Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 October 17

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 16 October	18 October >

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 (non-admin closure). Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:48, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Eriksson[edit]

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

Notability ReformedArsenal (talk) 23:45, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep Weak delete~~ Keep - played (one game, on loan) for BK Häcken (in 2011) in the Allsvenskan (First Division) which is in the list of fully professional leagues so by the letter of WP:NFOOTY, the subject passes. But every other appearance has been for Kärra KIF which is in the (non-professional) Fourth Division or the Swedish Under-17s or Under-19s. So if people want to cite WP:NFOOTY and the consensus is that one game while on loan isn't enough, I certainly won't object. Stalwart111 (talk) 04:14, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion - I suggest that we merge him in with Kärra KIF and add him as a notable player with a comment that he played on loan for BK Häcken. Although, the notability of Karra KIF might be in question too.ReformedArsenal (talk) 12:00, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:43, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - yes he technically meets WP:NFOOTBALL due to 31 minutes of professional play over a year ago - but WP:GNG is more important, and he does not meet that, with no indication he ever will. I also disagree with merging him into his current team - there is another non-notable player by the same name and the merge might cause some confusion. Giant Snowman 16:47, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that other player by the same name looks to have played for Lindome GIF for two seasons (2008 and 2009 - scoring a goal in each season) while they were in the first division. So it's arguable that 'your' Robin Eriksson would meet WP:NFOOTY to a greater extent than the Robin Eriksson in question. Bizarre! Your argument about GNG is, nonetheless, convincing and I have changed my opinion above. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 23:48, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - article has been improved massively, enough to satisfy GNG. Giant Snowman 11:40, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, changed again. Ha ha. Stalwart111 (talk) 21:27, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've found enough independent non-trivial coverage of Mr Eriksson to incorporate into the beginnings of an article, certainly enough to indicate the likelihood of the subject meeting WP:GNG, even if the article itself doesn't, yet. As he does pass WP:NFOOTBALL, I'd presume that's enough to justify a keep. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:33, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - technically passes WP:NFOOTBALL and certainly passes WP:GNG, job's a good 'un ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:20, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Impressive work Struway2. Passes both WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. --Mentoz86 (talk) 18:27, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Mentoz86. The article has been improved enough and notability validated. Thanks for your hard work.

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

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

The result was redirect to List_of_XM_Satellite_Radio_channels#Hip-Hop_and_R.26B. SarahStierch (talk) 17:18, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suite 62[edit]

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

Does not meet notability requirements ReformedArsenal (talk) 23:41, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of XM Satellite Radio channels. There are probably quite a few of these that could be merged there or a new List of defunct XM Satellite Radio channels article. - Dravecky (talk) 15:03, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge as above. Could not find any coverage in independent, reliable sources outside a couple of trivial mentions that do little more than confirm its existence. Fails WP:GNG on lack of significant coverage. --Batard0 (talk) 17:03, 24 October 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. SarahStierch (talk) 17:20, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Francisco France (fighter)[edit]

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

MMA fighter with one appearance for a top tier organization, which fails WP:MMANOT. There are no other supported claims of notability and the article lacks any sources that show significant, non-routine coverage.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 23:33, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:MMANOT. I don't think the a Brazilian state championship is enough to show notability, even if sources for it are added. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 12:42, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Per all above.
LlamaAl (talk) 15:29, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:MMANOT. Has not had three fights for a top-tier promotion, also fails WP:GNG on lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. --Batard0 (talk) 17:06, 24 October 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. SarahStierch (talk) 17:21, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yusup Saadulaev[edit]

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

Non-notable MMA fighter. He has one fight for a top tier MMA organization (a loss) and fails to meet WP:MMANOT. There's no other claim of notability (an Illinois state championship is insufficient) and the article has no significant, non-routine, independent coverage. Papaursa (talk) 23:23, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 23:23, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:MMANOT. Astudent0 (talk) 18:06, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has not fought for a top tier promotion.--LlamaAl (talk) 22:45, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet notability criteria. Mdtemp (talk) 21:26, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Deletel: Fails WP:MMANOT, not having fought three matches in the top tier, and coverage found in a search is either trivial or press releases that are unreliable. Fails WP:GNG also on lack of significant coverage. --Batard0 (talk) 17:08, 24 October 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:26, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Helena Ekblom[edit]

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

Does not meet Notability requirements. ReformedArsenal (talk) 23:03, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is the reason to why the article is contested? The relevance is I think described in the article. She was one of the most well known religious figures of her category in contemporary Sweden, and she still is so in Swedish history. If the references are questioned, then the article should not be deleted, but rather have its references approved, just as articles are always improved continuously in Wikipedia. Foreign language sources are allowed in Wikipedia. Ekblom is quite notable in Swedish history. She is as mentioned the perhaps most notable of all female preachers in her category in Swedish history. Of course the article can be developed, though, as can all articles. She is well referenced on Swedish wikipedia. This article should be improved, not deleted. --Aciram (talk) 23:48, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was not able to find any published secondary sources that qualified for notability per Wikipedia:Notability (People)ReformedArsenal (talk) 00:22, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, at least the first and the second sources in the article are reliable and independent, though for the first one it would be good to have the publishing information (publisher, year, page etc).--Ymblanter (talk) 07:41, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The subject is notable, as I mention before and any one with knowledge of the subject can verify. True, it needs to be developed, but so do many articles in Wikipedia, and the action is more to devolope them than to delete them: the work on wikipedia is built on continuing work on the articles. When it comes to a historical subject from another country, it may be more difficult to find information on the net, but as you can see on the Swedish Wikipedia, there are sources to ad. --Aciram (talk) 13:32, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I may ad, that Helena Ekblom is mentioned in dictionaries about church history in Sweden. This can be seen on Swedish wikipedia, were one of the references is "Kyrkohistoriskt Personlexikon" (Dictionary about People within Church History). --Aciram (talk) 13:38, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just add the publication information for the sources. If you have access to the sources, it would be good to add online citations to the article, but it is notable anyway.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:45, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added an English-language source from Cross Currents which is an excellent 7 page scholarly overview of her life and why she is important. Unfortunately it's $ but if anyone wants a copy I can provide it in private, for verification purposes. The rest of the sources seem to be in Swedish making it more difficult but clearly a notable historical figure. She basically was a social dissident who used religion as a tool to question the entrenched powerful and wealthy. She was persecuted for it and placed into an asylum. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:47, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - reliable sources. dont really understand the point of this nomination.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:16, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The secondary sources that have been provided demonstrate the subject's notability. The subject meets Wikipedia's general notability criteria.--xanchester (t) 03:05, 24 October 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. SarahStierch (talk) 17:23, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Iguana Bird (fictional creature)[edit]

also nominating: Iguana Bird (disambiguation)

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

Non-notable alleged internet meme, unsourced, probable hoax. Nothing on Google; alleged indicator of notability (something about "google trend") seems bogus. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:46, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Iguana Bird (fictional creature). I can't find any evidence that this is a notable meme. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:22, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Iguana Bird (fictional creature) as non-notable. Speedy Delete Iguana Bird (disambiguation) as G6. Except for this AfD, {{db-disambig}} would have been appropriate for it. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:56, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obscure meme with no coverage by reliable sources. A search for news articles doesn't bring up anything. Fails to meet the general notability guideline.--xanchester (t) 02:24, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a lick of coverage could be found in a search. It may have been a meme, but it didn't attract significant coverage in reliable sources and hence fails WP:GNG. --Batard0 (talk) 17:10, 24 October 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. SarahStierch (talk) 17:24, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Roke Knoll[edit]

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

Article is a stub; topic is not significant enough to warrant a wikipedia article Npd2983 (talk) 21:20, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Love the series, but there's not enough for an article about this place. About the only thing I can recall happening there is when Tehanu confronts Thorion. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:38, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, yeah. Ged unleashes the creature that stalks him throughout the first book there. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:46, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Incredibly minuscule, unsourced topic. Qworty (talk) 04:28, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A search reveals no significant coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG on that basis. Note: we also may want to examine Immanent Grove for possible notability issues. --Batard0 (talk) 17:15, 24 October 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. SarahStierch (talk) 17:28, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CoH (musician)[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP. Homepage is a dead link. Looks like selfpromo/close connected author too. The Banner _talk 21:05, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. With coverage at Allmusic [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8], Exclaim![9][10], PopMatters [11], The Boston Phoenix[12], and an apparent article in The Wire [13][14], this artist meets WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO #1. Gongshow ^Talk 22:58, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Possible keep - I had a strong feeling that additional sources would be Russian, and yes, Google News archives provided several results. Given that I am not fluent with Russian, I wouldn't know if all of them are relevant so I have notified Wikipedia:WikiProject Russia with hopes to recruit help from Russian experts. SwisterTwister talk 04:25, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:25, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:25, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources shown above demonstrate that WP:MUSICBIO is met. — sparklism ^hey! 07:15, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't put much weight on the Allmusic or other album reviews, as these might indicate notability for the albums but do little for the artist. Nevertheless, based on the Wired article cited above and the fact he seems to meet criterion 5 of WP:NBAND, it's keep. --Batard0 (talk) 17:23, 24 October 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. SarahStierch (talk) 17:28, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Domovoi Butler[edit]

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

A search for reliable, secondary sources reveals an insufficient amount of significant coverage. This article fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines for fictional characters. Neelix (talk) 20:43, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find any reliable sources about this character. Unless they exist offline, it fails WP:GNG and other specific criteria cited above. --Batard0 (talk) 17:26, 24 October 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 The Simpsons#Merchandise. SarahStierch (talk) 17:29, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Simpsons Trading Card Game[edit]

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

A search for reliable, secondary sources reveals an insufficient amount of significant coverage. This product fails Wikipedia's general notability guideline. Neelix (talk) 20:39, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom or redirect to The Simpsons#Merchandise. Ryan Vesey 20:57, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hasn't been covered in reliable sources and therefore not notable. Theleftorium ^(talk) 20:59, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 19 October 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:13, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jim DeBerry[edit]

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

This is the most thoroughly researched article of someone not notable that I have ever seen! Nevertheless, the person is clearly nn. Lots of local, self-placed handouts, pr, etc. Too many jobs for which he is "notable" is a giveaway. Specialization is routine for truly notable people. Does he make swimming pools? Musician? Radio personality? These each can be done with some notability by someone, but not really all three at the same time. Just a normal, everyday self-promoter. Student7 (talk) 20:40, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment i believe this article is a keep. This article was approved by multiple editors. the article clearly has gain national attention. the article person is a virtuoso in two different paragraphs. the article person is in on it? i do not understand the statement. the simple explanation is rome was not built overnight as the wiki TOC suggested for article creations. This article went through AFC, got picked over 45 days, reviewed and thoughts placed on how to make it a better article by multiple editors in chats and asking opinions and sorting it out to make it a quality article. the deleting suggester appears to be searching to find a reason to slight a good article. other good articles that are worthiness such as this one do exist. the PR is not self placed, it's from precision records,, the claims of someone doing multiple notable things is not likely in my opinion a little bit different. can't good potential other editors exist and contribute? the point that multiple entertainer or craftsman don't exist how about such as ryan seacrest? carson daily, adam corolla, bubba the love sponge, even politicians who have careers before being a politician. entertainers often do multiple things, many notable people do many skilled things thats why they are notable. as well this article has a clear timeline. notable people do notable things and doing more than one things should not be a reason to judge against an article creation. the local claim is unfounded, national publications such as aqua magazine and pool and spa news are not local, touring in a band is not local. a radio show is multiple cities is not local. lets be fair and lets keep the article and let it be built upon by other editors. i re-read the reasons for deletion under the deletion policy, this article merits a stay not deletion. the comments by the editor who suggested deletion are reasons i believe is a little bit tough and unfounded. WinsnerB1942 (talk) 21:02, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Pending further review of the sources, which should decide this pretty effectively, I'll note at this point that the article definitely needs a cleanup to remove all hints of bias, non-neutral POV, and promotional tone. I personally wouldn't have cleared this through AFC in its current state for those reasons, having not looked at the sourcing yet. I'll also suggest to the article's author, WinsnerB1942, that you try to not take the nomination personally or as an "attack," as I'm sure it's not intended as such. That your article passed muster at AFC is a good sign, but I suggest instead of quibbling about "elitist wiki editor" type stuff, you simply supply a Keep vote and a clearly expressed rationale. Pick out what you feel are the best 2-3 sources in the article that help make it notable. That's all you need to and ought to do. I will look at this later (assuming/hoping I remember to when I get back home). Cheers, ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 21:44, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CommentDuly noted on the comments. the article has been picked apart from various editors and suggestions causing multiple changes. the reference sources had been less but other editors wanted more and approved them, so they are in. other editors wanted them. i am hopeful to see some Inclusionist, retention of "harmless" articles and articles otherwise deemed substandard to allow for future improvement. Inclusionist viewpoints are commonly motivated by a desire to keep Wikipedia broad in coverage with a much lower entry barrier for topics covered – along with the belief in that it is impossible to tell what knowledge might be "useful" or productive, that content often starts poor and is improved if time is allowed, that there is effectively no incremental cost of coverage, that arbitrary lines in the sand are unhelpful and may prove divisive, and that goodwill requires avoiding arbitrary deletion of others' work which i feel in this case. Some extend this to include allowing a wider range of sources. i firmly believe this article will improve over time and grow.WinsnerB1942 (talk) 22:21, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: WinsnerB1942 came to #wikipedia-en-help ^connect looking for an inclusionist for a keep vote and clearly stated that. This concerns me as a potential canvassing issue. --LauraHale (talk) 23:17, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Further commenting: I do not believe this was intended to violate the rules, but rather a new user not understanding fully how Wikipedia works. --LauraHale (talk) 00:04, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: While I am generally an inclusionist, I did not find any references searching through news.google.com, through Newsbank, through Trove, in Google Books, on World Cat. While the sources are in the article, I'm not sure " Pool & Spa News" should be used as a website used for notability purposes. The article doesn't make clear how the subject is notable. How popular was his radio show and what were the ratings? Why is a C-Level manager notable? --LauraHale (talk) 23:23, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is gutted, leaving only source that confer notability along with facts from those, I would be happy to re-evaluate my position. --LauraHale (talk) 00:04, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question: is there a policy or guideline you can point to that supports discounting independent sources with a very narrow scope (e.g. Pool & Spa News)? I have definitely been involved in deletion discussions that came down to whether or not such sources were acceptable in the past, but I personally can't recall if and/or what guideline(s) apply to this. Note: this is not a "gotcha" question, I'm sincerely curious :). ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 13:14, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: after speaking to the previous user in a chat, she made statements that she'd only accept sources found in newspapers through her way of searching for sources. she also suggested the only she'd change her mind was article must be gutted to her liking not necessary wiki guidelines. i made a solid effort to appease the editor to resolve and the editor did open slightly to be somewhat favorable, i bent pretty far as pretzel could go without breaking to appease. i'm hopeful the editor and others will be a little more willing to include this article, i read the living person afd list and the keeps afterwards and it does not appear very favorable for anyone to create an article of a living person, might explain the frustration with users comments over the web in regards to wiki deletions. i believe the grounds for deletion are not with merit while the grounds for creation are, i did revise the article for laurahale to her request from our chat WinsnerB1942 (talk) 05:25, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete! I have to agree with the nominator here, sounds too good to be true. He prabably has a career as a swimming pool executive, he's played in various bands and been on the radio, but he is not notable for any of it as far as I can tell. According to one of the sources, he's been on the road between the mid-nineties until 2007, playing more than 2400 shows around North America. This happened at the same time as hosting a radio show, raising a family, and building his career in the swimming pool industry (which started in 1996). As far as I can tell, this has been blown out of all proportions in an attempt to gain notability he doesn't have. As for the comment made by User:WinsnerB1942 above "This article was approved by multiple editors."; nope, that didn't happen, at least not by judging the article or talkpage. The article was reviewed and rejected three times, before User:Rcsprinter123 accepted it. (I've asked him to check this AFD btw, just to see if he has any thoughts on the matter.) Bjelleklang - talk 12:54, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: For what it's worth, articles on the subject has been created (and speedily deleted for being NN) twice before on May 14th. 2012 and April 25th. 2012.. Bjelleklang - talk 12:54, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I Have No Idea - This is an odd one. The content of the article reads like an obvious candidate for deletion. It's blatantly promotional in tone, and I agree with previous commenters' suggestion that jumping between all these different "cases" for notability smacks of...something like desperation, although that's probably a strong word for it. On the other hand, "Pool & Spa News" appears to be an independent source which publishes content subject to editorial review, which suggests that it passes muster as a reliable source -- and there's no question of whether or not the subject of the article is covered multiple times and at significant length in this source (and one or two others of more questionable quality). On the other other hand, I personally tend to discount sources with as narrow a topical focus as "Pool & Spa News." Regardless, I strongly suggest to the author of the article that they take LauraHale's kind suggestion and pare the article down to just those facts and details which most strongly support a case for notability and remove any hint of a promotional tone. Subjective sentences like "These simple beginnings lead the foundation of one of the industry's most prominent rises" are pure puffery. I'd avoid lines like that when writing about The Beatles, let alone Jim DeBerry, and your content is far more likely to be viewed positively if it's clean and objective :). ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 13:12, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While Pool & Spa News may be independent it is a trade magazine and creates a "big fish, small pond" situation where no real sense of the importance of the subject can be drawn as nearly every individual running a similar company will receive similar coverage in it. This is why we need mainstream press (a Big pond) to identify the particular subjects that deserve to stand out. The same can be said of nearly all the sources used here, non notable magazines, radio shows, etc. These may be fine for fact checking but do not confer any notability to the subject. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 14:12, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if this were on any other subject I'd say keep, but there's just no way he passes WP:N or WP:GNG. Stuart is right about the Pool & Spa News...he doesn't satisfy WP:RUNOFTHEMILL, to me, in that respect. Thus, I vote delete. Go Phightins! 20:40, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on potential canvassing. Recieved message on my talk page requesting improvement and/or comment on this page. I'm not sure what people want to think about this, so... Yeah. I'll leave it to you all. gwickwire | Leave a message 22:06, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redacted, user explained error. I do apologize to all. Sorry! gwickwire | Leave a message 23:15, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment i clicked on user gwickwire who by my oversight thought was the direct to ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ talk page while visiting ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ talk page honest mistake WinsnerB1942 (talk) 22:41, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment I think its a keep guys, since I've checked the sources and come to the conclusion that it deserves a place here. I don't see why it should be deleted. Huzzy 06:24, 19 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huzzy786 (talk • contribs)

Note: Huzzy786 was the person who created the two previous incarnations of the article. Bjelleklang - talk 09:44, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the nominator, removing the questionable content and sources and you would be left with an article that fails WP:GNB. Clearly someone has done a lot of work to make him look notable but sorry, he isn't. Bidgee (talk) 10:01, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I moved a long comment from User:WinsnerB1942 to the talkpage in order to respond, as it addressed myself on several points. Bjelleklang - talk 13:57, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as subject is not notable. AutomaticStrikeout 18:59, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The sourcing is marginal at best. -- Whpq (talk) 16:26, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This article is crap! No notability whatsoever! Coltsfan (talk) 17:08, 24 October 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:15, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SAREL Supplies & Services for Medicine Ltd.[edit]

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

The article, as it stands, is slightly promotional (though not so blatant as to merit CSD, in my opinion). It cites the company's English-translated webpage as a main souce, and some wording is taken directly from the site. CSD may be an appropriate alternative, but an open discussion here might allow for more input/sources. dci | TALK 19:53, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a minor Israeli purchasing group with 115 employees. The article tries to sound more important than it is. For example founded under a Government Decree just means that it complies with the law regarding formation of group purchasing organizations. It is not the sole supplier to the Ministry of Health. Delete for lack of notability per WP:ORG. --Bejnar (talk) 20:52, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. 15:16, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I managed to find a single source for it, in Globes, a financial newspaper. However, one source is not enough to qualify as significant coverage, and the subject does not seem to meet the general notability criteria. I imagine that most of the secondary sources, if they are out there, aren't in English. Hopefully, someone who's familiar with the Hebrew language can double check to make sure.--xanchester (t) 02:32, 24 October 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. SarahStierch (talk) 17:31, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The War Z[edit]

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

Non-Notable and is a PR piece; including pricing and download links. GenQuest (talk) 18:49, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:37, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, almost a speedy keep. I can see that the article was in pretty bad shape when the AfD was created, but I suspect the nominator didn't follow WP:BEFORE, as the article now has almost a dozen solid sources thanks to Tokyogirl79's excellent work. Promotional problems can be (and were) handled through normal editing. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 13:39, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—Echoing the above sentiment, Tokyogirl79's alterations to the article effectively resolve the criticisms regarding the notability of the subject, and promotional quality of the original content, signifying that deletion is unreasonable. Mephistophelian (contact) 14:57, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, I am the nominator, and I certainly did process WP:BEFORE before making the nomination. As I explained on the talk page, this is not the kind of article I would normally edit. In the thirty pages of my Google search, I found less than 7 mentions of the article's subject other than first-party webpages —hardly notable. The blatant sales pamphlet clone about a game that isn't even released yet that was initially on Wikipedia should not have been there for 5 minutes, let alone several days. The references added since my nomination are a good start, however, I have to ask (since, again, I am not a gamer and don't research these type of articles regularly), how many of the websites referenced are reliable (containing over-site, editorial review, etc.) — not just author opinions or fan sites? Or does that even matter in game articles? I leave it up to other editors out there who care about such articles to decide. I'm out... GenQuest (talk) 15:12, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can answer your question about sources. The Escapist, Joystiq, PC Gamer, and IGN are all great in terms of editorial oversight and quality control. Not certain on all the rest, but I'm pretty sure Destructoid is good. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 15:31, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you are not a gamer then you should apply your beauracratic skills elsewhere. The number of results in a Google Search for a game that has just released would have obviously been low since the bot probably hadn't indexed the results. It is people like you that really piss me off. You people are unconstructive bureaucrats who think that pedantically following every rule in the book will make this place better, and are meddling in a field you have no knowledge of. I motion for a keep and further motion that this bureaucrat tender his resignation with immediate effect or at the very least, refrain from trying to "improve" gaming-related articles. User:DiscipleOfKnowledge (talk) 23:04, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from ad hominem arguments during the discussion. Thanks, Mephistophelian (contact) 00:10, 19 October 2012 (UTC).[reply]

I will forgive your personal attack as the result of simple ignorance as to what the purpose of an encyclopedia is. It is certainly NOT to create notability, nor to sell video games. It's about building a better Wikipedia. Your rant and apparent "philosophy" does neither. Do us all a favor and look up the words "respect" and "consensus" in the dictionary, ~Regards GenQuest (talk) 00:18, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although I specifically cautioned DiscipleOfKnowledge regarding the character of his argument, the warning applies equally to anyone disparaging another editor as ignorant, and thereby disrupting this discussion. Mephistophelian (contact) 00:43, 19 October 2012 (UTC).[reply]

"Non-Notable and is a PR piece; including pricing and download links."

The article does not contain nay direct links to downlaod the game, only to the website itself, which is perfectly in reason It most certainly Notable as it has been on several high caliber websites Additionally there there is no mention of pricing on the page what so ever, other than one payment is necessary and no monthly fee's apply, which perfectly whithin reason as this may not otherwise be clear as it is a MMORPG and these often differ in their payment systems, so as such it would be of interest to the reader.

All of this leads me to wonder whether you read the article as all, but rather just have a personal dislike for the game itself — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deltorant (talk • contribs)

I moved this from the talk page of this AfD. That being said, nominating something for AfD does not mean that someone has anything against the game. Just that they noticed it didn't meet GNG as it was written and nominated it. Also, before I edited the article extensively, there was a price point mentioned and much of the article was taken from various press releases. As far as download links go, the nominator is probably referring to the website link at the bottom. In any case, best way to argue for an article being kept is to remain calm, source the article accordingly, and argue based on points from WP:GNG. Alluding to anyone having a personal slight against someone or something really isn't the way to go about this. We should always assume good faith when it comes to things of this nature unless someone does something so above and beyond the reasonable rationale of good faith that it's obvious. I believe that GenQuest was operating in good faith. A little hasty, but in good faith. Making swipes isn't any way to conduct ourselves.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 14:59, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've found multiple sources that talk about the game and some reviews of the beta runs of the game, so the game looks to be notable enough to keep. Now all that aside, arguing isn't going to get us anywhere. The original article format was awful and given the amount of gaming websites out there that are known for posting user reviews that don't count towards notability, it's easy to see how it'd be confusing to sort through things if you're not as familiar with the gaming sites. In any given AfD topic, there are a lot of sites that come up under GNews or other search engines that aren't usable as RS, so it's not always as easy as googling. I don't really see where this nomination was really all that bad, honestly. It resulted in the article getting some much needed love and proper sourcing, so this AfD had some merit because it brought it to the attention of various users that could edit. Maybe GenQuest could've asked around, but that's sort of a moot point and other than politely pointing out other options before nominating for deletion, we really have nothing to talk about other than potential ways to improve the article. But like I said, this AfD has ultimately been beneficial for the article and as such, accomplished something positive, so there's no reason for berating anyone.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:09, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I read the above. Notability is just not established. Vast majority of the sources are not classified as reliable by WP:VG/RS (on a "game news" website ≠ corroboration). I'll say this again: ~~IGN,~~ Joystiq, Destructoid, the sources are not solid. Likewise Google hits ≠ notability (especially when they overlap with the better-known World War Z). Notability is independent, reliable sourcing. VG encyclopedia articles are for games that contribute to critical discourse about VG—Wikipedia is not a directory. This AfD is about whether or not an idea is notable for an encyclopedia article. Ask yourself what it does to show its notability. I pass no personal judgment on this game and its moment quite possibly might come in the future, but right now it is not notable. czar · · 22:20, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You should take a look at this list, which shows that most of the sources used in the article are fine, while others are okay in some situations. Whether or not the game is released is not a criterion for notability. Many many games get coverage before they are released, just as films and other forms of media entertainment get coverage prior to being available for direct consumption. The standard for notability is whether it receives significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, which it does. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 22:34, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Sorry Czar, but you are straightforwardly mistaken in your interpretation of what the WikiProject considers to constitute a reliable source, hence whether the article satisfies the general notability criteria. Whereas you cite WP:VG/RL, the project's reference library, its actual guidelines on the reliability of online and printed media is WP:VG/RS, which explicitly includes IGN and GameSpy, both of which are News Corporation companies that incorporate the same database. Mephistophelian (contact) 23:08, 19 October 2012 (UTC).[reply]

I'm aware and meant RS, not RL. It was a slip on my part—thanks, fixed. A few (PC World, PC Gamer, IGN) are listed as valid (though the last with a caveat), but Joystiq (x3), Destructoid, and several others are not. I'm not looking to split hairs. The point is that we're really stretching for sources to prove this game a notable entity worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If you are already convinced otherwise, there's nothing more to say here. czar · · 23:55, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, Joystiq and Destructoid are also listed as potentially valid (though with caveats). The sources currently listed in the article demonstrate notability. The GNG makes no distinction between very notable and only moderately notable. -Thibbs (talk) 14:08, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Enough coverage in reliable sources. I think there's enough there with the non-debatable reliable sources, let alone the ones that are somewhat borderline. (From my experience at AFD, Joystiq is usually one of those sources that are considered "useable if that's all there is, but something to avoid or replace if/when other sources are available. Sergecross73 msg me 00:05, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There seems to be several various sources which support information in the article, the article is also in regards to a video game which hasn't been released, however, it is entering the alpha testing phase. I'm sure at the end of the alpha testing phase there will be more articles with more information regarding the topic. The article has been up for ten days. Five of those days have had the deletion discussion occurring. As for sources, the game publisher would be one source, IGN and PCGamer are independant, reliable sources; and The Escapist, Joystiq, and Destructoid, while not preferred source material, are able to be used. User:Aneah 20:50, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Tokyogirl79's sourcing. Torchiest's suggestion regarding WP:BEFORE is a sound one. -Thibbs (talk) 14:08, 23 October 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. --BDD (talk) 20:38, 24 October 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

List of family relations in American football[edit]

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

Delete This is an unreferenced list about people who have more than one person in their family connected to football. Aside from that, there is no organizing principle. This list was previously discussed at Afd a year and a half ago here. This topic has not been the subject, so far as I have been able to discern, of any secondary works. There is a reason why the article remains unsourced, it is inherent in the lack of connectivity between the pieces of information. At best one could find references that say the X is the son of Y, but nothing to relate the package of information together. As such, compiling this list is original research. Even if the list had a footnote for every individual fact, the composite would be lacking notability under the guidelines. The topic lacks notability. Notability cannot be inherited from the individual players. Lists are not exempt from article requirements. This is not a navigation list. This is essentially a trivia list, without notability. To paraphrase Wikipedia:WikiProject Laundromat, it is nonnotable, nonencyclopedic, and nonfunctional. --Bejnar (talk) 18:42, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. --Bejnar (talk) 18:59, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do note Smith, Timothy W. (18 June 1995). "Pro Football:Notebook; Dad-Son Duos Run Up the Score". The New York Times. which is not so much about the topic, as it is a father's day lead-in to discuss three rookies. However it does mention the topic in passing. --Bejnar (talk) 19:06, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This was clearly notable last time and nothing has happened to make it "un-notable" (which is not temporary anyway). I agree that sources could be added and the list could be cleaned up significantly, but those are editing issues and not deletion issues.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:32, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Wow. Notwithstanding the previous AfD in which 5 or 6 editors expressed a split opinion, it would appear that this article has serious original research problems per WP:OR, notability issues per WP:NLIST and WP:GNG, and fundamental living person issues per WP:BLP, WP:V and WP:RS. If we are going to keep this article, someone better get busy addressing these issues. If not, my ultimate vote in this AfD will be a strong thumb's down. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:42, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Question How is this original research as a whole? For example, there's tons of coverage in the media about Archie, Peyton, and Eli Manning... or the Bowden family... or Lou and Skip Holtz... or Bo and Carl Pelini... I agree that the article needs work, and there may be some OR in the article for specific links to family members, but the whole list? Maybe it should be modeled after List of association football families or maybe List of family relations in the NHL... --Paul McDonald (talk) 22:05, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Also how do you get "5 or 6 editors expressed a split opinion" in the previous AFD? I count 3 keeps, 1 delete changed to neutral (which was me), 1 editor made a comment, and 1 more suggested a "severe re-write" ... ???--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:09, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Paul, there are exactly ZERO sources for this article. That presents a serious BLP violation. As the article presently stands, anyone could delete virtually 100% of the content because there are no sources in an article about living people. That means you have to show a source for every family cluster where one of the family members is still living. Those are the basic BLP rules; no source for a statement about a living person, then it's subject to immediate deletion. There are dozens, if not hundreds of living persons included on this list. Show me the sources.
  - Notability must apply to the list topic as a whole, not individual family clusters. Individual notability, or individual family notability, does not impart notability to the group or list. Multiple independent, reliable sources must be included that discuss the topic of football families; not individual football families, but multiple football families. I assume these sources can be found, but it may take some work. In the absence of such sources, this list is not entitled to any presumption of notability under any SNG I'm aware of. It must satisfy WP:GNG: again, that means show me the sources.
  - Original research? In the absence of an independent reliable source, telling me that Skip Holtz is the son of Lou Holtz is OR. How do you know that? No Wikipedia editor's personal knowledge can serve as a "source." Show me something in writing. Again, show me the sources.
  - Bottom line: we cannot continue to accept these editor-compiled list articles when there is no sourced evidence for the subject's notability, nor can we accept any article about living persons that is completely lacking in footnoted sources. Let's stop making excuses for the editors who create these sourceless articles, and hold them to our basic project standards. Come on, Paul. You know better than this—you would never personally produce an unsourced article like this and expect it to survive AfD. It's ridiculous. If this article survives this AfD "as is," I am inclined to simply delete every unsourced statement about a living person per WP:BLP. If you or any other credible editor wants to work on it, I would be willing to give them a reasonable time to cure the BLP problems—after we have properly established the notability of the article's subject (i.e. "American football families"). Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:48, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - WP:BLP states "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation. Contentious material about living persons (or recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion" -- note that it does not state that all material must be sourced. Is it a good idea to source it? Sure. Do I want to have it done? Yes. Would it make the article better? Of course. But only contentious material that is unsourced should be deleted. I don't think anyone (other than you maybe) would argue that the Manning family is not related or that the Holtz family is not related. How do I know this? I've watched ESPN once or twice in the last decade. Yes, broadcast television news shows generally count as reliable sources so we can dig that up and post it as a source. A friendly word of caution: if you blank this article now ~~during~~ after an AFD that passes keep as you seem to assert you want to do, that would probably be considered a bad faith edit and could lead to... well... bad stuff. So I hope you don't take that route. As to your other arguments, I'm going to wait for you to go back and read WP:BLP first and then tackle the rest.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:09, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Okay, Paul, I would be grateful if you would not put words in my mouth. At no point have I suggested that I would start deleting unsourced sections of this article during this AfD. Please do not suggest otherwise. It's not what I said, and I would be grateful if you would strike through your comment above that suggests otherwise.
      - Your reading of WP:BLP put the emphasis on the words "contentious material," even helpfully providing a link to the Wiktionary definition of "contentious." My reading of WP:BLP puts the emphasis on "any material challenged or likely to be challenged." Please consider the numerous family relationships asserted in this article as challenged by me. In the absence of a reliable source for most of the several hundred family relationships asserted in this article, there is no basis for you or any other participant in this discussion to assert any such family relationship. I'll spot you Lou and Skip Holtz, as well as Archie, Peyton and Eli Manning. Do you have sources for the rest? If so, please add them to the article.
      - ESPN television sports news is a "reliable source?" That's news to me (if you'll pardon the pun). I have just re-read WP:RS, and it specifically mentions "reliable, published sources"; it makes no mention of any verbal sources, live or recorded, anywhere within the four corners of the policy. The word "published" generally implies something in writing. If you have authority for your proposition that television news is a reliable source per WP:RS, I would be grateful if you would provide it. If you're correct, I will have just learned something new about Wikipedia today. If you're asserting that a published written transcript of ESPN sports news might be considered a reliable source, that's an entirely different kettle of fish, and would be more consistent with my current understanding of WP:RS. Of course, you would need to produce that written transcript. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:54, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Wikipedia:Citing sources#Film, TV, or video recordings. Also, you might want to read the article on Publishing--it's not all "print media".
        
        I was wrong and mis-read what you wrote, your threat was to start deleting stuff after the AFD was cleared and not during. That could also be considered disruptive, but I'll strike and modify my comments to more accurately reflect what you did write.
        
        You are challenging everything on the article except the Holtz's and the Mannings? I guess you can, but that seems disruptive to me. Unless there's a reason, I like to assume good faith in my fellow editors. But if you insist, please feel free to discus that at the article's talk page.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:15, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Paul, the section you cited is titled "Film, TV, or video recordings." Note the word "recordings." If you have a recording of a particular episode of an ESPN news program and can cite the name of the producer, the date and time of production, you may have a source (even though the section cited does not mention TV news, only "film, TV and video recordings"). A video recording is simply the audio-visual version of a written transcript. However, you cannot rely on Paul's memory of unidentified ESPN programs which you have watched over the years; Paul's memory of various unidentified ESPN programs is not a reliable source by any stretch of the policy cited.
        
        If demanding that we source BLPs is now considered "disruptive," my friend, Wikipedia has far bigger problems than this little old list article. It's not a matter of assuming the good faith of my fellow editors; it's a matter of providing an actual reliable source to support the facts asserted. For every good-faith editor, there is at least one bad-faith vandal, and good-faith editors make mistakes and include inaccurate/untrue/false information in at l;east one of Wikipedia's four million articles every minute of every hour of every day. It's not a matter of good faith per WP:AGF; it's a matter of verifiable accuracy of content per WP:V. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:40, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        "Film, TV, or video recordings" is different from "Film recordings, TV recordings, or video recordings" Broadcast journalism has long been considered reliable sources (although present-day political activists would definitely argue that).
        
        Demanding reliable sources is not disruptive. Unnecessarily demanding sources upon threat of deletion of content could be though. You're really going out on a limb here to claim that the whole page was a bad-faith compilation of incorrect data. That seems to be your assertion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:31, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Paul, cut the bullshit. Please. As the article existed at the inception of this AfD, it included precisely ZERO references of any kind. None. Nada. Zip. Zilch. By my rough count, the article, as it existed at the start of the AfD, included over 250 individual persons, over 60 percent of whom are still living. The article made various assertions of family relationships among American football players (fathers, sons, brothers, twins, uncles, nephews, cousins, etc.), but without a single source to substantiate any of those relationships. BLPs created after March 18, 2010 are now subject to deletion by the new BLPPROD procedure applicable to sourceless BLP articles. No sources in a BLP? It can no be prodded and deleted after 10 days (if it was created after March 18, 2010). Other sourceless BLPs are subject deletion by AfD; WP:BLP expressly states that sourceless BLP articles that are not subject to BLPROD are subject to AfD. My personal take on that is a list that includes multiple BLPs requires at least one source for every living person included.
        
        Contrary to your assertion, I have not assumed that the entire article is a "bad-faith compilation of incorrect data." Again, please quit putting words in my mouth and please stop mischaracterizing my arguments. At some point it feels like a political campaign. Frankly, I don't need to assume anything; undeniably this list was an unverified compilation of data unsupported by reliable sources. This list, as it existed at the start of this AfD, included 150+ BLPs for which there was not a single source for any one of them or the article as a whole. New BLPs without sources are now subject to being prodded and deleted; and sourceless BLPs that were created before March 18, 2010 are subject to AfD scrutiny. This is not a matter of assuming the good faith or bad faith of my fellow editors; it is a matter of producing reliable sources for BLP articles. And, Paul, you need to get used to it. Every time Wikipedia has another BLP controversy, the BLP rules are going to get tightened. Wikipedia is not going to retreat to the days of accepting unverified and sourceless BLPs. In case you missed my point (or chose to ignore it again), the "good faith" of the editors who create a BLP article is irrelevant in this context.
        
        As for broadcast news shows being reliable sources, that remains unclear under WP:RS, because WP:RS makes absolutely no mention of broadcast news, TV episodes, films, or other A/V recordings. Not one. You have cited a section for the proper citation format for such recordings. The existence of a proper citation format for films, TV episodes, and video recordings does not necessarily imply that they are treated as reliable sources under WP:RS. Furthermore, the point is moot in the present context. Neither you nor anyone else has produced an ESPN news broadcast episode, or any similar TV source, that would satisfy the citation format you referred to. Until someone does, we are arguing about an interesting hypothetical with no direct bearing on the present AfD. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:25, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        If your intent is to badger me out of the discussion, you've succeeded. I leave any interpretation of this to whoever closes the article.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:54, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        No, Paul, my intent is not to badger you out of the discussion. You're a big boy, and I know that you can deal with a robust discussion of policy. I can and will object when I believe my own arguments are being misconstrued. That having been said, I respect your article work, we have worked well together on other WP:CFB concerns, and I can say with complete sincerity that I only want your honest, but informed opinion in these discussions. None of us are, or realistically can be, experts on every element of the applicable Wikipedia policy and guidelines. Everyone brings something to the table in the way of knowledge, and you bring a wealth of knowledge and informed opinions to the table. I apologize if I "badgered" you, and I respectfully ask that you rejoin the discussion. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:15, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per comments of editor Cbl62 in the last AFD on this, which I quote: "The article needs sourcing and could use some clearer criteria, but such familial lists strike me as being notable, verifiable, and encyclopedic. There are similar lists for many other sports. See List of family relations in the NHL, List of rugby league families, List of association football families of note, List of second-generation Major League Baseball players, List of boxing families, List of family relations in professional wrestling, List of professional sports families, and even List of chess families. Rather than deleting these lists, some thought should be given to determining how to improve them, perhaps taking the best elements from each to develop a good template for a sport-by-sport family lists. Or perhaps limiting the lists to siblings and direct lineage (children, parents, grandparents) or participants in the sport at the highest level. For example, here's a well-sourced list of 187 sets of fathers and sons who played in the NFL. And here's another well-sourced list of 335 sets of brothers who played in the NFL"..... and..."As for the notability of the topic, I recall seeing many articles over the years discussing the prevalence of family relations at the top levels of athletics. While I don't have time right now to search for them, here's one such article from The New York Times: Dad-Son Duos Run Up the Score. See also Greatest father-son combos from ESPN.com." (quoted from Cbl62's comment in last AFD about this article). --doncram 22:27, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Doncram, notability is only one problem of several. This list is one giant BLP violation. In the absence of footnoted sources, every statement about a living person is subject to deletion. It's been 20 months since the last AfD. When are we going to enforce our core Wikipedia policies? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:48, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Dirtlawyer1, I will assume you are correct that there are sourcing problems. This is not appropriate for AFD. I suggest you could proceed by giving notice at the Talk page that you believe there are sourcing problems, and that you could proceed to remove items from the page. I suggest you copy those items to the Talk page for further discussion, so that the information is not lost from view by editors, who may well come up with adequate sourcing for removed items. This AFD forum is not appropriate for your complaints. You don't get to punish transgressions by having the topic deleted. It has already been decided by consensus that the topic is notable / valid for an article. You seem to have valid concerns, but AFD is not the way to go. By the way, I am cooperating somewhat with a parallel effort by editor Mootros, who disputes the sourcing/inclusion of many items within another list article, where I appreciate he is merely removing the items, after long notice, to the Talk page. Cheers, --doncram 23:28, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Doncram, please see my comments to Tagishsimon below regarding whether AfD is an appropriate forum to discuss this article's various issues. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:35, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I concur with Doncram's advice, even though I came to this AfD with delete in mind. I've now added the first reference ;) --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:34, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

- Keep going, Tagishsimon, and add at least one source/reference for every living person in the list. Then there will probably be very little to argue about. (Sorry about being facetious. But you get the point. Adding one source that does not include every living person on the list does not solve this article's sourcing problems.) Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:46, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I do get the point, yes. But a journey of a thousand miles starts with the first step, as someone once said. IN the same way, I take it that you get the point: AfD is not for articles which are notable but within which there is nothing but unreferenced stuff. Although that said, AfD is a great way of bringing such problems to a head, and so though I think this should not ave been brought to AfD, I very much support you having brought it to AfD since that action looks as if it is leading to a solution. --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:40, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Tahishsimon, a couple of clarifications are required . . .
    - First, I did not initiate this AfD. Editor Bejnar filed this AfD. I did not know the article existed until it popped on the American football-related list of AfD articles. I have simply commented on the obvious issues.
    - Second, there was a previous AfD 20 month ago in which a total of three editors affirmatively voted to "keep," and the nominator was an implied "delete." Several other editors expressed various concerns. As I'm sure you know, consensus can change, and 20 months is a long time in Wikipedia. We are not bound by the previous AfD; this AfD will determine present consensus.
    - Third, this article has had a multiplicity of unresolved notability, original research, BLP, reliable source and verifiability issues since its creation, and AfD is an entirely appropriate forum to address them, including the BLP concerns. In fact, under the new WP:BLPPROD policy, any BLP article created after March 18, 2010 may be prodded if it completely lacks sources and deleted after 10 days. Any article that can be prodded may also be more fully discussed at AfD. While this article was created in 2008, the new BLPPROD policy would seem to imply that BLP issues may be appropriately raised at AfD, too. Furthermore, WP:AfD expressly states that notability, original research and verifiability are valid grounds for deletion. This is not my tilting at windmills to make a point. Bejnar was perfectly correct in bringing this second AfD when the article's notability is in doubt and these other problems have not been addressed. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:35, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't care - I do have two major problems with it. The first is that it is incredibly unreadable. For example, with the entry on the Garretts, you really have to hunt to find the second name in the list because there are so many teams. A table might work better, but as it is, it's just a sprawling assortment of data. My second major problem is the lack of citations. I'm sure that many or even most of the relationships are cited in the articles about the people themselves, but there are some redlinked people who are just plain non-notable. I would bet that just about every NFL player has a relative somewhere along the line who played football ... so this is potentially a very big list. --B (talk) 04:41, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - if you'll allow me the time, I'll try and overhaul it this weekend. Add sources, convert to table form, add some criteria (i.e. had to play as a pro) - what do people think? GiantSnowman 07:58, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Giant Snowman, I think that is exactly what is needed. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 08:54, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - it has begun... Giant Snowman 09:55, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please, in the article, provide sources that relate to the notability of the topic and not just a laundry list of X is the son of Y type citations. Thanks. --Bejnar (talk) 07:03, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Call for close AFD is decided, pretty much all parties agree the topic was and is valid; this should be closed. IMO, assertions that the AFD was "justified" are simply wrong; AFD is not the forum for complaining about individual BLP concerns within an article. Obviously the topic is valid and appropriately sourced material is available for the article. It's a waste of time for more people to consider this. Someone please close this. --do ncr am 18:12, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Reject call for early close. Sorry, Doncram, but I disagree, and my disagreement is based on the applicable AfD policies and guidelines. This AfD was opened only two days ago on October 17, 2012. Currently, there are a total of three "keep" !votes, and one "delete" !vote—not exactly an overwhelming majority after 48 hours of discussion. Numerous problems regarding notability, original research, verifiability, reliable sources, and, yes, the application of the sourcing rules to BLP articles, have been raised and remain to be addressed in the article (which is now in the process of being rewritten). Contrary to various mistaken assertions in the comments above, let's review the applicable guidelines and policies regarding early closure.

Per Wikipedia:Deletion process, "In general, deletion discussions should remain open for at least seven days to allow interested editors ample time to participate. However, under certain circumstances, discussions may be closed prior to the seven-day timeframe. Closers should apply good judgment before speedily closing a discussion, since often it is best to allow the discussion to continue for the full seven days." There is no reason to close this AfD early; discussion is still under way and the article is now being rewritten to address the several valid concerns raised in the discussion above.

It has also been asserted above that once the article subject's notability is established, AfD is not the appropriate forum to address the article's other problems raised above, and in particular, that AfD is not the appropriate forum to address BLP concerns. That is simply incorrect. Per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Reasons for deletion, here are several deletion criteria relevant to this particular AfD (text is quoted from the linked original):

"Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth)";
"Articles that breach Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons";
"Any other use of the article . . . that is contrary to the established separate policy for that namespace."

Furthermore, Wikipedia:Guide to deletion specifically mentions "original research" as a basis for AfD (again, the text is quoted from the linked original):

"All text created in the Wikipedia main namespace is subject to several important rules, including three cardinal content policies (Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:No original research) and the copyright policy (Wikipedia:Copyrights). Together, these policies govern the admissibility of text in the main body of the encyclopedia, and only text conforming to all four policies is allowed in the main namespace.

"This guide deals with the process of addressing articles that contravene Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research, which are often listed or 'nominated' on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. . . .

"When an article is nominated for deletion, the Wikipedia community may discuss its merits for a period usually no less than seven days, in order to come to a public rough consensus about whether the article is unsuited to Wikipedia. Following seven days of discussion, an experienced Wikipedian will determine if a consensus was reached and will "close" the discussion accordingly."

Doncram, I'm sorry to be the skunk at the party, but AfD is appropriate not only for notability problems, but also those related to BLP violations, original research, and anything else "that is contrary to the established separate policy for that namespace." As I have attempted to impart in my comments above, I am not crusading for the deletion of this article. I am advocating that the article be fixed and these perfectly valid concerns be addressed and the article be kept, but if those concerns are not addressed, I see no reason why it should be kept.

Frankly, rather than an early close, I would recommend that the article be relisted to give Giant Snowman, who has volunteered to undertake a major rewrite and restructuring of the article, the time to do so. I have volunteered to help him do so to the extent my available time permits. It would be a gesture of collegiality and evidence of commitment to upholding the applicable Wikipedia policies if the other the "keep" !voters would also volunteer to help with that rewrite effort. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:18, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We're just repeating ourselves. I disagree, AFD is inappropriate: any BLP concerns can be resolved, have been resolved i think, by removing the vast part of the article already. The guideline ""Articles that breach Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons" is about biography articles. This is not a biography article, it is a list, there is NO WAY this is going to be deleted, it has already be considered in 1st nomination. It is a waste of time for AFD to be used to further a complaint campaign about the quality of a valid-article. I think it is wrong to use AFD to attempt to force something that is not appropriate for AFD. I accept however, that given your disagreement, that the 7 day AFD clock will run. I am not motivated to help develop the article by your/others attempt to force development inappropriately. Let's stop any back and forth, though; I won't respond any further. --do ncr am 22:03, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we are repeating ourselves to a large degree, Doncram. Having made your opinion known about the "appropriateness" of this AfD, I respect your desire to disengage. Having said that, however, I cannot let your misreading of WP:BLP immediately above go uncorrected. WP:BLP specifically states that it applies to all articles, not just those that are primarily biographical in nature: "This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable, and whether it is in a biography or in some other article." (Please see WP:BLPSOURCES.)

Keep Notability of the topic is shown by the sources mentioning family ties, although more would be better; Notability of the people is shown by blue links & sources on their pages. Sources actually showing the relationship would be nice, but I doubt are necessary, as they shouldn't be contentious, for most players with the same last name. The Steve 05:41, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as I hope my edits have shown, the list has definite potential, and it's not a trivial topic - I feel it needs improving, not deleting. Help always appreciated...! Giant Snowman 14:26, 20 October 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:09, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Heath Franklin[edit]

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

Not notable. No third party mentions or references. Nothing on news searches No third party references on web searches other than promotional Article reads like an advertisement. No references or citations to back up any of the article content. Claims therefore appear dubious. No verifiable indications of notability. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:N isfutile:P (talk) 18:24, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is news coverage out there, for example a New Zealand Herald review from the Auckland Inernational Comedy Festival (via Highbeam, subscription required), a Scotsman review from this year's Edinburgh Festival Fringe, a previous year's brief mention in The Guardian. As to whether there is enough for notability, that is another matter. AllyD (talk) 18:49, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep ARIA nominated artist. Frequent guest appearances on TV shows. Significant coverage seems to exist. The-Pope (talk) 13:10, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any evidence of this regarding notability, and/or can a cite be added? My main concern is that this individual portrays a fictional comedy character based on "Chopper" | Chopper Read. Chopper Read is notable, but there's little to suggest this comedy character, or the person who plays the comedy character - Heath Franklin - is notable in his own right. All of the material I've seen so far plays on the notability of Chopper Read, and not Heath Franklin. In particular, there's nothing about Heath Franklin in biographies (or the Wiki) page of Chopper Read - which strongly suggests the notability is on Read, and not Franklin.isfutile:P (talk) 15:29, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:33, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Trove shows sources exist including two articles in major national newspapers that are primarily about him. --LauraHale (talk) 01:37, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable as an individual and none of the claims on the article are sourced there also appears to be a lot of puffery. 213.246.82.22 (talk) 20:19, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Puffery can be removed by editing. Why do you not consider the sources offered above to demonstrate notability? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:47, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per substantial coverage in reliable sources (The Age and the SMH) provided by LauraHale. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:40, 20 October 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Keep per The-Pope, LauraHale and Lankiveil. I have added some additional sources to the article and plan to add more. DH85868993 (talk) 07:10, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete There's no significant coverage for Heath Franklin. The coverage which exists refers in the main to the criminal Chopper Read. There's some coverage relevant to TV programs which Heath Franklin played a contributory role in, and these already have their own wiki pages. There's no significant coverage with primary relevance to Heath Franklin as a comedian. Therefore it's fine to include Heath Franklin in these other wiki pages as a contributor, or a mention in the Chopper Read page, but there's nothing (yet) to indicate sufficient notability for a Heath Franklin wiki page. Also, IMDB isn't an RS and shouldn't be used in an AfD... 23.23.86.226 (talk) 18:32, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. This article in the Sydney Morning Herald (surely that counts as an RS?) is not about Chopper Read; it's about Franklin, his past works (including his Chopper Read impersonation, of course) and his (at the time) upcoming stage show. DH85868993 (talk) 00:25, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that article confers notability. It states: "Heath Franklin, famous for his Chopper Read character..." - Heath Franklin isn't famous or notable in his own right. Chopper Read is the one who is famous and notable, and there's already a Wiki article for him. Perhaps a merge would be the best result, and a section on Heath Franklin added to the Chopper Read article?213.246.82.22 (talk) 02:41, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Blatant advertising for a nowhere near notable club comedian - no place for this on Wikipedia. 202.71.129.154 (talk) 18:51, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Logie-nominated, ARIA-nominated, decent coverage in the SMH and Age, cast member of The Ronnie Johns Half Hour, appears on Randling & Spicks & Specks. Doctorhawkes (talk) 03:17, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Logie and ARIA nominated and easily meet WP:GNG. Here's three more sources just from October -- BYRNE, MATT (7 October 2012), "CAN'T CHOP OUT CROWD PLEASER ON STAGE", Northern Advocate -- Chenoweth, Ben (11 October 2012), "Laugh, but stay off this chap's list", Parramatta Sun -- "Laugh or it could be chop, chop, chop", Northern Advocate, 19 October 2012. The strawman about him not being as notable as Chopper is irrelevant. The calls for deletion after this nomination come across as some sort of personal vendetta. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:28, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Significant coverage by reliable secondary sources has been demonstrated above. The article does appear to meet the notability guideline for biographies.--xanchester (t) 16:13, 24 October 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, withdrawn nomination. Non-admin closure. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 13:48, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Scherrer[edit]

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

Notability problems according to WP: Notability (sports)

"Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may be used to support content in an article, but it is not sufficient to establish notability. This includes listings in database sources with low, wide-sweeping generic standards of inclusion, such as the College Football Data Warehouse." ReformedArsenal (talk) 18:12, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Wow, seven content flags. WTF. Ridiculous. I'll spend some time digging on this one... Carrite (talk) 18:20, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've added inline footnotes to provided verifiability and removed the mass of now inapplicable flags. Carrite (talk) 18:35, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Member of a national Olympic team, 1936 Summer Games. Carrite (talk) 18:35, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Simply being part of a national Olympic team is not enough for the notability guidelines. Unless you can provide some substantial published articles beyond database entries... they don't cut it.ReformedArsenal (talk) 19:08, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

clear Keep. Competed at the highest level in a professional or amateur sports competition (1936 Olympics), easily passes WP:NSPORTS "have participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level such as the Olympics," and WP:NOLYMPICS "Athletes from any sport are presumed notable if they have competed at the Summer or Winter Olympic games or have won a medal at the Paralympic Games." Ravendrop 20:46, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plainly passes WP:NSPORTS given his participation in an Olympic Games, as has been indicated by Ravendrop and Carrite above. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 21:04, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per WP:NSPORTS, which the Olympics seems to satisfy. - Sudo Ghost 23:05, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw, I misread the sports notabilityReformedArsenal (talk) 23:29, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:NOLYMPICS explicitly says: "Athletes from any sport are presumed notable if they have competed at the Summer or Winter Olympic games . . ." That is as clear as it gets. Churn and change (talk) 05:27, 18 October 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 Business Architecture . MBisanz ^talk 18:17, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Building blocks (enterprise architecture)[edit]

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

This is an essay on an apparent neologism. It is sourced entirely to a book by Mark Von Rosing and was created by User:Markvonrosing I have looked and I can't find any additional sources for this usage of the term, so I believe this fails the general notability guideline and should be deleted. MrOllie (talk) 16:47, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merged into Business Architecture. The current article indeed lacks notability, and there is a COI. I do think (some) parts of it could be merged into the Business Architecture article. -- Mdd (talk) 23:05, 16 October 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 17:05, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I haven't checked the rest, but the Building_blocks_(enterprise_architecture)#The_generic_characteristics_of_Building_Blocks section is a very close paraphrase of 32.2.2 in The Open Group Architecture (TOGAF Framework 2007 edition). So a WP:COPYVIO at the heart of what is probably the main section that might be considered for saving into the Business Architecture article. AllyD (talk) 20:26, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oeps... There seems to be a mayor problem indeed. I did some checking myself. For example in Google books, I search for the sentence "A building block is a package of functionality defined to meet the business needs across an organization.", see here. This sentence alone gives three hits.

I also noticed that the introduction of the article, the first two sentences, are copy/pasted from the Business Architecture article. This has happened in the first version of the article, see here, without any copy/paste notification. This is also not acceptable. -- Mdd (talk) 21:30, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete On the broader point raised in the nomination, "building block" is a term used in TOGAF, in Zachman, etc. and might therefore merit recognition. However my own view is that it is simply providing an illustrative real world analogy chosen from the nursery floor, and not a specific usage in itself. AllyD (talk) 22:31, 17 October 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:27, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zip code 03266[edit]

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

Notability - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zip Code 30052 - individual Zip Codes are not notable. I proposed this page for deletion, I then found that the PROD disappeared. Checking the page history, I saw that this has happened several times already Ratzd'mishukribo (talk) 16:13, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just delete -- there is nothing notable about this zip code... Seems to be regularly rolled back whenever deletion is proposed. @SmithAndTeam (talk) 20:48, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - individual zip codes not notable? Lies! What about Zip code 90210... LOL. Yeah, nothing particularly notable about this zip code. Stalwart111 (talk) 04:27, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP is not a postal directory, an indiscriminate collection of information, or a copy of census data. There is nothing notable about this zip code as a search reveals. It doesn't inherit notability from the region it covers. Churn and change (talk) 05:33, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Zip codes are directory information for the post office and nothing more, and they are changed arbitrarily as needed. Mangoe (talk) 16:44, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: See also ZIP Code 33461, which is under PROD right now. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 01:28, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a directory for zip codes.--xanchester (t) 03:34, 24 October 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) -- Lord Roem (talk) 04:30, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shark Island (band)[edit]

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

DELETE - Insufficient notability and original research Paperauto2 (talk) 16:07, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Referring to WP:NBAND, Shark Island pass criterion 1 (Allmusic, The Encyclopedia of Popular Music, SPIN) - pretty good online coverage for band from that era, criterion 5 (albums on Epic Records and Frontiers Records), and criterion 10 ("Dangerous" in the Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure soundtrack). --Michig (talk) 17:48, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Michig, and esp. due to WP:BAND#5 about being on Epic, etc. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:57, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP To delete this article would be a horrible omission of a valuable chronicle of music from 1980's and 90's on the Sunset Strip. I was personally involved with the band from the beginning and can verify all of the facts included in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.104.213.156 (talk) 21:34, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:BAND#5, 10, and 11 (I'm fairly certain, I would just want to verify with VH1 or MTV source. #11 would have been most likely the Headbanger's Ball show, which could be argued to count as regular rotation. User:Aneah 14:24, 23 October 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:27, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mamuka Toronjadze[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 on the grounds that he plays in the Georgian Premier League and that he had previously played in Europa League qualifying. However, the Georgian Premier League is not fully professional, see WP:FPL, and the fact playing the qualifying rounds of European club competitions does not confer notability is fairly well established consensus. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:51, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:53, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:22, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article is about a footballer who hasn't played in a fully pro league (or in a cup-match between two teams from fully pro leagues) or represented his country at senior level, which means that the article fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG due to lack of coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 18:07, 20 October 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:36, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Piet Boukema[edit]

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

no information what so ever Redsky89 (talk) 15:45, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

perhaps keep There is a substantial Dutch article which indicates that he was a member of the Dutch senate. I don't know if that is enough to get him over the notability hump. Mangoe (talk) 16:51, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. For some reason, it seems difficult to find sources, but there is enough to verify that he definitely meets WP:POLITICIAN (and I have edited the article accordingly). PWilkinson (talk) 11:40, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Thanks to PWilkinson for the expansion and reference which makes it clear that the subject meets WP:POLITICIAN point #1 having served both at the provincial and national levels of government. -- Whpq (talk) 16:37, 23 October 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:27, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Xvisor[edit]

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

WP:NOTABILITY -- I'm not finding the sort of significant third-party sources that would indicate notability. No relevant gnews hits (unsurprisingly), ghits seem to be the official site, chat forums, and distribution databases. Nat Gertler (talk) 15:45, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Nat. Sorry for my newbie attitude but I am trying to understand what you are considering as acceptable for WP:NOTABILITY. What kind of proof/reference are you expecting to consider Xvisor as worth including? --Jean-Christophe DUBOIS (talk) 20:29, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a very fair question, and it goes to the heart of what Wikipedia is about (welcome in, by the way). The basic idea is that we can't rely on stuff that you or me can edit whenever we like, so blogs, personal websites, wikis (yes, even this one), Amazon and so on aren't generally usable. You can use published books, newspapers, and other authoritative sources, which have to be independent of the subject of the article, and are secondary reports rather than primary research. So a paper that compares different products objectively would be OK, but a newsletter published by a software house about its own products would not (except to show that a product existed, and perhaps to obtain some details about it, not to prove notability). Hope this helps a bit, and that you like it here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:44, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all. We are a new open-source community-based hypervisor so, more research papers are to follow. It is only 1 year old and no software house or corporate owns Xvisor. We had published a news article on LWN almost a year back (please see, [LWN Xvisor Announcement]). The LWN is very reliable and authentic news site for any news related to Linux kernel (For more info, LWN). The LWN thoroughly reviews any news before publishing. Can you consider LWN news as a verifiable reference of Xvisor ? --Anuppateli (talk) 04:23, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even without qualifying LWN in general, the piece appears to be the republication of a press release, and under Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines, press releases don't count. I understand that your product is a new one and has not gotten much coverage yet, and no one here is saying "this cannot possibly ever be notable", merely that its notability is not yet established. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:27, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I cannot find independent coverage to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:53, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, yes, sorry but this seems much WP:TOOSOON for a Wikipedia article. Please come back when people in independent journals and reliable websites have written about you. Good luck with the product. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:35, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with Nat Gertler. Notability not yet established. But looks like a good project that should of course be included when/if it get picked up by reliable sources. Runarb (talk) 11:03, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Little significant coverage by reliable secondary sources. There was a brief trivial mention of the subject in a ZDNet article, but that's not enough to meet the general notability guideline criteria.--xanchester (t) 16:09, 24 October 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:36, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Czech handball[edit]

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

Basicly this has been unreferanced for two years and just seems to be a content fork about a variant of Team Handball. Some of the material (if it can be sourced) could be merded with Team handball.Slatersteven (talk) 15:41, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Czech handball is a distinct sport. This is a substantial article that if merged into team handball would either distort the emphasis there, or would lose much of the specific information. The article has not been unreferenced. It has a reference to the Czech National Handball association which has been there the whole time. That website has an extensive coverage of the history of Czech handball and its varying relationships to team handball. The lack of inline citation is an editing problem and not a deletion criteria. There are three main antecedents for handball, the Czech form, the Danish form and the German form (Konrad Koch’s Raffballspiel). All of these contributed to the emergence of the women's game Torball, which Carl Schelenz, a teacher of the Berlin Physical Education College, in 1919 converted into a men's game as well. Torball became the ultimate antecedent of modern team handball. See, e.g. "History of Handball". Handball of British Columbia.. Even if Czech handball were not still being played competitively today, it would be important to have the historical article. I do agree that the article needs improvement. --Bejnar (talk) 20:37, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does not establish notability for a start. There are also no inline citations (not as you say a reason for deletion but if no work had been done to rectify this issue it does rather imply that there are no RS for this information).Slatersteven (talk) 10:35, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. 00:28, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Keep. Has several pages of coverage in this encyclopedia, demonstrating that the outside world considers this an appropriate topic for an encyclopedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:08, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, this makes a better case. Can we update the page with better citations establishing notability please?13:53, 20 October 2012 (UTC)Slatersteven (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:10, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article (Hospodářské noviny, published to commemorate 100th anniversary of this sport) discusses history, differences between Czech handball and Team handball etc. Today, Czech handball (literally "national handball" or "národní házená") is not so popular as it was in the 1950s (26 000 organized players in Czechoslovakia), however, it is a sport with rich and interesting history which still attracts the attention of regional media nationwide [15]. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 12:37, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to team handball. Just because a sport exists does not mean it is notable. Cyan Gardevoir ^{(used EDIT!)} 07:42, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is claiming that. Notability has been demonstrated by significant coverage in reliable sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:15, 24 October 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. SarahStierch (talk) 17:34, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bubnovskyy Sergey[edit]

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

No evidence of anything satisfying Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Novangelis (talk) 15:26, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Novangelis (talk) 15:39, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Assuming good faith edits, wouldn't developing a new method for non-surgical treatment of a vertebral compression fractures be part of a recipe for notability especially when coupled with 10 patents? I don't know how to do citation scores, but with over 50 scientific papers primarily in sports medicine he must have a few hits. For starters, according to Google Scholar, not the best citator service especially for Russian language materials, his (collaborative) "Поясничные боли" ("Back Pain") has been cited 16 times and his "Руководство по кинезитерапии дорсопатий и грыж позвоночника" "Guide to kinesitherapy dorsopathy and spinal herniation" has been cited six times. I found citations to his works not just by Russian authors, but also Romanian; there are probably others. Note, when looking for sources, that his Russian surname is often transliterated into Roman characters as "Bubnovsky" with a single "y". See, for example, "Spotlight: Taking pills: cause or cure?". TV-Novosti. 4 July 2008.. As a practicing doctor he should not just be compared to other academics, but may qualify under the general notability guidelines as well. He does have coverage both in English text and in Russian. The only question remaining on notability is significance. --Bejnar (talk) 21:28, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those citation counts are way below our requirements for a pass of WP:PROF criterion 1. Many hundreds of citations are usually required. And patents are meaningless unless independent reliable sources have written about them. Many people have patented perpetual motion machines. I've renamed the article to "Sergey Bubnovskiy" to correct the name order and use a more standard transliteration of the surname, but many different spellings are possible in the Roman alphabet, especially when the transliteration is to a language other than English. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:35, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the transliteration correction and for renaming. Fully agree Kinedw (talk) 10:34, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If his work has not managed to penetrate the English literature I doubt it has achieved a significant impact. JFW | T@lk 22:35, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The language of potential sources is irrelevant to notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:43, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - That was not the reason I voted delete. In this case, the fact that there seem no English-language sources mean that this person's notability is quite possibly not that great. All major health phenomena from other countries are eventually discussed in English-language publications, particularly in the fields of science and health. JFW | T@lk 22:24, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I improved reflist with German, Spanish and English citations. And set one more Category - Alternative medecine. Kinedw (talk) 12:17, 18 October 2012 (UTC) — Kinedw (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Inadequate cites. Patents are self-published and count for little. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:13, 19 October 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Delete both for lack of evidence of passing the notability criteria for academics and for lack of the independent reliable sourcing on the subject that we would need to neutrally assess his significance and to write a verifiable article about him. In addition, the promotional tone of the existing article is a problem, likely caused by its reliance on sources affiliated with the subject rather than independent ones. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:12, 23 October 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 University of New South Wales . SarahStierch (talk) 17:34, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UNSW School of Education[edit]

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

Non-notable institutional unit. No independent references even in much better recent version [16]. Nothing obvious in google. Redirecting to University of New South Wales is also a possibility, a brand new account reverted my attempts to do that, however. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:57, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 11 October 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:32, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

merge to University of New South Wales as there is nothing here to establish it as separately notable. Mangoe (talk) 16:53, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
merge to UNSW Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences (and do the same for UNSW School of Social Sciences and International Studies) -- they are both just subdivisions of the UNSW faculty of arts (which is itself a subdivision of University of New South Wales) and that is the only significant link to this article. (Note: Don't just merge to University of New South Wales as suggested by Mangoe- that is at the wrong level) 121.45.215.186 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:49, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Except that UNSW Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences hsa no independent WP:RS so is likely to be a deletion candidate itself. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:51, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, UNSW Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences is a bit slim- I agree, it should also be merged into University of New South Wales 121.45.215.186 (talk) 13:08, 21 October 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:36, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Wilhelm[edit]

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

Non-notable person. The contents of the article not supported by the single ref. It doesn't say he's an A&R exec; it doesn't say he's a member of the Grammy Committee (it says he was invited to be); it doesn't say he discovered these people (it says he wrote about them on his website). I dug up two interview-style articles [17] and [18], but they fail the independence test. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:00, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An IP editor produced this on the article talk page. As the ref says "This profile has been automatically generated based on publicly available information all around the web. If this is you, you can Take control of this profile." There is no independence there. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:23, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of obvious notability. Proper references and some indication that the subject is notable would be enough for a Keep - but I can find no evidence of that here. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 18:14, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 11 October 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:30, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the Billboard piece is a very good source. But I can find no other coverage to go with it. No objection to recreation as he seems to be on hiw way to a career as a music exec who might be getting more coverage in the future. -- Whpq (talk) 17:01, 23 October 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:36, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gilles and Guy Leclerc[edit]

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

Non-notable pair of scientist twin-brothers. Even if the claim to be "the first twin couples to meet through the Internet" is true (it is not substantiated by the references), I doubt that that would be a sufficient claim to notability. The references given are the faculty pages of the two brothers, a newspaper item with an in-passing mention, and an item on an online site on twins (also in-passing mention). Does not meet WP:NBIO. As scientists, they also do not pass WP:PROF: both are assistant professors (who rarely meet our notability requirements) and the impact of their research for the moment is modest (Web of Science: for GM: 26 articles, h=9, total citations=329; for GJ: 18 articles, h=6, total citations=139). Guillaume2303 (talk) 12:33, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This looks like a classic WP:BLP1E type of article, with little notability outside of the twin couples news bit. Or more like 4BLP1E. But the point is the same. Sailsbystars (talk) 20:38, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So where would you put the BLP1E article if not under this title? --Bejnar (talk) 20:56, 17 October 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:27, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Assistant professors, neither of whom are individually notable under WP:PROF. Their career and personal life similarities are interesting trivia, but not notable per se, as the article suggests. Agricola44 (talk) 15:00, 22 October 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. The twins marrying twins thing is essentially a single story, repeated in several newspapers; I don't think it rises to the level of notability. And there doesn't seem to be evidence of passing WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:38, 22 October 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. SarahStierch (talk) 17:36, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Green Earth Ministries[edit]

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

Notability and relevence ReformedArsenal (talk) 14:57, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I haven't found any third-party sources to establish notability and this isn't surprising, considering that Green Earth Ministries is religion-affiliated thus religious groups will rarely receive significant attention. SwisterTwister talk 21:08, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 19 October 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:22, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jain Harshvardhan[edit]

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

Non-notable businessman. Sources are all either

Self-published;
Bad links;
Trivial (Jain was arrested for carrying an illegal satellite phone: the article links to four different copies of essentially the same news story about this incident). WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:57, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a mess of uncited claims ("He has been considered...", "It has been predicted..."), links to articles that don't appear to mention the subject, links to articles which are about another business man and his problems, a subheading linking to a photo of a model, and so on. I'm not finding anything better, under either given or aka name. AllyD (talk) 20:04, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I searched "Jain Harshvardhan" with both Google News US and India, hoping to find appropriate sources but found zero relevant sources so it is possible that sources may not be English. Honestly, this article is absolute trash and would need a significant rewrite to be considered acceptable. I believe the author may not completely understand Wikipedia so I have offered advice at their talk page. SwisterTwister talk 21:21, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seeing the sources, I can say only one thing - calling this article as notable will be insulting notable people. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 12:00, 20 October 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:23, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Free Trade Agreement Between America and China[edit]

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

Started off by completing a redlinked nomination for IP editor User:207.45.87.67. They offered no rationale, and had no other posts that would explain why the article should be deleted. After reading through the article, however, I decided to complete the nomination anyway, on my own behalf.

In this case, the article seems written as if it were an Essay or report for school. It's not about a specific treaty or agreement, but rather advocates the idea of such an agreement. At best, it's synthesis. The references define terms and supporting facts - and note that Wikipedia is one of those sources. But, in tone and content, it's not an appropriate article. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:53, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this is definitely synthesis. AutomaticStrikeout 19:47, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV essay. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 10:42, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Original research. Wikipedia is not a host for personal essays.--xanchester (t) 09:18, 24 October 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 Duwayne Kerr. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:23, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dwayne Kerr[edit]

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

Notability ReformedArsenal (talk) 14:39, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Duwayne Kerr - it was originally a redirect (created my me back in late 2009) that has since been hijacked. The redirect could/should have been restored without the need for AfD. Giant Snowman 16:58, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You could certainly do that, but as it stands the article is spurious and should be deleted.ReformedArsenal (talk) 18:05, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Restore redirect The subject of the now article is non notable, however the original redirect was to a different subject altogether and was useful and should be restored.Blethering Scot 18:28, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 19 October 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:23, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Harte van Tecklenburg[edit]

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

no information what so ever Redsky89 (talk) 14:00, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as an article on a notable subject (was a member of the Dutch Cabinet), but trout creator for creating unsourced articles without a single indication of notability. The article is not eligible for AfD, but a case could be made to delete it under Csd A7 "no claim of importance". Fram (talk) 14:05, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the article was created in 2009, not recently, so probably a very old and rather smelly trout should be used ;-) Fram (talk) 14:06, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note 2: the person is better known as Joannes Josephus Ignatius Harte, searches for that name give a lot more and better results. Fram (talk) 14:08, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep clearly notable as the Dutch Minister of Finance, but the article definitely needs citation to reliable sources. --Bejnar (talk) 22:56, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Did you mean "WP:SNOW" as opposed to WP:Speedy keep? -- Whpq (talk) 17:10, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW KEEP - Thanks to Benjar for expansion and referencing of the article which makes it clear that this person is a notable politician. And yes, the original creator of the article has habitually done troutworhty article mass creation and continues to do so. -- Whpq (talk) 17:10, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to his full name, and the name most commonly used by sources, Joannes Josephus Ignatius Harte van Tecklenburg. The subject was the Minister of Finance of a major country. There's an entry on him in this book published by Amsterdam University Press.--xanchester (t) 09:28, 24 October 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) -- Lord Roem (talk) 04:33, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Plane Stupid[edit]

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

NPOV, Notability and WP:NOT Petebutt (talk) 13:55, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there are numerous sources covering not just its actions but also the organisation itself, easily satisfying WP:GNG. POV issues (if exist) are fixed by fixing the article content, not by deletion. Which part of WP:NOT do you think the article fall foul of? KTC (talk) 23:02, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Any protest group which attracts the level of attention/notoriety (depending on your position) as this organisation did during the debate over UK aviation policy is in my view notable. I also believe that when the history of UK aviation protest it written this organisation will be seen as one of the most significant and effective. As the author of much of the content I would welcome input from others to balance my content. I have tried to remain neutral, but do personally support their aims and I am sure some the article would benefit from some critical editorial input. PeterEastern (talk) 00:04, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I note that you also marked AirportWatch for deletion on on same day. Nothing wrong with that as such, but possibly we should review the proposals as a pair rather than in isolation. PeterEastern (talk)
Sometimes AFD nomination are taken in block, but in this case I very much agree with the separate nomination as the different organisations while sharing similar aim have varying level of notability. It is best to judge each on its own merit. KTC (talk) 00:26, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I total agree that they should have their own discussions, however people who have a view on Plane Stupid may also have a view on AirportWatch. I, for example have PlaneStupid on my watch-list, but not AirportWatch and nearly missed the proposal for that article. PeterEastern (talk) 01:48, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is not particularly POV, it is sourced. The group is verifiable and seems to have significant recognized by independent third party reliable sources. I am not sure from the nomination what part of WP:NOT was bothering the nominator. The article is quite episodic, which is not good. It is probably too long for the amount of content, but these are editing not notability or Afd type issues. --Bejnar (talk) 03:40, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable based on the references and the press coverage of its actions. NPOV isn't grounds for deletion. I've no idea how WP:NOT applies. WP:AfD states "When making your case or responding to others, explain how the article meets/violates policy rather than merely stating that it meets/violates the policy", and the deletion proposal fails to do that. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:31, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I believe the organization in notable, I have found the article interesting, and I visit it periodically. I agree with all the the reasoning above in the "Keep" recommendations. Coastwise (talk) 00:31, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Topic clearly makes notability requirements. We don't delete articles because they have POV issues, we fix them and this one doesn't seem to really have a POV issue anyway. - Ahunt (talk) 00:05, 20 October 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 Childbirth-related posttraumatic stress disorder. MBisanz ^talk 15:16, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Birth rape[edit]

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

Failure to meet WP:GNG. This is a sensationalist term used in journalism and no sources indicate a use of this term outside of a sensationalist context. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:38, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article with a suspect agenda, created by a blocked sockpuppet [19]. —MistyMorn (talk) 13:48, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A hyped-up neologism of limited note. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:49, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Neologism with very little real world usage, that seems to be pushed by one advocate. The only sources that refer to this topic are sensationalist tabloids. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 13:59, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The "limited note," "one advocate" and the "only in tabloids" claims are demolished by the multiple sources I found quickly and easily at Google Books and Google scholar, linked to below, which the nominator should have checked for before making the AFD nomination. Edison (talk) 16:13, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough in reliable secondary sources to support a full article. ~~No prejudice against a possible merge of a sentence from this article into some other article, maybe Unassisted birth.~~ Zad68 14:03, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adjusted my own !vote to remove suggestion that a merge would be appropriate. I've thought about this. It is true that there probably should be a paragraph at Childbirth discussing how some women perceive childbirth as a traumatic assault, according to the amount of discussion given to this aspect in the secondary sources, it does not appear to be a very big part of the topic. The number of references to this perception in the secondary sources as "birth rape" is very, very small compared to "traumatic birth experience" and this discussion should be added as a sentence or two at Childbirth with a "main article" link to Childbirth-related posttraumatic stress disorder. I do not see enough coverage in secondary sources of the term "Birth rape" for a redirect link, although if we ended up with one I probably would not care. Zad68 17:44, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - NPOV, notability BS WP:NOT, you name it!!!Petebutt (talk) 14:18, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per usage in multipile reliable sources, a definition is given in Essential Midwifery Practice: Intrapartum Care Wiley p219 It is discussed in midwifery today as can be seen in The Social Context of Birth Radcliff Seems a widely used term. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:44, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if that were the case, merging is a better option than keeping a separate article, because the topic is still not notable. As Zad68 said, a brief mention can be placed in Unassisted birth. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 15:54, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or interwiki - wp:DICDEF belongs in Wiktionary if anywhere LeadSongDog come howl! 15:50, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Birth rape" is a term and a concept which is important in contemporary discussion of bad hospital birthing practice. Here is a use in a textbook of midwifery from 2010,"Essential Midwifery Practice: Intrapartum Care," published by Wiley-Blackwell, a respected academic publisher: [20].That textbook in turn cites four apparently reliable sources in relation to women's experiences during birth being like rape. The definition of "birth rape" is given as "the experience of having fingers, scissors, and/or tools put/pushed/shoved inside a woman's vagina or rectum without her direct (or indirect) permission, quoting Freeze (2008). Another book discusses "birth rape" here in"Birth Journeys: Positive Birth Stories to Encourage and Inspire (2011)." Google scholar shows that "Women’s perceptions and experiences of a traumatic birth: a meta-ethnography" in Journal of Advanced Nursing, Volume 66, Issue 10, pages 2142–2153, October says "The term 'birth rape' has been used by women who feel that their bodies have been violated, and that they have been coerced into consenting to procedures without being informed of their details and accompanying risks. ..." "The impact of Childbirth experiences on women's sense of self: A review of the literature" in The Australian Journal of Midwifery, Volume 15, Issue 4, December 2002, Pages 10–16 per the snippet, cites "Christensen, M. (1992) "Birth Rape." Midwifery Today. 22 34. " Then there is "Birth rape: another midwife's story." in Midwifery Today Int Midwife. 2008 Spring;(85):42-3. Merging "a sentence" into the unassisted birth article in no way addresses the complaint, widely covered in reliable sources, about brutal and traumatizing practices in hospitals in which the woman in labor is treated in ways which can lead to PTSD. It is not just a dicdef., but an issue in contemporary, medical practice, in which hurried doctors do not explain what they are doing and why. Edison (talk) 16:08, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Edison, clearly this subject matter is important to you personally, but we have to apply Wikipedia's standards here...

"Essential Midwifery Practice: Intrapartum Care" -- looks to be only a brief mention on one page
"Birth Journeys: Positive Birth Stories to Encourage and Inspire" (2011) -- Published by "Star Cass" which appears to be a vanity publisher: http://en.youscribe.com/star-cass/publications/, has published no other works, does not appear to be a reliable source by Wikipedia standards
"Women’s perceptions and experiences of a traumatic birth: a meta-ethnography" in Journal of Advanced Nursing -- A one-sentence passing mention wouldn't qualify as "significant coverage". From the little Google Scholar snippet it doesn't appear to provide anything more than a defintion.
"The impact of Childbirth experiences on women's sense of self: A review of the literature" in The Australian Journal of Midwifery -- the Google snippet only shows the term appearing as a citation of "Birth Rape" by M. Christensen (1992) (below). If a significant discussion of "birth rape" really appears in this secondary source (a review article), that would really go a long way toward establishing notability, but I'm not seeing it
"Birth Rape" by M. Christensen (1992) in Midwifery Today, "Birth rape: another midwife's story" by Richland (2008) in Midwifery Today -- these might be useful as primary sources but we really need some good reliable secondary sources to use to actually write an encyclopedia article that isn't more than a dictionary definition and a list of anecdotal quotes from primary sources

Looking at other resources, like http://www.midwiferyjournal.com and doing a search on "birth rape" at PUBMED turns up zero hits. I'm still not seeing enough significant coverage in reliable secondary sources to be able to build a Wikipedia article. Zad68 16:54, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The gender gap project should be told about this. We have a birth trauma (physical) article but that is explicitly about physical trauma and is a poor effort with too much jargon. Other terms for the results of the mental trauma of the mother include unhappiness after childbirth and birth trauma. See The Social Context of Birth for detailed discussion. Our editing policy is to build upon such starts, not to delete them. Warden (talk) 18:19, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So you are saying this is a content fork of birth trauma (physical), but that's okay because there are editing issues with the extant piece, but we should canvas a select group so that we can keep this in spite of that? Carrite (talk) 18:52, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying that it would be good to have some women commenting upon the matter. And the topic here is not so much physical trauma as mental trauma. Warden (talk) 19:11, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hence we have an article on Childbirth-related posttraumatic stress disorder. There is no need to have another fork, when a merge and redirect will suffice, so that the larger article has a brief mention on the POV-charged neologistic term. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 19:17, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PTSD is a condition which develops after a trauma; it's not the actual trauma. And merger is not accomplished by deletion; it is a variety of Keep. Warden (talk) 19:26, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:PRESERVE says to fix problems and add sources yourself, the issue being raised at this AFD is that there aren't enough good sources to support an encyclopedia article. Do you have significant coverage and reliable secondary sources you can bring to help out? We looked and couldn't find them, that's the issue. And why do you think women in particular would be better equipped than anybody else to find such sources? Zad68 00:04, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable neologism. It's a midwifery POV slogan, a play on "birth rate," not an encyclopedic concept. Carrite (talk) 18:52, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Awesome, this article was created by a blocked sockpuppet who was adding info to the ultimate troll magnet piece, Donkey punch. Best case scenario is that this is a POV-drenched non-notable neologism, worst case is that Wikipedia is being trolled, with some apparent success. Carrite (talk) 19:00, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I question your assertion that "birth rape" is a "play on birth rate." Any sources, or is it just your editorial intuition? The argument that the article must be deleted if created by a bad guy even if other editors find sources is unconvincing. And the coverage in a textbook published by Wiley calls into doubt your assertion that it is just "a midwifery slogan" as if it only appeared only on signboards of angry midwives marching around hospital entrances in protest. On the other hand, we do have a whole category of articles about slogans. Edison (talk) 19:22, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Wouldn't the article title also be a blatant violation of WP:POVTITLE? It's essentially equating/associating medical intervention with, you know, the act of being forced to engage in sexual intercourse without consent, which in most societies holds negative connotations. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 19:09, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Edison. What, you want me to footnote common sense observations in an AfD debate? Carrite (talk) 20:39, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge content and redirect to another article, if at least one decently developed paragraph can be written. The ineptitude or distastefulness of the term is irrelevant, but after reading the meager stub I still don't know what "birth rape" is supposed to mean. The section at Postnatal#Postpartum period in mothers seems to be a place where we collocate topics pertaining to new motherhood, pointing to postnatal depression and postpartum psychosis. It's a bit of a mess, though, and could use some sorting out, as psychological responses appear under the section on physical aftermath. Birth trauma (physical) is a confusing piece of work that according to the lede is about the child (or not?). Childbirth-related posttraumatic stress disorder has no real lede. So an editor who cares about our coverage in this area could probably serve our readers better by organizing and developing more centrally located content in these preexisting articles. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:55, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As nearly as I can tell, it means "sometimes women have very unpleasant birth experiences", with particular venom reserved for medical professionals who either behave badly (making rude remarks, for example) or who behave perfectly but are believed to have behaved badly by a mother, who was perhaps not in the best condition for figuring out what was going on (you know, being busy giving birth, which probably didn't leave her a lot of time to keep track of who said what, much less enough education and experience to know whether an intervention was appropriate).
  I expect that we can find the same sorts of complaints from psychiatric patients, people recovering from surgery, people with cancer, people with advanced heart disease, etc. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:08, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - am inclined to support deletion given the apparent lack of multiple reliable sources available to establish that this is a widely used term beyond a small group of (perhaps WP:FRINGE) activists (one of the sources describes them that way), per WP:NEO. My reading of the material available is that even those reliable sources that accept the general "premise" (the traumatic experience), disagree with the application of the term itself, on the basis that it denotes a fringe-view reinterpretation of the word "rape". My concern would be that citing the sources that are available (quantity aside) could only ever result in a WP:WEIGHT issue if we suggest that the sources demonstrate an acceptance of the term. I could accept that the term has been used (though not widely) but any article would need to reflect what the sources say: that it is a fringe term used by activists and rallied against by those few mainstream media commentators who have decided to weigh into the issue. Stalwart111 (talk) 04:59, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEO and WP:SOAPBOX -- Scray (talk) 15:49, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge into one of the articles of similar topics mentioned above. Sources are unreliable and sensationalist. Agree that it violates WP:NEO and better suited for Wikitionary. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 22:26, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In the current version it is a dicdef about something that possibly exists but not under this cacaphonous and alarmist term. I would suggest delete without redirect. JFW | T@lk 23:07, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NEO says it doesn't matter if sources use the term. What matters is when reliable secondary sources analyze the term. The issues this concept raise are better discussed where they matter, perhaps somewhere like obstetrics and gynaecology. However, I see no requirement that the term "birth rape" be used to discuss the concept. Biosthmors (talk) 16:55, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:. Many people make up many phrases. Wikipedia should reflect actual usage, rather than merely referencing someone who used inflammatory language. Ninahexan (talk) 04:47, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nathan^T 17:59, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (if substantially beefed up) or Merge to both Birth trauma articles. There are enough reliable sources to beef up the article if someone wants to do it and it definitely is a slightly different take from both Birth trauma articles. Otherwise beef it up a tad bit and mention it in BOTH articles. CarolMooreDC 18:20, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable WP:NEO per available RS. Current potential is a dictionary def at best, and a WP:NPOV issue at worst. There isn't enough for an encyclopedia article and if its notability warrants further attention, someone should attempt to work it into an existing, broader article. czar · · 19:23, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. czar · · 19:23, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this article from the sydney morning herald could probably be used to beef up the article somewhat, and could be used to keep it if another couple sources are found. Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:00, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a blog and so fails as WP:SPS for establishing notability. I don't doubt this term exists in the chat stream on certain blogs but that's not good enough to establish notability on Wikipedia. Zad68 20:09, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- That's not an article; it's a blog post. Specifically, it's the blog post that the Salon article names as its primary source. What we need are reliable sources that are truly independent, not a bunch of sources that are quoting each other. See footnote 3 at WP:N: "Several journals simultaneously publishing different articles does not always constitute multiple works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information" (emphasis added). WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:21, 24 October 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:24, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chen Guanrong[edit]

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

Is this professors sufficiently notable? No notability is really asserted through the brief article text right now, and the external link provides only slightly more information -- mentioned as a chair both at CUHK and Peking University, but not mentioned as a named chair. I don't see it. Delete unless notability otherwise established. --Nlu (talk) 13:29, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He is the chair professor of Electrical Engineering at the ~~University of Hong Kong, an institution ranked typically in the 20s or 30s worldwide~~ City University of Hong Kong, ranked 50th to 100th in the world by various ranking agencies. Per this site he is on the faculty at Peking University College of Engineering. Directly meets WP:PROF criteria #5. If you go to the ranking of EE profs here, you can see he is quite high up, ranked 30th in the world (that is not an accurate rank, but should tell you he is in the top league). The number of publications (427) and citations (8461) clearly show significant influence in the field (WP:PROF criteria #1). Churn and change (talk) 06:00, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The article mentions CUHK but not HKU. Do you have a source indicating that he's now at HKU? --Nlu (talk) 03:55, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - My bad; I fixed that. CUHK is also a major research university (as per the various rankings), and his H-index, publication and citation counts are all so high it is clear he has significant influence in the field. As to the "named chair" that doesn't exist in the same form everywhere; WP:PROF asks us to "use or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon." Churn and change (talk) 04:06, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He passes multiple WP:PROF criteria: #C1 for his highly cited papers (e.g. 1626 Google scholar cites for "From Chaos to Order", 1297 for "Yet another chaotic attractor", 964 for "Kalman filtering"), #C3 as an IEEE Fellow, plausibly #C5 as argued above, and #C8 as editor-in-chief of IEEE Circuits and Systems (a major journal; he is also EIC of the International Journal of Bifurcation and Chaos but I'm not sure whether that is as significant). —David Eppstein (talk) 18:16, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Completely clear keep as above. Nominator is advised to study WP:Prof before making further nominations in this area. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:39, 21 October 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:24, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

JB-83[edit]

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

Contested PROD: tag removed with no explanation. No evidence of noatbility. Note that article creator is alleged creator of this vile-sounding mixture of liquors. TheLongTone (talk) 13:20, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable, unsourced, WP:MADEUP. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 14:59, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment given the ingredients I should have CSD'd as a hoax.TheLongTone (talk) 15:18, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...That was a joke. But it's pity that (unless I've got it wrong) there isn't a CSD category appropriate for an obvious deletion cndidate like this one.TheLongTone (talk) 04:36, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I haven't found any sources to confirm this beverage exists, Wikipedia is not a website for homemade drinks. SwisterTwister talk 21:29, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a hoax - I've tagged it with {{db-hoax}}. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:11, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hoaxes need to be blatant for G3, which this is clearly not. It seems, in fact, almost certainly true - is there some reason to believe it's a hoax? WilyD 06:37, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oops, good point, sorry about that. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:37, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obviously not notable enough for an article. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:37, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But it is a real drink as it is copyrighted — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamiebirkett (talk • contribs) 10:05, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Obscure cocktail with no coverage by reliable secondary sources. A search for news articles doesn't bring up anything. The subject fails to meet the general notability criteria.--xanchester (t) 03:39, 24 October 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) 12:23, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Tuvalu B-Division[edit]

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

Unreferenced article (external links provided are only to primary sources) claims that this is the "12th season of second highest football in Tuvalu". However, this is not strictly true, it is merely the reserve league. There is no promotion or relegation to the A-Division and the games played are only 30 minute halves, so it would be difficult to call this a proper football league in any case. Looking at the articles for Tuvalu Independence Cup and NBT Cup, it is clear that there is one competition for the A-teams and one for the B-teams. Therefore, only the competition for the A-teams could be classed as the genuine national cup (it is difficult to tell which one is the National Cup as neither states it is, although I think the Independence Cup is as it is the longest running). Taking the A-team competition as the true national cup, this league therefore fails WP:FOOTYN as it is not a league from which clubs can enter the national cup, they merely enter a reserve cup and so articles on individual seasons are not notable. Additionally, all the links to the competing teams merely point to the A-team, so there is nothing in the article to assert its own inherent notability and even rsssf makes no mention of the league in 2011 (although it also does not report the A-Division) and if it is not reported on that site then I would say it is a pretty firm bet that it also fails WP:GNG. Fenix down (talk) 09:20, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article has existed if since December 2011, if it be arranged, then was it already removes. Also in other countries there exist second Division. Tahiti Second Division, Inter-District Championship (Fiji) and others...why will the Tuvalu B-Division remove become? The Tuvalu National Football Association are recognise member of the FIFA! Because they are member of the OFC. --Klant01 (talk) 13:20, 17 October 2012 (UTC)--Klant01 (talk) 13:23, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This response is not a suitable argument for keeping the article for the following reasons:

1. As stated in all the other deletion discussions you have responded to, please try to avoid using the "It's been here for ages so should stay argument". This is completely irrelevant and is specifically one argument that editors are asked to avoid here.

2. Secondly, your remarks about Tahiti and fijian competitions are an example of Other stuff exists so why not this which as I have stated in other discussions with you is not appropriate

3. Disregarding the obvious inherent issues with your argument as outlined above, the problem with the B-Division is unlike Tahiti Second Division it is not part of a football pyramid. As the article clearly states, there is no promotion or relegation. As the various articles on cups in Tuvalu here, here, here and here all show clearly, there is a separate competition in each cup for reserve teams. As such, no team that competes in this league could be said to enter the national cup as only A Teams enter the A part of each cup. Therefore this league does not pass WP:FOOTYN. The Tahitian Second Division contains clubs which I would assume can enter the National cup as part of the football pyramid. The Fijian inter-district championship is not a good argument to use as it is merely an unreferenced list of results and like your article makes no attempt to assert notability. Indeed, I would suggest that a deletion discussion for that competition is also valid. Fenix down (talk) 17:57, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – fails WP:GNG, a season article about a reserve league with no evidence of notability. – Kosm1 fent 19:22, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:31, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG. Giant Snowman 09:36, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As there is no coverage in reliable sources about this, I don't see any reason to include a season-article on a non-notable reserve league in the encyclopedia. --Mentoz86 (talk) 18:11, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The Tuvalu B-Division is not a notable league that is listed in the user essay WP:NTABLES. This provides a key indicator in determining whether a league season article can be justified. At the same time the article fails WP:GNG. League Octopus (League Octopus 08:31, 23 October 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) 12:22, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Tuvalu B-Division[edit]

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

Unreferenced article (external links provided are only to primary sources) claims that this is the "12th season of second highest football in Tuvalu". However, this is not strictly true, it is merely the reserve league. There is no promotion or relegation to the A-Division and the games played are only 30 minute halves, so it would be difficult to call this a proper football league in any case. Looking at the articles for Tuvalu Independence Cup and NBT Cup, it is clear that there is one competition for the A-teams and one for the B-teams. Therefore, only the competition for the A-teams could be classed as the genuine national cup (it is difficult to tell which one is the National Cup as neither states it is, although I think the Independence Cup is as it is the longest running). Taking the A-team competition as the true national cup, this league therefore fails WP:FOOTYN as it is not a league from which clubs can enter the national cup, they merely enter a reserve cup and so articles on individual seasons are not notable. Additionally, all the links to the competing teams merely point to the A-team, so there is nothing in the article to assert its own inherent notability and even rsssf makes no mention of the league in 2012 and if it is not reported on that site then I would say it is a pretty firm bet that it also fails WP:GNG. Fenix down (talk) 09:18, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article has existed if since December 2011, if it be arranged, then was it already removes. Also in other countries there exist second Division. Tahiti Second Division, Inter-District Championship (Fiji) and others...why will the Tuvalu B-Division remove become? The Tuvalu National Football Association are recognise member of the FIFA! Because they are member of the OFC. --Klant01 (talk) 13:20, 17 October 2012 (UTC)--Klant01 (talk) 13:22, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This response is not a suitable argument for keeping the article for the following reasons:

1. As stated in all the other deletion discussions you have responded to, please try to avoid using the "It's been here for ages so should stay argument". This is completely irrelevant and is specifically one argument that editors are asked to avoid here.

2. Secondly, your remarks about Tahiti and fijian competitions are an example of Other stuff exists so why not this which as I have stated in other discussions with you is not appropriate

3. Disregarding the obvious inherent issues with your argument as outlined above, the problem with the B-Division is unlike Tahiti Second Division it is not part of a football pyramid. As the article clearly states, there is no promotion or relegation. As the various articles on cups in Tuvalu here, here, here and here all show clearly, there is a separate competition in each cup for reserve teams. As such, no team that competes in this league could be said to enter the national cup as only A Teams enter the A part of each cup. Therefore this league does not pass WP:FOOTYN. The Tahitian Second Division contains clubs which I would assume can enter the National cup as part of the football pyramid. The Fijian inter-district championship is not a good argument to use as it is merely an unreferenced list of results and like your article makes no attempt to assert notability. Indeed, I would suggest that a deletion discussion for that competition is also valid. Fenix down (talk) 17:57, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG; non-notable season article of a non-notable league. – Kosm1 fent 19:22, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:31, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG. Giant Snowman 09:35, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As there is no coverage in reliable sources about this, I don't see any reason to include a season-article on a non-notable reserve league in the encyclopedia. --Mentoz86 (talk) 18:10, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The Tuvalu B-Division is not a notable league that is listed in the user essay WP:NTABLES. This provides a key indicator in determining whether a league season article can be justified. At the same time the article fails WP:GNG. League Octopus (League Octopus 08:28, 23 October 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 Football in Tuvalu. MBisanz ^talk 00:11, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tuvalu B-Division[edit]

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

Unreferenced article claims that this is the "second highest division of football in Tuvalu". However, this is not strictly true, it is merely the reserve league. There is no promotion or relegation to the A-Division and the games played are only 30 minute halves, so it would be difficult to call this a proper football league in any case. Looking at the articles for Tuvalu Independence Cup and NBT Cup, it is clear that there is one competition for the A-teams and one for the B-teams. Therefore, only the competition for the A-teams could be classed as the genuine national cup (it is difficult to tell which one is the National Cup as neither states it is, although I think the Independence Cup is as it is the longest running). Taking the A-team competition as the true national cup, this league therefore fails WP:FOOTYN as it is not a league from which clubs can enter the national cup, they merely enter a reserve cup. Additionally, all the links to the competing teams merely point to the A-team, so there is nothing in the article to assert its own inherent notability and even rsssf makes no mention of the league in 2012 and if it is not reported on that site then I would say it is a pretty firm bet that it also fails WP:GNG. Fenix down (talk) 09:14, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article has existed if since December 2011, if it be arranged, then was it already removes. Also in other countries there exist second Division. Tahiti Second Division, Inter-District Championship (Fiji) and others...why will the Tuvalu B-Division remove become? The Tuvalu National Football Association are recognise member of the FIFA! Because they are member of the OFC. --Klant01 (talk) 13:20, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This response is not a suitable argument for keeping the article for the following reasons:

1. As stated in all the other deletion discussions you have responded to, please try to avoid using the "It's been here for ages so should stay argument". This is completely irrelevant and is specifically one argument that editors are asked to avoid here.

2. Secondly, your remarks about Tahiti and fijian competitions are an example of Other stuff exists so why not this which as I have stated in other discussions with you is not appropriate

3. Disregarding the obvious inherent issues with your argument as outlined above, the problem with the B-Division is unlike Tahiti Second Division it is not part of a football pyramid. As the article clearly states, there is no promotion or relegation. As the various articles on cups in Tuvalu here, here, here and here all show clearly, there is a separate competition in each cup for reserve teams. As such, no team that competes in this league could be said to enter the national cup as only A Teams enter the A part of each cup. Therefore this league does not pass WP:FOOTYN. The Tahitian Second Division contains clubs which I would assume can enter the National cup as part of the football pyramid. The Fijian inter-district championship is not a good argument to use as it is merely an unreferenced list of results and like your article makes no attempt to assert notability. Indeed, I would suggest that a deletion discussion for that competition is also valid. Fenix down (talk) 17:56, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – a reserve league with no evidence of notability; largely fails WP:GNG. – Kosm1 fent 19:21, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:31, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Football in Tuvalu - no evidence of independent notability. Giant Snowman 09:35, 18 October 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:25, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cricut[edit]

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

A non-notable brand from a non-notable company. Contested PROD. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 08:31, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:17, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Easily passes WP:GNG. Source examples include, (but are not limited to):

Machines make crafting more creative The Journal Gazette.
For Crafters, the Gift of Automation The New York Times.
MakerBot + Pinterest = Craft Juggernaut Wired Magazine.
Gadgets to Help Make Homemade Crafts CBS News.
"Even Martha Stewart loves Provo Craft's latest: Cricut Cake." Deseret News.

— This deletion nomination appears to be a failure of following section D of WP:BEFORE prior to nomination. Sources are clearly available, and all of the above sources were found simply by clicking on the Google News archive at the header of this nomination. Please read WP:BEFORE in entirety prior to making further spurious nominations using Twinkle, it clogs AfD with unnecessary nominations. Thank you in advance for your utmost consideration regarding this important matter. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:14, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Above links show coverage in a range of major news sources including New York Times, Wired (which has multiple stories), and CBS News. There's also books about it[21][22] (physical books from more than 1 publisher). Meets WP:GNG. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:44, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~very weak~~ keep I agree that this topic passes the simple bar of notability. However I would gladly delete a hundred articles like this in favour of one good article on computer-controlled die-cutting in the home crafting market. 3D printing is at risk of going the same way too.

This article is far from encyclopedic. It discusses one trivial machine (as AL rightly complains) that is of no long-standing significance. Wired didn't report this machine because the Cricut is the next Model T Ford, but because it was just a convenient example for the broader topic of home CNC applied to crafting. That has encyclopedic significance and value, Cricut does not. The article is bloated with, if not outright promotion, then at least unencyclopedic parts-catalogue information about this one machine. What an encyclopedia should be doing is to cover the broader topic instead, not the narrow example. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:10, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article has been updated to cover various Cricut machines, and has been copy edited to reduce promotional tone. More inline citations have also been added. It sure takes a lot more time to improve articles than it does to simply delete them by convincing an administrator to press a few buttons! Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:06, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I would contest the comment above that the article just discusses "one trivial machine" out of the whole field of home cutters. The fact is that Cricut (and we're talking about the entire line of machines from this manufacturer) has achieved a very considerable dominance in this sector, both in marketshare and in mindshare, because of its unique closed proprietary design-cartridge business model, which has made it far more lucrative for retailers and, in particular, for television home-shopping craft channels to promote, to an extent that has given the company the overwhelming brand visiblility, pretty much to the exclusion of all others. One could also make a case that cutting plotters have been around pretty much since the '70s, but that it is the ease-of-use, all-in-one-sleek-package, ready-to-go nature of Cricut's cartridge system (as well as the retailer-attractiveness of its business model) that has essentially created a substantial new market for these machines in the craft sector, which previously was barely there.

The other thing that I think makes this article a "keep" are Cricut's DMCA suits against would-be manufacturers of interoperable software. The trademark assertions are particularly bogus, as there's clear descriptive use, similar for example to referring to "Dyson vacuum cleaners" if what you're about to say is only applicable to Dyson vacuum cleaners -- this is not a trademark infringement, even if undertaken for the purposes of trade or commerce. The copyright assertions, for Cricut's on-the-wire protocols, are also very questionable. This was the kind of thing that in EU vs Microsoft was compared to trying to copyright the numerical combination you've chosen for a combination lock. Under U.S. law it arguably would be seen as "functional" speech rather than "creative" or "expressive" -- so not covered by copyright law. There are (thankfully) not so very many examples of the use of copyright overreach of this kind to succesfully shut down technical competitors -- though various inkjet printer cartridge manufacturers tried something similar in 2004-5. (It's also far from clear that MTC and SCAL were really hurting Cricut, as many users on forums at the time said they appreciated Cricut's designs and instant ease-of-use, and identified themselves as therefore also being some of the most committed buyers of Cricut's cartridges). But anyway I'm saying that I think from a legal point of view Cricut has also made itself notable, too. Jheald (talk) 16:31, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's an important point. Certainly we shouldn't lose coverage of Cricut's DRM-heavy approach from here, unless we had it covered equally well in some other more general article.

As to market share, then that's a US issue. They're unknown here in the UK. Although the UK market is tiny as yet, and there's certainly no big-spend advertising for them, the machines that are in use are at the more open end of access. Having seen just how horrible the Cricut lock-in is, there's no way I'd ever buy one of these.

I'd still much rather see a good article on the topic, rather than an article on one machine. However this DRM issue swings its significance in favour of keeping it. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:22, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Based on the Wired article [23] and other things Northamerica1000 found. Next time please look through Google news archive search briefly before nominating something for deletion. Dream Focus 21:56, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Snowball Keep: article is well sourced as it stands now; I can't see any argument that this is non-notable.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 22:14, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With thirteen inline citations and two other sources, this article has good reliable sources. It covers more than the company product by mentioning other such products, and explaining much about these products for the potential buyer. Do I claim the article is useful? Sure. Being useful is a plus in deciding whether to keep an article. --DThomsen8 (talk) 12:27, 24 October 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) 12:16, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Harrison MRT Station[edit]

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

Lone source inaccessible, no reliable sources. -Windows72106 (talk) 06:59, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating the other pages for the same reason (stations part of a supposedly planned extension to the MRT-3 but with no reliable sources) as pointed out by RioHondo:

- Windows72106 (talk) 00:17, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Windows72106 (talk) 07:03, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question. Are train stations inherently notable? Several stations around the world, even relatively minor ones, seem to have articles. Is there a notability guideline for stations somewhere? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:03, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The issue with this article is that it describes a station that does not (yet) exist and there are no other sources stating that it would be constructed. Sorry if this was not clear from the initial reason. - Windows72106 (talk) 09:27, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, stations are generally considered to be inherently notable, no matter what their size. But as the nom says, this station doesn't even exist yet. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:35, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Derail. Normally I would say that this would be notable. It turns out that it doesn't exist (after all, the MRT ends at Taft, not at F.B. Harrison). No reliable sources either. No wonder I haven't heard of this one before (never saw anything in the newspapers about this station, and I read The Philippine Star everyday). And the fact that there isn't any reliable coverage (other than the one in the article, which is dead) is merely the final nail in the coffin. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:33, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article is invalid as I noted in the talk page. May i also nominate these succeeding stations of the imaginary MRT3 line extension for deletion: Roxas Boulevard MRT Station, Macapagal MRT Station and Diokno MRT Station? Thanks. --RioHondo (talk) 14:36, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now - I haven't found any sources and it is possible that any may be Tagalog or any of the other Filipino languages. Additionally, the article cites the status as "proposed" but there isn't an exact date of the proposition or the estimated establishment. SwisterTwister talk 00:17, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no evidence of a Blue Line (or Yellow Line, depending on which color system you're following)/MRT-3 extension towards the SM Mall of Asia, and the current engineering situation involving the Taft Avenue Link which links the LRT and MRT, where the latter is at grade, will prevent the realization of such a link for the foreseeable future. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 19:18, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Worldwide there are masses of proposed infrastructure developments put forward for public (or other) funding. It would be legitimate to have a single article on the whole project (such as the extesion project), but individual stations fail WP:CRYSTAL. The article speaks of 2010 in the future. Unless some one can provide evidcne that the project is proceeding, the article should be deleted. My view is that until the project is authorised and funded it is a mere pipedream. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:30, 19 October 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. It appears WebMedia may be notable, but notabiity is not inherited, and such. Essentially nothing on the man. Wily D 09:03, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Steven J. Hill[edit]

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

A promotional article on a non-notable person. Sources don't bear out that either he or his companies/activities are notable one way or the other. Drmies (talk) 02:51, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - always query any article that uses LinkedIn as a "source". Some of the "sources" provided don't even mention the subject - not even in passing. Not at all notable as far as I can see. Stalwart111 (talk) 03:06, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, it's a dead give-away. You're right: those articles on WebMedia also don't mention him. Drmies (talk) 03:41, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing wrong with using Linkedin for additional information and uncontroversial claims. WP:SPS allows this use of social networks. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:47, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this WP:ADVERT per WP:GNG and a host of other policies. Qworty (talk) 04:56, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Help Hi, I've obviously mucked this up. This is one of my first wikipedia articles and I was honestly tried to maintain a neutral tone and really didn't want it to come across like spam or as an advertisement. I tried to compare it other existing articles as a reference but it sounds like I did a pretty bad job of it, sorry! Is there any recommendations of how I can improve this article because I really would like to? I approached it like an online web article but perhaps I've gotten the style wrong? Also, I think I had the wrong idea about sources/references so I'm going to try and fix that. I really want to be able to write and help edit wikipedia articles in the future and if you can steer me on the right track it would be appreciated. (Also, I'm not too sure if this is how I contribute to this discussion, I hope I did it right.)- From the author yingykong (talk) 19:36, 17 October 2012 (GMT)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. SimonLyall (talk) 07:04, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as above. I also note that main author of the User:Yingykong is a similar name to Ying Kong the "Marketing & Social Media Strategist at Mind Warriors International Limited" See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wade Jackson - SimonLyall (talk) 08:03, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Help - Hi, I haven't tried to hide the fact of who I am. I felt that both Wade Jackson and Steve Hill have reached notable status in New Zealand due to what they have contributed in their areas of expertise. It made sense to try and write a Wikipedia page about them. But obviously I haven't done a very good job. I wanted to maintain neutral and cover them as individuals in their own right not as an advert or spam. As this is my first wikipedia article, I would like to apologize that I've done quite a piss poor job of it. I would like to contribute to wikipedia in the future. Please advise recommendation so that I can fix any policies I may have breached and ensure that further articles are up to the standard that is required. yingykong (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.224.102.209 (talk) 07:49, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yingykong, I don't think you've broken any policy whatsoever. So you have a conflict of interest--that in itself is no capital offense, as long as you edit neutrally. I happen to think that those people aren't notable by our guidelines, but there's nothing wrong with trying to write them up anyway. I've asked some other editors to have a look at this discussion and the article; maybe they are able to help out. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:12, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I haven't checked the sources carefully enough to see if any of them help meet WP:GNG, but I find sending a new user's article to AfD 40 minutes after creation to be somewhat unhelpful. A better option would have been to tag the article as {{refimprove}} and alert an appropriate Wikiproject so they can have a look at getting better sources. Would it have been a serious threat to Wikipedia for this article to stick around for about another week before being AfDed? You're lucky that the ARS haven't got this one on their radar... --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:56, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm lucky? Ritchie, I think there are a few things that you fundamentally misunderstand. If the article is improved and kept, that's a win. What do you think this is, the daily confrontation between the Sharks and the Jets? Drmies (talk) 14:09, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're certainly lucky that Yingykong has been humble and civil enough to say "okay, my first article wasn't up to scratch". He could have easily have said "sod this for a game of soldiers, I'm off to Facebook" and we'd be discussing where all the new editors went at WP:WER again. The reference to the ARS was more a reference to the fact that they can generally talk a better argument against deletion than I can, so I'm a bit surprised you nominated this at AfD and then asked the ARS to rescue it. Isn't that a bit overkill, as opposed to just improving the article? --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:29, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Why do I even respond? *sigh* I looked, I found nothing--and I have found in the past that sometimes others can find things that I can't. That's why. I'm lucky in a lot of ways and a lot of reasons, none of them having anything to do with Wikipedia. Now why don't you go improve the article? Or do something useful, instead of bitching at me every chance you get? Drmies (talk) 17:42, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don't suppose showing you a really, really, cute picture of a cat and agreeing to disagree will help? Chill. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:46, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:20, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~Comment: ~~It was listed at the ARS so I am bound by my pact with Satan to !vote keep~~ There's not a lot to go on here. The corporate entrepreneur bio article typically rises or falls based on how many profiles he's managed to get written about him in mainstream news sources. I don't see any here, nor enough about him individually spread among articles to rise to the same level. Not even sure the "JOLT challenge" is notable, but that may be best shot for notability.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:19, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response to help - yingykong to determine notability you should see Wikipedia:Notability (people) in particular WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO and WP:CREATIVE. A lot of the sources quoted are primary sources and lack independence. I have had a look at the article and struggle to find anything that helps it across the line other than possibly his start up company. The things I would be looking for are: in depth coverage in major media - ie NZ Herald, Dominion Post, etc for NZ or their overseas equivalents; are there any significant awards; and/or is there any significant achievement. I hope this helps. Also, just because he doesn't meet the criteria at the moment does not mean that he won't in the future. I have also commented at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wade Jackson NealeFamily (talk) 01:55, 24 October 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) 12:13, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wade Jackson[edit]

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

This is mainly a promotional, puffy piece about someone who does not seem to be verifiably notable. There's a mention here and there of his group, but that's it. He's obviously not notable as an extra or a martial artist. Drmies (talk) 02:19, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. 03:03, 17 October 2012 (UTC)-gadfium 03:03, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - obviously non-notable. Some of the "sources" don't even mention the subject. One is a LinkedIn profile and another is a Facebook status update - not a Facebook page, a status update! Don't know how you could consider them "sources" for anything at all, let alone "reliable sources". Stalwart111 (talk) 03:12, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as above. I also note that main author of the User:Yingykong is a similar name to Ying Kong the "Marketing & Social Media Strategist at Mind Warriors International Limited" See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steven J. Hill - SimonLyall (talk) 06:59, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Help - Hi, I haven't tried to hide the fact of who I am. I felt that both Wade Jackson and Steve Hill have reached notable status in New Zealand due to what they have contributed in their areas of expertise. It made sense to try and write a Wikipedia page about them. But obviously I haven't done a very good job. I wanted to maintain neutral and cover them as individuals in their own right not as an advert or spam. As this is my first wikipedia article, I would like to apologize that I've done quite a piss poor job of it. I would like to contribute to wikipedia in the future. Please advise recommendation so that I can fix any policies I may have breached and ensure that further articles are up to the standard that is required. yingykong (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response to help - yingykong to determine notability you should see Wikipedia:Notability (people) in particular WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO and WP:ENT. A lot of the sources quoted are primary sources and lack independence. I have had a look at the article and struggle to find anything that helps it across the line. The things I would be looking for are: in depth coverage in maojor media - ie NZ Herald, Dominion Post, etc for NZ or their overseas equivalents; are there any significant academic/media/entertainment awards; and/or is there any significant achievement. I hope this helps. Also, just because he doesn't meet the criteria at the moment does not mean that he won't in the future. NealeFamily (talk) 01:28, 24 October 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) 12:12, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

3MB[edit]

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

Prod removed without fixing the problem which is the lack of notability This is a non notable tag team which has only be together for 32 days without tag team championship match nor have the won a tag team championship. Dch eagle | ^{Join the Fight!} 01:22, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:GNG. Qworty (talk) 08:52, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I'm generally for keeping articles these days, but I have to admit it fails WP:GNG since there has been no significant coverage in secondary sources. --Jtalledo (talk) 13:52, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a stable, that just formed and notability is being established on a week by week basis. KingMorpheus (talk) 14:08, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notability has to be established before a page is created not during or after the page has been created.--Dch eagle | ^{Join the Fight!} 02:43, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This stable does not satisfy WP:N. For now, redirect to Heath Slater since he is the "leader". --Truco ⁵⁰³ 15:09, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename I think the team's notable enough, but the term "3MB" was only used in 1 episode and 1 corresponding WWE article. This team has been called "The Band" for several episodes and in several WWE.com articles so I think that that name is better. Ranze (talk) 21:38, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there is not enough coverage yet for an article and the info can easily be covered in the article for the 3 members at this point in time. I also disagree that the article should be moved to the band since 3MB has been used on both Raw and SmackDown indicating that is the name they are currently using. To summarize, I don't think we need this article but if it is kept it should maintain the current title.--174.93.171.10 (talk) 05:33, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I note that so far there are just two contributors who argue for "keep". Both of them simply state that the subject is notable (or, worse, that notability "is being established") without giving any reason for that opinion. Neither of them makes any attempt to relate their personal opinion that "it's notable" to the existence of sources, nor gives any other reason for their opinion. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:16, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per Generally acceptable standards for pro wrestling, fails WP:ENTERTAINER - recently-established team of "heels" with no history of influence/notability. Also, article's references (all of which emanate from the WWE) fail the reliable source standard of being independent of the subject. Shearonink (talk) 16:37, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Has no reliable secondary sources whatsoever. Fails WP:GNG. Cyan Gardevoir ^{(used EDIT!)} 07:40, 24 October 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:25, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sollentuna Hundred[edit]

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

One-liner without references or proof of notability. Fails WP:GNG. Can be merged with List of hundreds of Sweden (although that list seems to be incompleet). The Banner _talk 01:00, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I should note that the Swedish equivalent of the article contains more information and sources. Perhaps a user or two fluent with Swedish can translate the content? SwisterTwister talk 03:02, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this is a valid geographic area historically, and Swedish WP already lists sources, so on both grounds GNG is not really an issue. I can translate it as and when, but the AfD does not depend on that: notability is shown by the existence of sources, not their inclusion in an article. I would oppose a merge to the list of hundreds; there is plenty to say about this one place. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:55, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As I understand policy, officially recognised geographical entities are notable (per WP:NGEO), whether they're still used officially or not - since notability isn't temporary (WP:NTEMP), we don't delete things that are no longer official geographical entities. If it's identical with a modern entity you might merge there, but nobody's suggested that. One of the functions of Wikipedia is to serve as a gazetteer. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:55, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep User:The Banner is fighting a war against Sollentuna articles. See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sollentuna Parish. ChemTerm (talk) 03:24, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
When you don't have arguments, you better shut up then starting to throw PAs. The Banner _talk 11:05, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per Chiswick Chap and Colapeninsula. I may just translate the sv-wiki article tonight. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 02:04, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Translated. I don't think there's really any argument to delete this page now, nor should there ever have been if 10 seconds had been spent skimming the Swedish article. If you don't read Swedish and/or are sceptical of anything in a foreign language, then use Google Translate or something. Really, now. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 05:55, 19 October 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:11, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sollentuna Parish[edit]

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

One-liner without references of proof of notability. Fails WP:GNG. The Banner _talk 00:59, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article has now improved tremendously. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 12:17, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do not not not delete (a.k.a. KEEP) Notability is asserted through the availability of sources, not the presence of them. Sollentuna Parish has been around for a few hundred years. Contrary to your declaration of it failing gng, this parish has been mentioned by numerous print sources, as a Google Books search would show. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 04:17, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But as a weaker alternative, rather than an outright delete, maybe a redirect/merge to Sollentuna Municipality, though that would not be so fitting. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 04:17, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm leaning keep on this. After reviewing the Swedish Wiki page on this topic (at least i think the topic s the same) here: http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sollentuna_kyrka. It seems the Swedes have something to say about this place in their country. Maybe we should adapt the English article to mirror this content in English and be done with it. Celtechm (talk) 05:27, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess it's actually Here: http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sollentuna_f%C3%B6rsamling — Preceding unsigned comment added by Celtechm (talk • contribs) 05:30, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: User:The Banner ("I am a Dutchman but since a couple of years living in County Clare, Ireland.") is fighting a little war against presentation of Sollentuna articles and Sollentuna content, see [24] [25] [26]. So this nomination seems to be only part of the war, not really based on anything substantial. It would be nice if someone could remove this user from editing on Sollentuna related articles or maybe whole Sweden / Scandinavia. Also on his user page he lists no knowledge of any Scandinavian language, whilst listing several other languages. It seems he is not qualified and personally able to judge on the matter. His edits are highly disruptive to the process of improving the English Wikipedia. ChemTerm (talk) 06:02, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - is Wikipedia a democracy and people can vote on such basic things? I think this is a joke. Voting on having certain content or not. Haha. Yes, I vote for Sollentuna. Shall we delete County Clare - place of living of User:The Banner - instead? Haha. Just joking. But seriously. Keep all verifiable content, even if The Banner ... hahaha ... says it is not notable hahaha .. I can note it. Haha. Just joking. This is so funny. Articlevotipedia. Hahaha ... ChemTerm (talk) 06:06, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nice, instead of coming with valid arguments, you come with personal attacks. The Banner _talk 11:58, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

haha, nice indeed. Funny, original material. ChemTerm, you can be a clown. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 12:42, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, indeed agreed. Haha. But I think am would not be as good as the people suggesting to merge Sollentuna Parish into Sollentuna Municipality. Does that merging apply to reality too or only to the article haha. When is the referendum. OMG, does the Church of Sweden has anything to say here, I mean, the real parish is part of the Church of Sweden Diocese of Stockholm. Hahahaha.. but maybe in Wikipedia people are not restricted by reality. So much freedom. Maybe lets change more, Mississippi River flows in the USA. MERGE!?! Haha, just joking, I know this would not be done. ChemTerm (talk) 17:33, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Sollentuna Municipality. While we presume that places are notable, there is already this other article on the place, Sollentuna, and it is reasonable to include the parish within it. There is no prejudice against creating an article on churches (for example) of special interest, if there are adequate sources. I note that Swedish WP's "Sollentuna kyrka" ('Sollentuna church') has materials that could be used. And could everyone remain civil, please. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:50, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But the parish itself is notable already, it deserves a stand alone article, rather than a merge to Sollentuna. It has potential for great expansion, with a fair share of cleanup. Merging would swamp potential material. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 12:42, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In that case we would need citations that show the parish - not the church or town - is separately notable, as notability is not inherited. If you can identify three or four such reliable, independent citations then of course the article can stay. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:07, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. Here. Mentioned in many lines in The Meaning of Christian Liturgy: Recent Developments in the Church of Sweden By Oloph Bexell, Gordon W. (FRW) Lathrop. Also mentioned in quite a few other books, like 'Visions of the past: trends and traditions in Swedish medieval archaeology, Tor, Volume 9, etc. Notability guidelines say only two sources are needed to affirm notability, so yea, this will pass easily. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 14:19, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment at User:Chiswick Chap - for the parish to be inside the municipality article, you surely found boundary information? Are did you just went be name, everything Sollentuna XYZ merge into Sollentuna Municipality? Merge New York City into New York! Has same letters in the beginning! ChemTerm (talk) 17:33, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Parishes, unlike geographic locations, are not inherently notable and these is nothing that I can see that makes this one difference. The GoogleBook hits are all passing mentions (usually in reference to the church by the same name, which may deserve an article) or are non-notable coverage. There is simply no significant, in-depth coverage as required by WP:GNG. Additionally, the limited information on the proper swedish wikiepdia site, Sollentuna församling doesn't indicate to me that there are any major sources available in Swedish either. Ravendrop 17:43, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Parishes, unlike geographic locations" - hahaha. This is funny. One more clown :-). ChemTerm (talk) 02:47, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Instead of throwing PAs, you could have been trying to understand what he is saying. In simple words: a parish is not notable by its sheer existence (as geographic locations) but you have to prove notability with reliable, third party sources. The Banner _talk 11:08, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Haha. Funny. "a parish is not [...] (as geographic locations) [are] " haha. http://www.visionofbritain.org.uk/boundary_map_page.jsp?u_id=10736006 Haha. Someone made a map of the parish, haha. Turning it into a ... hahaha, can't hardly write hahha ... a geographical location. Haha. ChemTerm (talk) 17:18, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I guess the notability would depend on whether we are talking about the historic Sollentuna parish (sv:Sollentuna socken), which is a geographical location, albeit a non-current one, that is attested in written documents from the 13th century, but was almost certainly around from the 12th century (when the earliest parts of the church are dated), and possibly earlier, or the current Church of Sweden parish (sv:Sollentuna församling). The latter has its origins in the historic parish but is, in its current incarnation, a less interesting and rather ephemeral unit likely to change in size and shape to adapt to the trend of secularization. The historic parishes were also the basis of the first modern municipalities in 1863, when the ecclesiastical and secular aspects of the parishes were separated in two different but (for the next 90 years or so, with local variations) geographically identical units. --Hegvald (talk) 16:02, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you are in the wrong session. This is the jokeboard! Haha. Just joking. ... WP:NTEMP, WP:CRYSTAL ChemTerm (talk) 17:18, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - hihi, we have some other jokes for guys like you: WP:BLOCK and WP:CIVIL. The Banner _talk 17:51, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Awww. Here, we need people like him. Don't block! He's funny! :) In fact, I personally would give him a surreal barnstar! Ain't ya bored, with no humor in life? :) Bonkers The Clown (talk) 09:11, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:39, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:39, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's a parish. Parishes are not generally notable. Individual churches within them may be notable as historic buildings, but not the parish as an organisation. No other Swedish ecclesiastical parishes appear to have articles. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:57, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Haha - "No other Swedish ecclesiastical parishes appear to have articles." rolling on the floor. That way the very first article of Wikipedia would not have been written. haha very funny. Welcome to the jokeboard. ChemTerm (talk) 23:48, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, we're all aware of that. However, it may surprise you to learn that Wikipedia has been around a long time now and the fact that not a single other Swedish parish has an article is telling. I would also suggest that mocking and patronising other editors' considered contributions to the debate only serves to lessen your own arguments and disrupt proceedings. -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:13, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think you are not a clown. You are very serious about what you do. But you are not bringing up clever reasoning. Indeed "the fact that not a single other Swedish parish has an article is telling". Maybe due to vandals like you. You act with bad faith, and cite no policy that warrants deletion. There is a policy WP:ILIKE. R E A D! And then tell why Swedish parishes are not allowed to have their own article in Wikipedia, whilst many other have them. ChemTerm (talk) 00:42, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - You are accusing a long-term, experienced editor and administrator, who has written hundreds of articles on Wikipedia, of vandalism and bad faith. Be very, very careful here my friend! Your personal attacks and patronising comments are leaving you skating on very thin ice and one more such attack on anyone will result in you being blocked. AfDs allow for opinions and that is what I have stated. You are within your rights not to agree with them, but not to attack those who give them. In my opinion, as I have previously stated in other AfDs, no ecclesiastical parish, in Sweden or elsewhere, should have an article without a very good reason. They are too unimportant and low-level. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:10, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        You mean administrators are holy or something like that? And long-term editors don't need to respect policies? Haha. +1 for this joke! ChemTerm (talk) 04:56, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        No, I mean that accusing long-term editors of vandalism and bad faith without any evidence is a personal attack. You don't seem to be learning your lesson. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:08, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, an experienced editor would provide a related policy or guideline backing up his statement. You do not. Is it mentioned in WP:OUTCOMES that all parishes are not notable (as in having notability, haha). Also, just because no other Swedish ecclesiastical parishes appear to have articles is not a very good argument. See WP:WAX and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS Bonkers The Clown (talk) 14:22, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Ah, so you think that not quoting a holy policy or sacred guideline invalidates my opinion and means I should be accused of vandalism and bad faith do you? Interesting. As I have said elsewhere, this shows a serious misunderstanding of the AfD process. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:18, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Ah, I would think your opinion would lack substance and persuasiveness if you don't quote a "holy policy" or "sacred guideline". Your argument above is reminiscent of WP:ATA. Also, I am unlike ChemTerm, the nice comedian. I do not accuse you of "vandalism" or "bad faith". Bonkers The Clown (talk) 05:16, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Frankly my friend, you're not a comedian at all. And neither is ChemTerm, who made the accusations. I'm sick of reiterating the fact that policies and guidelines do not have to be quoted for an opinion to be valid (Wikipedia not being a bureaucracy, thank God), so let's just leave it there. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:23, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Next round. Bong bong. Featuring inhabitants for this what Wikipedia maybe is not, or maybe is: Wikipedia:Bureaucrats. Why are they here? Did they write Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. What for? Trara: Wikipedia:NOTANARCHY. Big smile: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." - But not anarchy? The Twelve Tasks of Asterix -> Task #8. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JtEkUmYecnk "The Place That Sends You Mad". If there are so many clownish rules - become a clown tooooooooooooooooooo. tralala. Serious: [--censored--] hahah :-) ChemTerm (talk) 06:18, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Uninvolved comment on canvassing. on Sweedish Wikipedians' noticeboard and on WikiProject Geography noticeboard. I am not getting involved in this discussion. Only saying these are canvassing in a bad way due to their language, "users hunting", "deletion attacks", etc. These popped up (as potential vandalism) in Huggle, wanted to make everyone known of this. gwickwire | Leave a message 01:02, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on if we're talking about sv:Sollentuna socken or sv:Sollentuna församling, as explained by Hegvald. If the latter, then convert into the former and keep. Historical parishes in Sweden went beyond simple ecclesiastical division from the 1500s onward, becoming used for such functions property registry and local record-keeping. Thus, they aren't much different from other small-level administrative units like U.S. townships. I'd agree that the modern ecclesiastical unit probably isn't notable, but the historical parish is as notable as any other small geographic location. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 01:45, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I can note (notice) the församling. So do the users at the Swedish WP. :-) Seriously. I swear by god I can not(ic)e it. A guess: probably more people currently can notice something existing (församling) compared with something historic that ceased to exist (socken). ChemTerm (talk) 04:56, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I presume that the parish is a subdivision of the municpality. This was a local administrative unit. There is no reason why we should not have articles on them, but typically in England we have an article on a village or locality, which may happen to be similar in extent to a civil parish, rather than directly on the parish. In other words, this article is not just about a church. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:38, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it's not an administrative sub-division. It's an ecclesiastical parish - merely the area served by a church or set of churches with no civil administrative functions. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:04, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Even the Church of Sweden has administration. It is a administrative sub-division of the Church of Sweden Diocese of Stockholm. Don't believe it? Everyone can go with his faith. But this is an encyclopedia! (more or less). ChemTerm (talk) 04:56, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - In general we do not keep articles on ecclesiastical units below diocesan level. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:08, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: WP:NTEMP WP:NTEMP WP:NTEMP WP:NTEMP WP:NTEMP - only because the parish lost some functions it does not need to be deleted. ChemTerm (talk) 04:56, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, you are wrong. An article should describe just one subject. You are trying to move two subjects into one article. And only the historical civil parish seems to have a valid claim to notability, the ecclesical parish has not. When you want to make sure that this article survives, change course and make it an article about the historical cival parish. Only then you have a reasonable chance on success. The Banner _talk 07:29, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sometimes two subjects happen to end up in the same page. Derbyshire: Ceremonial county and non-metropolitan county (different borders) in the same page. County of London: "Status: Administrative and (smaller) ceremonial county". The försammling is a continuation of the socken. I don't see why försammling info needs to be deleted. "When you want to make sure that this article survives, change course" - I don't see any policy warranting deletion of an article because it contains some content about an entity of the Church of Sweden. ChemTerm (talk) 05:55, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - They are mentioned on the same page, not described. The Banner _talk 11:40, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Confusion seems to be arising here because some editors, mostly from non-English-speaking countries, are confusing parishes which are civil administrative units (e.g. in England and Louisiana) with parishes that are merely small ecclesiastical sub-divisions and have no civil administrative function. The former can be notable and are often kept, the latter, generally, are not. Note that we do not have articles on most English civil parishes, as these are considered too small, and these seem to be a similar size to the Swedish parishes. We do have articles on the villages after which English parishes are named, but we also have articles on the villages after which Swedish parishes are named (e.g. Sollentuna Municipality itself), so this is an identical situation. Parishes in Louisiana are the equivalent of counties and are thus much larger units. All these differences in terminology seem to be creating a little confusion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:08, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Sorry, but could ya sum it up in English? Bonkers The Clown (talk) 14:22, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I plain English: unless articles on ecclesical parishes are properly sourced and prove notability, they normally deleted. See for example: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dalgety Bay Parish Church, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Blog's Parish, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Joseph Parish, Norwich, Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 April 18#Template:Infobox Swedish Parish and Wikipedia:Articles for creation/2008-06-04#The Mosaic Parish of Karlskrona (declined). But I have to admit that those discussion were never easy. The Banner _talk 14:57, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sollentuna Municipality is the modern equivalent of the historical Sollentuna Parish. It's not a village or town, it's an administrative district. You're quick to throw the blame on "non-English-speaking" editors for the confusion, but I think it rather stems from those non-Swedish-speaking (or non-Google-Translate-using) editors who can't be bothered to find out the difference between socknar and församlingar. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:42, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, we're aware of that. But if you check, you'll see that Sollentuna as a community does not yet have an article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:10, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are we ignoring the fact that Sollentuna Municipality is (roughly) the modern equivalent of the former Sollentuna Parish? If the municipality gets an article, then why not the socken that it replaced? You seem to be fairly intent on having these articles deleted regardless of anything pointed out to you, so why do I even bother? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:25, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. It is my contention that Sollentuna itself should have an article, but the various minor administrative units associated with it should not and should simply be factored into the main article about the municipality. This is the norm with Swedish municipalities and I'm not sure why others seem to think this particular community (and Bromma) should be an exception to the norm. Redirect the other articles to Sollentuna Municipality. Job done. -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:36, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Was mentioned already: "Merge New York City into New York! Has same letters in the beginning!" ChemTerm (talk) 06:20, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You really don't take this process seriously? The Banner _talk 10:46, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean.... Do you. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 11:03, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anything on the page that could be taken seriously? A new clown below writes "Too small of an admistrative area to qualify for automatic inclusion". Automatic inclusion, oh yeah, that would make WP-editors jobless! Where are sizes defined? Lot of people pop up with WP:ILIKE. WP:ILIKE WP:ILIKE WP:ILIKE WP:ILIKE. Those are turning all processes into clownery. Am I serious about what I just said? I don't know. Hahahaha :-) ChemTerm (talk) 21:45, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Too small of an admistrative area to qualify for automatic inclusion. This is a lot like an American city ward or neighborhood, not an American Township, which has it's own government and by-laws. No evidence of substantial coverage in multiple reliable independent sources, so fails to meet any of our notability guidelines. Not notable as an ecclesiastical parish, for that matter. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:36, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The case of this parish and Bromma parish is complicated by the fact that Stockholm has now more or less engulfed them. Fact of the matter is, these parishes were for centuries quite distinct from the city, and so cannot be reasonably called a "neighbourhood" or "city ward". Socknar were distinct units of a number towns and/or villages, with hybrid civil-ecclesiastical administrative functions. That the administration was of a different nature than American government is to be expected, as Sweden has a different legal/governmental history than America—that doesn't mean that there was no local governing function. The historical socknar retain importance to this very day in Swedish linguistic research, toponymy, local/regional history, and archaeology. And somehow I don't think that "city ward" or "neighbourhood" is an adequate descriptor for e.g. sv:Jokkmokks socken (now there's a name for you). ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:14, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request Speedy Closure as Keep, as nominator Due to the work of Mr. Von Richthofen there is now a clear article about the historical civil parish. As a geographic entity that is already worth keeping. But he has also made a properly sourced article, good enough to convince me of its notability. The Banner _talk 18:51, 24 October 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) 12:09, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Psychic Week[edit]

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

Non-notable website, fails to meet WP:GNG / WP:WEB. No achievements, impact or historical significance and no significant coverage in reliable soruces. -- Wikipedical (talk) 00:53, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article claims that the website "claims to 'uniquely report the news before it happens.'" I propose that we let the website predict whether or not this AfD will pass. Surely it would be notable if it could actually predict the future. If the website says it will be deleted count this as a !vote to keep. If the website says it will be kept count this as a !vote to delete. All Cretans are liars. 208.54.4.255 (talk) 07:01, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It seems to have recently changed its name to Magna Intuitum[27].

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

However I'm not sure that's any more notable.--Colapeninsula (talk) 11:02, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:35, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:35, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can predict that it will fail WP:GNG and Prediction Magazine may be a major publication within the field, but being website of the month does not pass WP:Fringe#Notability. Kooky2 (talk) 13:04, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No coverage, let alone significant coverage. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:00, 23 October 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:12, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shooting Star (Owl City song)[edit]

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

The song has not been released yet. There's only talk about being released as a single later this year. Devin (talk) 00:19, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Query - from the article - "It was released as the lead single from the EP on May 15, 2012" - so the song has been released but I think the film clip has not. Yeah? Stalwart111 (talk) 01:32, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was given this article. The article, that was written on October 3, 2012, says that Adam is considering "Shooting Star" to be the next single off of The Midsummer Station. The song has been released in an EP and in an album, but it's not yet been released as a single. Devin (talk) 03:00, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I get you. Strange wording perhaps. Thanks for clearing that up and for the link. Am leaning towards delete. There's not much there to establish notability now and no guarantee that it will be released in the future (the article you provide suggests it might be but this is basically a rumour or a guess, so WP:BALL #5). Doesn't seem to meet WP:NSONG and no guarantee it will any time in the very near future (unless it's released tomorrow to coincide with the start of their new tour... but that would also be WP:CRYSTAL.). Stalwart111 (talk) 03:29, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~ Merge to Shooting Star (EP). - this is not helped by the fact the EP and the track have the same name! However, there is a tiny amount of significant online coverage about the track - one is identified by Devin above. MTV have also said something about it here. ~~WP:NMUSIC#Recordings requires significant coverage, and this track probably tips towards 'notability'.~~ Sionk (talk) 10:17, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having re-read the MTV and Billboard sources, I'm now of the opinion that they don't offer enough new information about the track to make the article into much more than a track listing. Its charting (in the very upper reaches of the UK chart) and potential future realease can be mentioned in Shooting Star (EP). Sionk (talk) 11:41, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Shooting Star (EP). There's a lack of coverage of this track, and generally you merge/redirect to album or EP in such cases, assuming they are notable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:59, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Charted and therefore notable. It has also been released as a digital download so the nomination is incorrect in stating that "The song has not been released yet". Apparently the Christian market and the UK don't count for where songs may be released in the nominator's mind. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:16, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response and comment only. Familiarity with WP:NSONGS is necessary, it says, Most songs do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist who prominently performed the song. Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album. This song may have charted, but certainly not "ranked on a national or significant music chart" and there certainly isn't at present enough veriafiable for a reasonably detailed article, at present it is purely discography entry dressed up as an article. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 16:29, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain how the official UK singles chart is not national, nor significant? Ironholds (talk) 11:13, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Easy. Is number 176 in any chart actually notable? Does No 176 in any chart actually generate enough information to create a song article? Is the article about a song or a single? Is the entry actually an encyclopedic entry or is it a discography entry? Finally many song articles have been deleted/merged on notability grounds for songs that achieved much higher charting than 176. --Richhoncho (talk) 12:16, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

None of those hypothetical questions actually answer my initial query, which was "can you explain how the chart" is not national or significant, not "can you explain how the position" does not lend itself to significance. Ironholds (talk) 12:49, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are arguing semantics which is unnecessary as I have not expressed any !vote in the matter. Your time would have been spent much better addressing the points I have raised in the article, if you think I have raised valid points. If you disagree with me, that's fine too. If you disagree with WP:NSONGS that's a different matter altogether. --Richhoncho (talk) 12:57, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree with WP:NSONGS, which discusses the importance of charts, not the relative position of a song on those charts. This is what I am trying to communicate to you :). The fact that you have not !voted does not make discussing this irrelevant - it means that discussing this is not necessary to "win", sure, but I consider a win to be "talking through the rationale and trying to work out who is wrong or right to better inform future discussions". Ironholds (talk) 13:05, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In which case you should be aware of the first two words of NSONGS... "Most songs." If we drop down to 176 (irrespective of which chart) then we are saying "Anything that has charted is notable." which is not what NSONGS says. --Richhoncho (talk) 14:16, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, it also says "songs that have charted....are probably notable", but I think at this point it's clear we're talking past each other and not getting anywhere. Ironholds (talk) 14:43, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it says "probably notable," not are notable, therefore the other parts of NSONGS kick in. Awards? Independent coverage? Can it be more than a stub? Presently the article is a discography entry, it tells nobody anything about "the song!" --Richhoncho (talk) 14:55, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Billboard's US Christian Songs is notable and it reached No. 36. Therefore notable. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:02, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not going to get into discussion if a particular chart is notable, but your words remind me greatly of WP:NOTINHERITED. Assuming that No 36 in the chart is notable, then why can't there be more information about the song? If there can't be, then the article must be a permanent stub, so deletion/merging according to WP:NSONGS would be the correct action to take. I think I understand that you and Ironholds think the article should be saved, what I am not understanding is "Why?" - I'd like to see a well-written article on this song where I and every other reader can learn something about this song. All we have at the moment is that it charted in 2 different charts - if that's all a song article meant to be we might as well delete all song articles and copy the charts because song articles are now irrelevant. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 18:29, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:29, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I believe enough material exists to satisfy WP:NSONGS and build a "reasonably detailed article". Sections on the song's background (e.g., originally written "four years ago" but didn't make the cut for Ocean Eyes; he finally presented a 90-second demo of the "old leftover instrumental idea" to Stargate; etc.) and music video can be created. And as far as the charts go, the song peaked at number 49 on the Japan Hot 100. The combination of coverage in reliable sources (MTV and Billboard) and chart info is enough to put me in the keep camp.

Other, less significant items (in terms of depth) can also be incorporated. This JesusFreakHideout review: while it is about the EP overall, approximately 130 words discuss the song, and that's better than a passing mention, at least. And there's a tidbit that "Shooting Star" was intended to be the first single from The Midsummer Station until the success of Call Me Maybe led to Owl City's management choosing the duet "Good Time" instead. Gongshow ^Talk 08:59, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Thanks to Gongshow. You understood what I was saying. WP is a little more than a repository of discography entries. I note there's something in the links you gave that helps fill out "about the song" bit of a song article. --Richhoncho (talk) 16:16, 22 October 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.