, in rereading all of what I've just said, I realise that I come across as increbly patronising, and I appoligise for that. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying that at all!! How can I make it any clearer that I am entirely against any notion that notability is equated soley by coverage in the Western media? Additionally, I've not claimed to have sources and I've not in any way given my word that such sources exist. Clearly, there's an amount of accidental misunderstanding here so I think it's best I leave this debate alone now. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 04:18, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem I have with this arguement is that the claim that the absence of coverage is due to a western media bias is simply false. I have conducted a rigorous search including the brazillian media have nothing that comes close to significant coverage. What it boils down to is this: The article was previously deleted since its subject was not notable. The only difference being the sixty seconds Mr. Bossa spent on a football pitch. The main question then must be, did those sixty seconds significantly change the subject? In applying common sense, the answer is that things have not changed significantly. Ergo, the article remains unotable and should deleted. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:41, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the subject has appeared in two fully professional league games thus far (for the reigning Brazilian champions), meeting WP:NFOOTY ("Players who have appeared... in a fully professional league, will generally be regarded as notable") and is a winner of the Copa São Paulo de Futebol Júnior.
~~Also, inaccurate nomination. Where does it say the subject has played only 60 seconds...?~~ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 11:58, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Here. You'll see that he entered the pitch in the 91st minute. If it's not one minute he played, it may be two. But that's not the point. – Kosm1 fent 15:43, 22 May 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 nommination withdrawn (non-admin closure) Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:05, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Almamy Sogoba[edit]

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. This remains valid. All coverage of him that I've been able to find is routine sports journalism. He was called to the Africa cup of nations, but as he did not play or receive significant coverage for it, this does not make him notable. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:24, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:24, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:24, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:24, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep appears to meet WP:NFOOTY. Malian Première Division is a fully professional league. It is the top level league of Mali and its absence from Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues appears to be a result of the incomplete list (no entry for Mali exists). Both teams that Sogoba played for were part of the league. Ryan Vesey Review me! 07:02, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notability requires verifiable evidence. Whether true or not, without a source a to confirm the fully pro nature of the Malian Premiere Division, the claim to notability is based on speculation. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:04, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry then, I'm a bit ignorant on the definition of fully professional. I assumed highest level professional league and fully professional meant the same thing. What is required to be fully professional? Ryan Vesey Review me! 15:21, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, top level and fully pro are not the same thing. You'll note that top level leagues in Ireland and Bosnia, among others, are listed as not fully pro at WP:FPL. At present, there is no formally agreed definition of what a fully pro league is. However, leagues in which there are no amateur players, and in which players are payed enough to not require other jobs are generally considered fully pro. That being said, WP:NSPORT and WP:FPL should only be used as a guideline to determine what players are likely to meet the general notability guideline, not as some arbitrary cut-off point for notability. What's more relevant here is that there is no indication of significant coverage, and as Snowman has pointed out below, there is already a consensus that playing in the Malian Premier League by itself is not a sufficient claim to notability. Hopefully that clears things up. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:31, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - being called up to the 2012 African Cup of Nations (without playing) is not enough, per consensus at this previous AfD, and there is no evidence that the Malian Première Division is fully-pro. This article fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:37, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - following Tony's comments below, I am happy that playing in the 2012 CAF Confederation Cup is sufficient - the article, however, needs updating and improving. Also please note that WP:FOOTYN is merely an essay, not policy. Giant Snowman 11:44, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I had a misinterpretation of the current rules for footballers, Sir Sputnik and GiantSnowman have corrected me. Ryan Vesey Review me! 17:05, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Back to Keep per TonyStarks. Ryan Vesey Review me! 17:00, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The Malian League might not be pro but AS Real Bamako are a professional team and play in African continental competition regulary. Sogoba is the starting keeper and just recently started in both legs of the 2012 CAF Confederation Cup second round match-up against Wydad Casablanca, another professional team (see here). As per WP:FOOTYN, he is notable ("Have played in a competitive fixture between two fully professional clubs in a domestic, Continental or Intercontinental club competition."). Also, the fact that he was called up to the 2012 Africa Cup of Nations for a team like Mali should be factored in (meaning he's not some random Malian league player). I'd ask that the people that already voted for deleting the article re-evaluate their position based on this information. TonyStarks (talk) 09:27, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TonyStarks. Mentoz86 (talk) 05:52, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as nominator. Playing in the CAF Champions League should make him notable. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:42, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:55, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deborah Coulter-Harris[edit]

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

Though this biography lists books this person has written, they all appear to be published by self-publishers or author mills. Note that Lecturer in American universities is a non-tenured, contingent position. The article appears to have been written by the subject. Chick Bowen 03:20, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:30, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:30, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:31, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article appears to be an autobio by Coulter-Harris. No real claim of notability, coupled with the fact that the subject herself could not furnish any sources better than her own Classmates.com page and a university directory page that does not even list her name, are very good indicators of lack of notability. Agricola44 (talk) 14:45, 21 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Delete -- the presses named are not significant in the world of poetry or literature and there's nothing else supporting a claim of notability. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 20:29, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Major League Baseball players designated for assignment in 2012[edit]

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

This violates WP:NOT#NEWS, as being designated for assignment is relatively common in baseball, especially if it's a newer big leaguer or a nearly washed up veteran Delete Secret ^account 01:41, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:29, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:29, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Oversourced to one site, minutia of a routine transaction only of interest to the most obsessive of fantasy baseball players. Nate • (chatter) 05:17, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of sources discussing this grouping to satisfy WP:LISTN.—Bagumba (talk) 06:14, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel like getting into a big fight to keep the article if consensus is against it. However, I will continue to update it until it is deleted. I don't want this to be interpreted as defiance. Rather, I want the information to be up-to-date for as long as it is still up. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 23:13, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:52, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marina Birch[edit]

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

Delete. Used as a means of promoting a non-notable company. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:10, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete it is unclear whether any of the non-local press is more than trivial.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:39, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →Σ τ c. 01:14, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article does not meet WP:BIO, and seems like an advertisement. No real reliable sources. NJ Wine (talk) 01:30, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete concur with reasoning of Alan and NJ - fails WP:BIO, and seems to focus more on the company. GregJackP Boomer! 02:34, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable career, not enhanced by setting up a non-notable design studio that has the entirely non-notable idea of having clients mark magazine images they like or dislike. Where's the novelty? Emeraude (talk) 18:06, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No evidence presented of notability under WP:GNG, nor claims under WP:ACTOR joe decker ^{talk to me} 21:22, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Molly Hager[edit]

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

A theatre actor. Has appeared in some off Broadway plays. Refs given are reviews of the plays and not about her. The play, that the refs come from, just opened in the past week. Unable to find her at IBDB or ITDb. Unable to find refs except for theatre reviews. Prod was contested as "deprod, no reason given" Bgwhite (talk) 22:48, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find no significant coverage about Molly Hager. I can find her listed in cast credits, and mentioned in reviews, but the reviews do not provide the significant coverage needed to establish notability. The article does contain references to reviews but they are somewhat misleading. The NY Post review is used as a citation that she is part of the cast for Fat Camp. It does establish this fact, but the review itself provides no significant coverage about Hager or her performance. The article points to a Village Voice review that calls her "super" without providing a link to an online version. I found it here, and literally, the word "super" consists of the entirety of coverage about Hager in the review. The article also refers to a Theatremania review calling her performance "tough and tender". If one reads the article, one finds the words refer to the character of Taylor and not Hager's performance. I was unable to find an online version of the New York magazine review which purportedly called her "sensational" but given the way the other reviews have been used, I suspect that it is blown out of proportion. The article looks like the handiwork of a publicist. -- Whpq (talk) 13:29, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →B music ian 02:00, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →Σ τ c. 01:12, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Whpq. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:48, 29 May 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 IAR/nominator concurred speedy redirect. (NAC - note: I am an involved editor in this discussion) OSborn ^arf_contribs. 19:08, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Altamonte Elementary[edit]

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

Non-notable elementary school, no assertion of notability and no evidence of extensive coverage in independent reliable sources. Dawn Bard (talk) 01:11, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect- My Prod removal edit summary in full: 'Uniquely named elementary school can be redirected to Seminole County Public Schools.' Only routine coverage. Dru of Id (talk) 02:08, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:27, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:27, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirect is AfD necessary for these articles? OSborn ^arf_contribs. 04:49, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect This should really be a criteria allowed at Wikipedia:Non-admin closure. I considered invoking WP:IAR, but I believe anything done by IAR is inherently controversial to some extent. Ryan Vesey Review me! 07:08, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- After this AFD has closed, I will make a request to add the criteria to the appropriate closures. Ryan Vesey Review me! 17:40, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per standard practice. I echo the desire for a speedy criterion. Carrite (talk) 17:35, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As nominator, I have no objection to speedy redirect, with closure of this AfD - I know that's the usual outcome for elementary schools, I'm not sure why I didn't remember that while I was nominating this for deletion. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 18:45, 22 May 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 Imagine Publishing. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:41, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How It Works (magazine)[edit]

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

I found no notability. Fails WP:CORP. SL93 (talk) 21:36, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:CORP. Google search for news mentions gives 6 results. INeverCry 21:56, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →B music ian 02:07, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →Σ τ c. 01:10, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If not kept, then redirect to Imagine Publishing. There is some coverage of the magazine out there that we shouldn't delete all reference to it.[23].--Milowent • ^hasspoken 02:14, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Imagine Publishing, per WP:NMAG, WP:GNG. No sourced content to be merged. -- Trevj (talk) 10:21, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. A redirect can be created editorially if deemed necessary. Sandstein 16:09, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greek Alliance of Rare Diseases[edit]

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

I found no notability for this organization. SL93 (talk) 21:33, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The ref used in this article lists a large number of rare diseases organizations in numerous countries. This particular Greek organization might merit mention on a list of such organizations here on wikipedia, but not its own article. INeverCry 21:42, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →B music ian 02:08, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →Σ τ c. 01:06, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to European Organization for Rare Diseases, with which it appears to be affiliated. --MelanieN (talk) 16:04, 25 May 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) →B music ian 00:16, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

World's Finest Chocolate[edit]

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

The article is nothing more than advertising. There are no reliable sources provided, and any sources that were added were primary or not focused on the subject. Further, an extensive search on Google and industry publications provided little or no reliable sources that establish notability of the company.–Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 00:53, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:26, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but improve. Accordiang to manta, the company was founded in 1922 and has 500 employees. It wasn't very difficult for me to find reliable sources such as this one, so this company definitely meets Wikipedia's corporate notability standard. NJ Wine (talk) 01:25, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - None of those sources have the required significant depth of coverage needed to confer presumption of notability; most consist solely of passing mention of the company, e.g. Saint Mary's started its annual fund raiser today featuring candy bars made by World's Finest Chocolates... Furthermore, the provided search only had four sources from the search that mentioned the company - one press release, two of the fundraiser notices and one from the Hudson murder trial that featured an interview with a juror that worked for the company. The rest of the links in the search were sites that happened to have the three key words on the same page. The passing mention and routine coverage types of sources only establish verifiability of the subject, not notability, as required in WP:Notability. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 05:37, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Evidently notable - see Chocolate Fads, Folklore & Fantasies, for example. Warden (talk) 08:28, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The topic passes WP:GNG:

Plunkett, Jack W. (2008). "Plunkett's Food Industry Almanac". Pluncket Research, Ltd. Retrieved May 20, 2012. ISBN 1593924496
Miller, David (September 15, 2011). "Broadcast group works with World's Finest Chocolate on Guinness record-setting campaign". The Dispatch. Retrieved May 20, 2012. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
"How many calories? World's biggest chocolate bar unveiled". The Sun. September 14, 2011. Retrieved May 20, 2012. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
"Local Company Seeks Record For World's Largest Chocolate Bar". CBS News (Chicago). September 13, 2011. Retrieved May 20, 2012. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
Lowe, Frederick H. (November 27, 1991). "Chocolate firm settles bias lawsuit: World's Finest will pay $2 million to blacks and women who were denied jobs". Chicago Sun-Times . Retrieved May 20, 2012. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help) (subscription required)
Chavez., Donna (November 29, 1992). "World's Finest A lifetime built on chocolate". Chicago Tribune. Retrieved May 20, 2012. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help) (subscription required)
Schmeltzer, John (February 7, 2006). "Chocolate firm breaks mold ; World's Finest expands into retail". Chicago Tribune. Retrieved May 20, 2012. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:43, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Despite the evident commercial razzmatazz, the company is notable. Have defluffed the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:37, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I will quote what I said during the WP:PROD in April: the company is somewhat notable--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:31, 20 May 2012 (UTC) both for having produced the world's largest chocolate bar (http://columbiachronicle.com/worlds-finest-chocolate-creates-worlds-largest-chocolate-bar/) and for being the fundraising candy bar (http://www.usafundraising.com/candy-fundraisers/world-s-finest-chocolate-fundraiser).[reply]
Keep. The evidence of "notability" here is overwhelming. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 18:54, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Also per this 1972 article. SL93 (talk) 19:47, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - extraordinarily well-known fundraiser for schools, including my own, if you care. Bearian (talk) 19:21, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article has been dramatically improved since its deletion nomination. There seems to be reasonable coverage in reliable sources, sufficient to meet WP:GNG. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 20:27, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article is improved since nominated for deletion and now obviously notable →TSU ^tp* 21:59, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I am happy to userfy if the original author requests it. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:43, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A V Denham[edit]

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

No indication of WP:notability. Only references are either not significant or not independent. Disputed prod noq (talk) 00:20, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Denham has written at least nine published books which are available for purchase at amazon.com.[24] Denham meets the WP:CREATIVE notability standard: The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work. NJ Wine (talk) 00:35, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Being available on Amazon is not one of the notability criteria. Your partial quote of criteria 3 of WP:CREATIVE missed out the bit about being the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews and I see no sign of that. The Copac reference is a directory listing - not significant coverage. noq (talk) 14:37, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:24, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per NJ Wine. Copac is a significant, independent reference. Note also that the article's creator is currently in the process of sourcing additional references. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:01, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The test for notability is whether the coverage of the topic in a source is significant, not whether the source publication is significant. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:28, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My understanding of consensus opinion is that published authors are not automatically notable. Their publications need to be established as being significant or well-known. Simply being on Copac or Amazon doesn't do that. The article is only about 24 hours old, so I'll give the creator a chance to find some references before I !vote, but at the moment I don't think this article meets our criteria for inclusion. (I wish it did, since it was created by a new editor that I don't want to discourage, but that isn't a good enough reason to weaken our standards.) --Tango (talk) 10:35, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have to agree that being listed on Copac just means your books exist. I have tried a search on LexisNexis and HighBeam but have yet to find any reviews, awards or other mention so far. It would help to know what her books were about, or a bit more about her, in order to search more widely. Denham is not a particularly uncommon name. --Fæ (talk) 14:17, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I saw this shortly after it was nominated and first response was that it was not notable. That remains my opinion and I do not understand why Amazon and Copac are thought to confer notability, nor do I see how this is "a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work" - so far the failure to find evidence for this (and I searched too) suggests that her work is not notable. But I'll withhold my !vote and hope that the two editors who voted Keep can explain further what they see as showing notability. Dougweller (talk) 20:46, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ok, even time is passed and I don't want to forget this. Clearly there has been no evidence found that this author passes our notability criteria, as the two other editors commenting above have also said. Dougweller (talk) 05:11, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Dougweller. Several people (including me) have tried to find sources to establish the notability of this author, and have failed. I have to conclude that she isn't notable. --Tango (talk) 20:08, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:AUTHOR, but with no disrespect to her achievements. One or more of Denham's titles may be separately notable, but that does not mean that our policies consider that she is, per WP:NOTINHERITED. -- Trevj (talk) 10:27, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Userfication as I see no harm in someone chipping away at improving a userspace draft. Based on the multiple searches done so far, it seems unlikely that quality sources will demonstrate notability in the near future. --Fæ (talk) 10:39, 30 May 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) →B music ian 00:16, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Värner Lootsmann[edit]

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

local politician with no claim to WP:notability noq (talk) 00:15, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but improve. I found this article about Mr. Lootsmann in Estonian Wikipedia that I had Google translate. Besides being a local politician, he appears to have been a member of the Estonian parliament who has a few inpendent news sources discussing his policies. A few more references should be added to this article. NJ Wine (talk) 00:26, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The person appears to have received significant coverage in reliable sources, thus the topic passes WP:GNG:

(Estonian) "Varner Lootsmann may increase the Harju county governor". Estonian Public Broadcasting. December 8, 2005. Retrieved May 19, 2012.
(in English) "Ratas Too Passive, Says Regional Leader". Estonian Public Broadcasting. August 12, 2011. Retrieved May 19, 2012.
(Estonian) "Värner Lootsmann: on siililegi selge, et minu ametist vabastamine oli puhtalt poliitiline käik". Delfi.ee. June 30, 2011. Retrieved May 19, 2012. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
(Estonian) "Centre Party of typical shot: Varner Lootsmann". Estonian Express. October 24, 2009. Retrieved May 19, 2012. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:57, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:24, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:24, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No comment on the sources, but I declined the speedy since the Counties of Estonia seems to be the first administrative level below the national level, so being governor of one of them would indicate holding a sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office in the sense of WP:POLITICIAN. --Tikiwont (talk) 08:41, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:POLITICIAN — I agree with Tikiwont that he appears to have held a position comparable to governors of US states and Russian oblasts. Nyttend (talk) 12:08, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:POLITICIAN. It does pass WP:GNG. →TSU ^tp* 22:00, 26 May 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.

Kelvin Grove School[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Lockport, Illinois#Schools. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 19:25, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

~~Website states it is a primary school,~~ No notability or good sourcing shown. ~~Website is here~~. Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 17:01, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rename & Redirect- To Kelvin Grove Middle School, per non-UK url website [25]. Redirect to Lockport, Illinois since Lockport School District 91 (Milne-Grove School District) not yet created; note Kelvin grove jr. high already redirects there. Nominator's given website is Kelvin Grove Primary School in London. Dru of Id (talk) 17:22, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate with links to Lewisham and either Milne-Kelvin Grove School District 91 or Lockport, Illinois#Schools or some such, since they have a roughly equal chance of notability if they have been around a while. As for the U.S. content (from the current article): Merge it to Lockport, Illinois#Schools. It appears that this district is (now?) calling itself Milne-Kelvin Grove School District 91; I guess that's to distinguish it from Taft School District 90 and Will County School District 92 that cover the south and north parts of Lockport, and from Lockport Township High School District 205. Grade school districts like this usually have a history dating back before 1900, so I suspect that the school districts may meet WP:Notability if someone wants to really dig, even if they are one-school elementary districts; but District 91 has only those two schools, and is almost totally within Lockport; Taft is a single school and almost totally within Lockport also, so I think I'll redirect those also, and someone can split out what they think is notable. --Closeapple (talk) 23:50, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I just created Lockport, Illinois#Schools and redirected Taft School District 90, Lockport School District 91, and Milne-Kelvin Grove School District 91 to sections of that, for what it's worth. --Closeapple (talk) 01:42, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lockport, Illinois#Schools per Closeapple and WP:OUTCOMES#Schools. -Scottywong | prattle _ 16:43, 31 May 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. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:44, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

3 CD Collector's Set (Rihanna album)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete = This article was previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rihanna 3CD Collector's Set as a non-notable album. This article is comprised of three track listing from three pre-existing Wikipedia articles alongside some padded-out contextual factors. Whilst the collection charted, WP:NALBUMS says nothing about charting as an indicator of notability and states that "[a]lbum articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting". There isn't multiple, independent coverage for this particular release. A sentence along the lines of "In December 2009, this album X was included in a compilation release alongside albums Y and Z, reaching number 80 in the US R&B Album charts" can be added to Good Girl Gone Bad, Music of the Sun and A Girl like Me (Rihanna album). Please read the speedy deletion discussion here. SplashScreen (talk) 20:06, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I re-created and think that the article should be kept, since its looking lot better since the last time when is deleted. Since the box charted there is nothing wrong in having it here on Wikipedia as a separate article. — Tomica (talk) 21:59, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 20:44, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Just not enough independent coverage from reliable sources. It's mostly padded with info about the three albums that make up this set. Charting, in and of itself, does not make an album notable. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 00:55, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm not understanding the argument. The "background" section, in which you are referring to, consists of information about the release and what is contained within it. I know this is probably against WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but for example, My Worlds: The Collection basically consists of the same thing; the only difference being it was more commercially successful. Also, thought it might be a good mention, the article isn't even complete yet. I guess now me and Tomica are pressed for time to complete it... — Statυs (talk) 02:43, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. The background section is the very reason why the article should be deleted; all of its constituent parts are already surmised in their respective articles. The same is said for the tracklisting section. Therefore, we're left with nothing of substance that isn't already included elsewhere. This article is an unnecessary WP:CFORK. SplashScreen (talk) 21:03, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is thorough and contains enough information on the independently released box-set. AND it charted. On these two facts alone, it deserves to stay. WikiUhOh (talk) 14:59, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, the article contains information on the three constituent albums. Where in this article is the information about the box set itself? SplashScreen (talk) 20:48, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone here should have his/hers opinion right? So he is right if he thinks like she/he thinks. You don't have to go around and change peoples mind. — Tomica (talk) 21:05, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. But this is a debate, where people air opposing points of view in the aim of establishing consensus. SplashScreen (talk) 22:28, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedia is better with this article. Consider the purpose here, is to create an encyclopedia, not to delete anything possible. A sourced article on an release by a prominent performer. It actually has an independent reference for the collection, not counting the individual components. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:20, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - The reasons for the previous deletion of this article still apply. This release received WP:ROUTINE coverage, there is no significant coverage to indicate independent notability and the information is simply a stretched-out compilation of text contained elsewhere. Absolutely no justification for the recreation of this correctly-deleted article. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 13:53, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like a toss-up if referring to Wikipedia:Notability (albums), but then again so are all those articles on Michael Jackson compilation albums. There's at least a couple of independent sources. Although I'd agree that a lot of the background is compiled from elsewhere, it's at least a C quality article as of now. Dan56 (talk) 17:06, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But this isn't a compilation album like ABBA Gold or Rocket Man: The Definitive Hits. It's a box set comprised of three separate albums that have pre-existing articles. There's nothing distinctly notable about this release to warrant a separate article. SplashScreen (talk) 17:11, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First of all it charted. There is notability! Then, it was released to further promote Rated R when it was released back in 2009. So yeah, there is notability and of course that there are independent sources. Status already pointed a box set by Bieber which is compiled by the same structure as 3 CD Collector's Set. So yes there is notability, I don't see your big hard problem with the article. And it's C class, because me and Status hadn't got the chance to finish it, since somebody already nominated for AfD. — Tomica (talk) 17:21, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no Wikipedia policy stating "if it charts, it's notable". I also refer you again to WP:NOTINHERITED - there's nothing to suggest this item of merchandise is independently notable enough to warrant its own article. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 00:45, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - Contains information not present on her articles, it charted separately as well. Merging it would mean loosing the value that this article created, so my vote is strong keep.--(CA)Giacobbe (talk) 20:08, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, merging would mean any relevant, sourced information would be saved. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 00:45, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Repackaging of three previously released CD's. Not independently notable. -Zanhe (talk) 00:04, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, salt Independent coverage is trivial, the article is not on a standalone album. Dahn (talk) 16:58, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete p b p 03:21, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you have nothing to contribute, why bother commenting? A simple "delete" or "keep" for that matter has no weight here. — Statυs (talk) 02:40, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Contains enough information and it charted separately. It's independently notable. VítoR™ ^{Talk That Shit} 11:08, 29 May 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) →B music ian 00:17, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cat Daddy[edit]

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

This article doesn't meet the guidelines for notability and verifiability. I has no chart perfomance, the original performer, 'The Rej3ctz' doesn't have an article on Wikipedia, and most of the information on here relies on YouTube, which is not a reliable source. It has been deleted three times per CSD A9. Hahc21 (talk) 23:56, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep I have not seen prior versions of this article, but it now passes WP:GNG regardless of chart performance or original performer. As I look at the footnotes, I fail to understand the point about it relying on YouTube.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:18, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article meets the WP:GNG by far. WP:NSONG is the special notability guideline (SNG) for songs that says, if a song meets these requirements, then it is notable, but that doesn't mean there aren't songs that don't meet those requirements that aren't notable themselves (too many negatives?). This is one example of such a song. For comparison, see Freakum Dress as one of the best examples of a song that doesn't meet NSONG, but is notable on its own. Silver seren^C 00:48, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The guideline says that if a song is not notable, then it must redirect to its parent album. To meet notability, it must chart or become a subject of culture on some country or society. Otherwise, and article about the song is irrelevant. Also, per the CSD A9, a song which main performer doesn't have an article is candidate for deletion. Also, on the guidelines for verifiability, YouTube is only considered a source for music videos, relying on VEVO channels. Otherwise, it is as reliable as any blog. --Hahc21 (talk) 01:19, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And, if you take a look at the article's talk page, on the article milestones, it appears deleted twice on June 2011, and one time May 2012, totalizing three times. So there were prior versions of this article. Also, on the same talk page, a deletion log details which user and under which guideline the article was deleted. --Hahc21 (talk) 01:32, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You keep pointing out that prior versions were deleted. This article is likely to pass at WP:GAC. Don't compare this to the prior versions that were deleted. This song and dance are very modestly notable, but there is didactic content in this article teach the precise modest notability. In fact, I suggest that you please review the footnotes section and consider withdrawing this nomination. It should be quite clear to you that if you look more closely at the footnotes that this article is not based on YouTube.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:57, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned the past deleted versions because you said there weren't, shich is not true. I've read the footnotes many times. As you might know, i reviewed the article when it was nominated at GA. I'm not trying to get the article deleted per my personal opinion, which is also unfair. I'm just asking the community their thoughts about the article. --Hahc21 (talk) 02:04, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about. I never said their weren't past deleted versions. I put them on the talk page. As far as your reviews go, since you are picking a fight rather than doing a review, I will renominate without making changes and put a note at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations explaining why I am doing so.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:34, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey i'm not taking a fight. I never meant to fight with you. As i've seen, i'm only dialoguing with you to reach a consensus about the article. If it's deleted or not, it's not the matter. What i wantet to know, as i said, is what community can say about the article rather than my personal opinion. Please do not missunderstand my statements. --Hahc21 (talk) 02:40, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean to dialog please tell me the number of footnotes you see in the "Kate Upton version" section and how many are from YouTube? Then tell me how you calculate 90%.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:44, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

None of them are from YouTube. I know. But, as an example: the ref #16 has more useful info than only the sentence you wrote. The same with ref #17, #18 and #19. You need to expand the info as long as you can so the reader understand clearly the matter. And i repeat. i'm not fighting. I'm not that kind of users that fight others without hearing anything. --Hahc21 (talk) 03:00, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They were deleted before because they didn't give an indication of importance, likely they were just single line, unreferenced sentences. But WP:NSONG specifically says that if a song shows why it is important or significant, then it can't be speedied. And through the current article's references, it shows that. And the Youtube sources in the article are only being used to cite number of views for said video, which has routinely been upheld as allowed, since anyone can verify the numbers by checking the video themselves. Silver seren^C 01:50, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but about 90% of the article is written in accordance with the information retrieved from YouTube, which is not meant by the guideline as fair. The entire "Kate Upton version" section is written only with stats from YouTube, when only saying "the video has more than 5 millino views on YouTube" is more than enough. More than a speddy deletion, as a wrote on the GA review, this article needs cleanup of overcharge of repetitive and redundant information. I'm confident that after the cleanup is done, only 5 to 10 lines will make the article. --Hahc21 (talk) 02:01, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you lying or just stupid? That section has 11 footnotes and only one of them was published by YouTube.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:34, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As you came into insults, i'll leave it as this. The community will make the choice. If my point is not correct, i'll accecpt it, that's why i proposed it at first. --Hahc21 (talk) 03:04, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is as insulting to me that you would make up lies to fail my article as it is to you that I call you a liar. You know full well that 3 out of 20 is not 90%.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:12, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, i exagerated. And even i didn't failed the article for that. As per the GA guideline, unreliable sources can be changed later if the article meets the rest of the criteria. The article failed because of prose, notability andstructure. As well as "Zou Bisou Bisou". If you fix the prose and structure issues, to pass the GA process, it'll still need to meet song notability, regardless of the YouTube sources. As you said the other 17 sources coem from very well known media outlets, so there will be no issue with them. I also recommend to expand the article and get it copyedited as i wrote on the review :). --Hahc21 (talk) 03:17, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to note, only 3 of them are Youtube: 8, 9, and 20, the rest are not. Though I think he means that the section itself is all info about stats, which is rather irrelevant. Silver seren^C 02:46, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear 3 of the 20 in the whole article are YouTube and only 1 in the section he is pointing to are.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:10, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:22, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TonyTheTiger, may I remind you of no personal attacks, please? Asking somebody if they are stupid isn't very constructive. Address the content, not the editor. Thanks. Till I Go Home (talk) 03:31, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It is a rare case, but I concede that throwing out the term stupid was inappropriate. I apologize.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:46, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I want to apologize either. I recognize i got too far with the YouTube thing. Excuse myself. Of course, be sure that i review the articles on the most neutral way possible. I never fail articles just because i want. But, finally, i apologize for my exagerations. --Hahc21 (talk) 03:48, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - You went to far failing this at WP:GAC and nominating this for deletion, but I do accept your apology.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:19, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - I had very good reasons (based only on guidelines) for failing the article. I didn't failed because of YouTube. I know i went far by nominating it for deletion, but not at failing it. As it is right now, it doesn't meet the criteria. --Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 12:56, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Going by some of the article's better sources: MTV [26][27], LA Times [28], ABC News [29], and Fox News [30] all contain significant coverage. The subject's notability appears to exist more as a "dance move" than as a "song", so I'm not too concerned whether or not this meets WP:NSONG; more importantly, it meets WP:GNG. Gongshow ^Talk 00:08, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question Didn't this survive AFD just a week or two ago? If so, what was the name it had then, since this isn't "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cat Daddy (2nd nomination)"? Nyttend (talk) 12:06, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Gongshow's sources. Notable as a subject, just not necessarily as a song. Meets the WP:GNG, which is most important. Sergecross73 msg me 13:03, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The article looks in pretty bad shape. I'm gathering this is a single/song? It's a bit hard to tell. If it's a single/song, and it didn't chart (from what I can see it didn't) then I will vote delete as it fails notability. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 16:06, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Freakum Dress" is very different. Multiple live performances on different tours and it got a music video. It also received a lot more information by way of reviews etc. To be honest I am leaning toward delete for this article as it doesn't have what "Freakum Dress" has. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 16:13, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There are three questions to ask. Is this a notable song? Is this a notable dance? and Is this a notable viral video? It must pass at least one of those three to be kept. I believe it surely passes 3 and based on stuff added to the talk page, it passes 1. It might not pass 2, but it only has to pass one of the three.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:51, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG based on coverages in suitable sources for the topic. Previous deletes are irrelevant, as the first was an improper delete 1 minute after creation when the article only contained 1 header. The second delete killed off a copyright infringement. Everything is restored and in the history. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:09, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This nomination is officially wasting WP resources. It should be withdrawn or WP:SNO closed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:42, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep Meets GNG. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:49, 22 May 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.