Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 June 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 12 June 14 June >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:18, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jamal Patterson[edit]

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

This is a BLP about an MMA fighter with no significant coverage and only 1 of the top tier fights required to meet WP:NMMA. Jakejr (talk) 01:54, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 11:13, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Ultimate Fighter 1. LFaraone 00:36, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Schoenauer[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG with no significant coverage and WP:NMMA with only 1 top tier fight. Jakejr (talk) 01:44, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Ultimate Fighter 1 I like Luchuslu's idea. Subject is not notable individually, but reasonable redirects are better than deletions. Jakejr (talk) 15:46, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepThe dude fought Victor Matyushenko for the inaugural IFL Light Heavyweight Championship - he deserves an entry. Gas_Panic42 20:45, 15 June 2013
Fighting for the championship of a non top tier organization does not show notability. Your reason falls under WP:ILIKEIT. Jakejr (talk) 18:08, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 11:14, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. LFaraone 00:37, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Grojband episodes[edit]

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

Episode list for a series that has just began its run. Paper Luigi T • C 23:39, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is no limit to how many episodes they need to have before they get a list. If the show is notable enough for a Wikipedia article, then it gets a list of episodes article, always. Dream Focus 01:00, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The above DF's analysis is sound and correct. This kind of articles are a standard for WP, it does not count how much time is passed from the start dates. Cavarrone 08:37, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Non-admin closure: AfD filed by sockpuppet of indef blocked user, now himself blocked. Ravenswing 06:56, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

African admixture in Europe[edit]

AfDs for this article:
African Admixture in Europe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · admixture in Europe (3rd nomination) Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Due to the nature of this article, certain entities have taken over this Item to propagate and confect perverse editions.

The article itself is being monitored by heads with an agenda to erase and conceal information, and thus, to keep the article written under a certain way under multiple campaigns of edits/reverts. These same individual Editors forcibly try to occult any information regarding a country, with little to no information, while adding more and repeating even more futile paragraphs on others. (I obviously I won't point any names)

If this article must be up, then...one must create a Wiki article entitled "Asian Admixture in Europe", "Arab Admixture in Europe", etc. In fact, we one would have to create for other continents, like "African admixture in Asia", "European Admixture in Asia, "Arab admixture in Asia" and forth "European admixture in Africa", "Asian Admixture in Africa"...and so on...

It makes no sense to have an article entitled "African admixture in Europe", while engaging in Edit wars, when there are no other Wiki articles regarding anthropology, that mirrors other admixtures in other emplacements. Such as, example: "Asian admixture in Europe".

I'm proposing the deletion of this article due to the recurring and future events, as this article became the interest of racists who edit this article for personal will.

It is impossible to contest or argue, let alone contribute to the article, when certain editors either Revert & Edit to occult or propagate irresponsible information. It further lacks references. I tried to approach this matter on the Talk page of the article, but no input was given.

NOTE: There is already Wiki pages that deals with the subject of the article, on each respective Haplogroup page.

SpaniHard (talk) 22:56, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: A few points in regards to the nomination. There is no requirement to have other articles if this article remains. Articles are only created when there are sufficient sources to support the article. Also, what articles already cover this topic? GB fan 01:16, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think he's trying to say the individual pages linked to from Haplogroup - it's all rather too sciency for me. Ansh666 01:28, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the grand problem is the lack of other similar articles like "Asian admixture in Europe", than whats the problem for SpaniHard to actually start contributing to Wikipedia by creating such article; instead of constantly deleting - passages - sources and now entire (well sourced) articles; My Opinion Daufer (talk) 01:41, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. I did not "constantly deleting - passages - sources and now entire (well sourced)" as Daufer put it.

The user Daufer is the one who constantly Adds/Undoes information, with deletions of text regarding another. (I did not want to point out his name. But since he was brought up. There isn't much of a choice)

This article became Daufer's personal diary book, where he acclaims ownership and solely domination of such stipulation, leaving little to no right or space for other editors.

(If right now, I added referenced information to the article, I can assure the moderators of Wikipedia that my contribution will/would most likely be deleted/reverted by Daufer. Maybe not now due to recent repercussions, but sometime in the future.)

This is most visible in the Edit Summary, where Editors lost credibility. Hence, it is advised for the Moderators to take a meticulous look at the entries, for confirmation. There are multiple Editions without summary for his entries, where he reverts other peoples contributions or adds irrelevant (and repeated) information to suit his personal agenda.

To revoke. The only passages I deleted were those misquoted, with misleading references, which had nothing to do with the article in the first place. According to Daufer, such "well sourced article", includes blogs and dead links which had nothing to do with the matter in question. The article lacks citations. These same paragraphs with feigned references were probably linked to a clause, to advocate an adulterated text.

I did a clean up on the frequency table of Haplogroup L, by deleting the figures at 0,00% levels. (This article concerns admixture, ergo 0,00% is immaterial to this article). Respectively, I added two more figures, Ottoni et al. (2009) & Achilli et al (2007), but those same figures were also reverted/deleted by Daufer in a minafold of edits.

As I said in the plea for the deletion of this article. There are already subjacent Wiki pages regarding this article. It makes no sense to make a duplicate with another name. SpaniHard (talk) 13:12, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • There is always a big fat minus next to all your edits; thats not adding thats deleting; Daufer (talk) 15:39, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • So that would be a keep, right? Ansh666 02:01, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. On the merits, I think this would be a Keep - it has the appearance of being a well referenced piece of work, though I cannot speak to the science of it. I corrected the nominator's formatting and created this page using the misplaced nom he/she put at the first afd for this article (here). I kinda wish I had read through this one first, since it does not appear to have much going for it. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid deletion rationale, nor are shenanigans on the part of other editors. Remove that, and we have not much left at all. No recommendation, since I took administrative action on this article, but I had to comment. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 03:12, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as per the same reason as seen at the closing of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/African admixture in Europe (2nd nomination).Moxy (talk) 03:01, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 09:14, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yo soy Choncha[edit]

Note to closing admin: The !votes below that have been struck were made by confirmed sockpuppets of the user who created the article. Thomas.W (talk) 20:17, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yo soy Choncha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BK Taroaldo ✉ 22:16, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a recreation of a recently deleted article, Deletion log: 17:09, 13 June 2013 NawlinWiki (talk | contribs) deleted page Yo soy Choncha (A7: No explanation of significance (real person/animal/organization/web content/organized event): Expired PROD, concern was: Article in es-wiki was deleted as promotional; Google.mx results do not show that this meets the [[WP...). Ochiwar (talk) 22:47, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is no substantial coverage for this in the Spanish-language media, other than a very superficial story about an alleged bullying incident that is supposedly tied to the book, which would be WP:NOTNEWS on a good day. In any case, it fails WP:GNG and WP:NBOOKS. The article on es-wiki was deleted as promotional, and this one has been speedied twice already. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 22:49, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If User:NawlinWiki or another admin would mind comparing the deleted article and the current one, maybe it can be speedied. Ansh666 00:40, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The previous article was actually much longer but was written entirely in Spanish. I'd say let the AFD run its course so if it ever shows up again it can simply be G4'ed. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 00:42, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Darn, now I actually have to look at the page Delete per FreeRangeFrog, though, and the fact that it's quite incoherent (at least to me). Ansh666 00:57, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • To clarify: Delete per Frog above, Tokyogirl and Frei sein below, and es-wiki. Lack of WP:RS to support even the book's existence beyond blogs. WP:SPAM at best. Ansh666 21:20, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • And add NaCl (salt, for those not chemically aligned), per below. Ansh666 18:21, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I've cleaned the page up for clarity, as I want this to be deleted on its own merits rather than because the book's article looked awful. I was actually one of the admins that deleted the previous versions of this due to it being so obviously promotional. (I deleted it the first time around.) The tough thing about this is that there is chatter... on non-usable sources. I was able to piece together that this was initially published as an anonymous blog, probably due to the author wanting to avoid criticism. It seems like there were plans for a telenovela of this at one point in time around 2009/2010, but I can't verify if this was actually made. Most of what I'm finding suggests that it wasn't. ([1], [2], [3]) None of this is really usable as a RS, though. I can't even really find anything reliable that could back up the claims of this initially being a blog. Granted my Spanish is poor (even though I'm using GTranslate to supplement that), but I just can't find anything that would show notability for this. I tried searching with the author's name and since this was initially anonymously published, just the book title itself. There just aren't any real RS that would back up half of the claims made in the book's wiki. This is a delete on my end. Considering that this is the third incarnation of the article on this Wikipedia, I'd actually suggest probably salting this to prevent it being made a fourth time. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:26, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Yes, I can't recall ever having seen such an odd collection of search results on anything before. Even Roald Dahl's name was coming up. I'm not sure what that was about. Of course, my Spanish isn't great either. Taroaldo ✉ 07:56, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentHello! I find it strange that you have voted for this article be deleted because you're the one who has written and updated on it, you are against or not? my English is bad --Lovelky18881 (talk) 20:11, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Hi, everyone! I am an editor from es-wiki, and I would like to notice that there is not such "book" published under the name "Yo soy Choncha" or similars from the Editorial Trillas. Trillas is a publishing house dedicated to publish books—mostly for universities—and always provide its books with ISBN. In the catalog from the publishing house there is not mention from this "book", nor exist ISBN. Neither has been found any serious or reputable sources to support the alleged "book" existence, or even the oficial statement from the editorial house about the withdrawn from the market or even the prohibition to be sold (specially if was a big "sale success" as claimed in the spanish article). All that exists about "Yo soy Choncha" are blogs entries, several posts in forums or notes from dubious sources, wich lead to believe than has never been published as "book" and is only propaganda or promotion from a blog or personal pages. —Frei sein (Talk to me!) 15:43, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Creator (or someone close to them) has attempted to remove the AfD tag. 99% of the time I see this the article spells SPAM & Advertising. However I still do my research and I am unable to find any RS on this except user blogs etc. and none are even in English. Tyros1972 Talk 18:55, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sock spam.
  • Keep: The book if there is Mexico, many people will have courage because it is a book that promotes Anorexia and Bulimia Bullying should therefore not be deleted because the public has to have an explanation of why it off the market, Editorial Trillas all he did was disappear any mention of Yo soy Choncha as they were threatened to be fined for promoting eating disorders, the book is too well known not only for the controversy of its contents if not by the media, it is worth mentioning Tv notas, Bellezaymoda.com and totally reliable sources have mentioned the fact are as references, people Spanish Wikipedia article deleted it personally but not for failing to meet Wikipedia standards, since they are in against the book, Yo soy Choncha section in Spanish wikipedia online hard 5 months --Lovelky18881 (talk) 20:04, 14 June 2013 (UTC) — Lovelky18881 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep: My vote is positive, Yo Soy Choncha is a 2003 book that only sold in Mexico, unfortunately promoted eating disorders and was withdrawn from the market, the book was sold in Sanborns, El Palacio de Hierro in México among others, many media mention, Editorial Trillas to protect its reputation erased him from your list, you can not promote a book that was taken off the market, my opinion there should be an article esque talk about him and his exit from the market because Wikipedia in Spanish is against him for promoting anorexia and bulimia and delete it without a vote, something totally anti wikipedia --BooksWiki94 (talk) 20:25, 14 June 2013 (UTC) — BooksWiki94 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment The basic standard to be applied here is simple: are there sufficient WP:RS and sufficient notability for inclusion in Wikipedia? The answer to both is no. Therefore the material should be deleted. Taroaldo ✉ 21:21, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If you do, perhaps not English, but in Spanish if and have already placed many references to it which make mention and the book is checked if existed. --BooksWiki94 (talk) 22:18, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The main question regarding references is whether or not a source is reliable, per WP:RS. The ones on en-wiki and es-wiki (verified by Frei sein) are not. Ansh666 22:40, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sock spam.
  • Comment: That ridiculous, as it will do a book promotion is no longer for sale? --Strawbutter (talk) 10:15, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The behavior of the apparent socks here, which includes BereniceGirl deleting my !vote, makes me believe that we will have a long term problem on our hands, with repeated recreation of the article, unless we not only delete the current article but also SALT the title and all possible variations thereof. Thomas.W (talk) 08:28, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BKand WP:GNG --and salt!--Smerus (talk) 07:34, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Salt As Nom, I am adding that to my obvious delete. Going forward, this alleged cluster of socks should have RBI applied. Taroaldo ✉ 09:21, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sock spam.
  • Keep: This found that the book exists, have been added and all references have been verified to be reliable sources, if you are against it because it promotes anorexia and bulimia should maturing or at least disguise --Geralynny (talk) 10:00, 15 June 2013 (UTC)— Geralynny (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep: It is clear that people who vote to eliminate is that they are against the book, what a coincidence that eliminate user spa etiquette though Frei Sein has no issues and the people who vote Keep them put the tag Spa, which horror, as much immaturity, my vote is positive because the book exists --Strawbutter (talk) 10:11, 15 June 2013 (UTC) — Strawbutter (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment: No-one doubts that the book exists, the question is if the book is notable enough to have an article on en-Wiki. Which it, by all available evidence, is not. Thomas.W (talk) 10:17, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • SALT For reasons Taroaldo stated and also this is SPAM as I said before. Tyros1972 Talk 11:11, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt All socks here (which believe that by saying keep it will be kept) proved this article is just for advertisement purposes. The book is not sold anymore, but it still being a vehicle for promotion of it. The book fails WP:GNG as all relevant references I could find were blogs, a wikia, forums, and questions about why it is forbidden to be sold. TV Notas is not a reliable source, it is just a gossip magazine as reliable as English tabloids. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 19:03, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Sockpuppets of Lovesexy189 have been confirmed and blocked. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lovesexy189. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:56, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Why emphasize the nicknames of people who vote to Keep? Here it is shown that Toroaldo, and people who vote for delete discover the book are, they want to eliminate something personal and not because the article does not meet the rules, do you have evidence that the people who voted for keep are the same?, do you have evidence that they are the same Ip? if they do put them and demanding they spend, are also required you to put evidence, I can say that those who voted for Delete are the same and the stress that immaturity of these people --Hayden481 (talk) 05:22, 16 June 2013 (UTC) — Hayden481 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
It's called CheckUser and it confirmed many of the users above were sock-puppet accounts of the same single person, created to spam this AFD with keep votes. As such, said votes have been struck, leaving exactly nobody supporting the retention of this article. Consensus should be easy to determine. Stalwart111 07:30, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Salt: I could find exactly ZERO mention in reliable independent sources, whether in English or in Spanish. Pure promotion of a totally non-notable book. The sockpuppetry seen in this AfD is a good sign that the sockmaster intends to recreate the article once again, so salting is highly advisible. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 07:10, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, salt and close. An obvious WP:SNOW result but for the ridiculous vote-spam from the article creator and his many, many accounts. Stalwart111 07:38, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concur with requests to snow close and salt. If I wasn't involved, I'd snow close it myself. I'll see if I can find someone to step in here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:53, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. LFaraone 00:37, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Condominium (band)[edit]

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

Fails WP:BAND Taroaldo ✉ 22:04, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the sourcing in the article are blogs from the Current which is part of the the Minnesota NPR. It's unclear whether these are reliable sources. But in any case, this is only one site writing abut the band, and it is coverage from a local source. I can find no other coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 14:06, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per WP:TOOSOON and/or lacking depth of coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:28, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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) 18:38, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Geniophobia[edit]

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

Same reason as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pteridophobia - not able to find WP:RS. Note that it is by the same author. Ansh666 21:53, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is a ridiculous little internet subculture of people who like to make long lists of alleged "phobias" so that they can laugh about them. That sort of material comprises the only "sources" for this type of article. These sources are profoundly unreliable for mental health topics. Wikipedia should only have articles about phobias that have significant coverage in the sort of reliable sources that mental health professionals utilitize. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:37, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No significant coverage found. Fails WP:GNG. Praemonitus (talk) 04:16, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Seems to be hoax, especially the part about it being caused by heretics and genetics. Borock (talk) 07:14, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am curious to know which kind of theological deviance can make someone so afraid of chins? —Σosthenes12 Talk 17:33, 14 June 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes12[reply]
  • Delete - per Cullen, there is no serious medical discussion regarding the so-called condition. This is telling... 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 17:54, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. copyvio LFaraone 00:39, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Word Made Flesh[edit]

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

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Only one self published source. Ochiwar (talk) 21:38, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please add WP:NOTADVERTISING to my objections. Ochiwar (talk) 22:19, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Hints of notability here have not been demonstrated. The article can certainly be recreated if notability can be established. --BDD (talk) 20:07, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Taraneye Madari[edit]

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

Unsourced article about a (television ?) series. No evidence of even minimal notability. - MrX 20:56, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Beerest355 Talk 21:08, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for reasons above Kabirat (talk) 15:05, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - evidently it is a TV series, or perhaps it is a series of online videos. I could not find sources to tell me which. All "sources" found were online video sharing sites and the like. No coverage in reliable sources found. Fails WP:GNG. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 18:15, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:15, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a television series and obviously you won't find enough links if searching using Google from US. Iranian editors may help. --Basji (talk) 13:43, 15 June 2013 (UTC)— Basji (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete. No indication that it meets WP:GNG, and I can't find any sources either. The article was created by an editor who has made no edits other than to create this article; the article about the main actor was created on the next day by another SPA with a very similar name, as an unsourced BLP. When that article was PRODded, the creator added bogus sources which were unchallenged until just now. Seems like an attempt to promote a non-notable actor and television series. --bonadea contributions talk 08:46, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mine is not a SPA account and have no relation with the person who created the article plus i just tried improving the article. You may check me at SPI. Please, don't accuse me for this. Unfortunately, my first few edits included this vote.--Basji (talk) 12:07, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Kabirat (talk) 06:58, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know that this is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, but does that mean that we delete articles on the say-so of people who display such gross ignorance as to think that their inability to find sources for an Iranian topic in the Roman alphabet is a reason for deletion? If you're incapable of evaluating Persian-language sources (as I am) then you're incapable of giving an informed enough opinion about the notability of this topic. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:58, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would love to have this article rescued. As you state, I am incapable of evaluating Persian-language sources, although this being an English encyclopedia I made a good faith effort to find sources on the subject (in English). Unfortunately, neither this article nor the Persian wikipedia article list any sources. As such, there is no way to verify the claims contained in this article. On top of that, the article gives the reader no context as to what the article is about, is promotional in nature. So, I would beg of the article creator or any other Farsi-speaking editors (Basji?) to find sources and create a verifiable article. Until then I need to keep my vote as is, in good conscience. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 21:31, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The BURDEN of proof is on the editor who created the article. I made a good faith effort to find sources, to no avail. The next logical step is to submit the matter for community discussion, thus this AfD. If that qualifies me for the dunce cap of "gross ignorance", then so be it. - MrX 22:16, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. LFaraone 00:40, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rise Up (R. Kelly song)[edit]

Rise Up (R. Kelly song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This song is not notable. It has never been a single, never charted, is only included on American copies of the album, and only received some small coverage due to the subject material. Nothing here that can't be summed up in a few sentences at Double Up (R. Kelly album). Beerest355 Talk 20:42, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Beerest355 Talk 20:44, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Simply not enough information available to warrant an article.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 23:43, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as lacking evidence of independent in depth coverage as required by the WP:GNG. Feel free to ping my talk page if more sources are added to the article. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:38, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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) 18:36, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chess960@home[edit]

Chess960@home (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article contains no assertion of notability. Toccata quarta (talk) 18:27, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete web content with no notability presented. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:48, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete yet another of these articles written in future tense that have gone stale. This one dates from 2006 which is ancient in Internet time. I was surprised to see the web site still there, but shows nobody has used the service in a while. W Nowicki (talk) 16:40, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:34, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

25 years on.. Nellie still haunts[edit]

25 years on.. Nellie still haunts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No notability per WP:NBOOK seen. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 14:19, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 19:54, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. LFaraone 00:41, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John Brock (fictional character)[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to have third-party sources, and the bit of text that does exist is quite POV to begin with. Wizardman 14:58, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no mention of the novel titles in which this character appeared, therefore this article could not really be useful to anyone. There are no sources to back it up that I could find. ~ Anastasia (talk) 18:42, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per the reasons aboveUberaccount (talk) 23:04, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the appropriate bibliography section of author's page. Even merge some of this there, possibly. Jclemens (talk) 01:42, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with redirect. Bondegezou (talk) 14:54, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Disagree with redirect, because the novels themselves don't have articles, and given the tone of the stub there's nothing to merge in anyway, plus it wouldn't be a plausible search term at all given the disambiguation. Wizardman 16:38, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 19:51, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:GNG. The content of this article is already in Desmond Skirrow, anyways. Ansh666 00:43, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as lacking evidence of independent in depth coverage as required by the WP:GNG. Feel free to ping my talk page if more sources are added to the article. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:57, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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) czar · · 22:11, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

8th Incline Colony[edit]

8th Incline Colony (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reference to any reliable third party source can't be found on internet Benedictdilton (talk) 18:17, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This appears to be a populated place which is some form of sub-unit of Godavarikhani based on the article and as stated here. This news article also mentions this place. -- Whpq (talk) 17:17, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 20:48, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article has major grammar errors that I plan on fixing, but otherwise it looks good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Citrusbowler (talk • contribs) 21:52, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 19:46, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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) 18:36, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford Investment and Finance Society[edit]

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

The article doesn't assert any reason why the society is notable. Wikipedia is not a directory of all student societies. Statements in the article are not verifiable because of the lack of reliable sources. The article is to some extent a coat rack for naming commercial sponsors. Pointillist (talk) 22:04, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete no evidence society is notable
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 19:44, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- It would be an extremely exceptional student society that was notable. The fact that they have managed to attract some very high profile speakers and sponsors does not make them notable: notability is not inherited. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:49, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Scunthorpe problem. LFaraone 00:42, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Medireview[edit]

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

I'm not sure this topic passes WP:GNG. A Google search (medireview -wikipedia) returns minimal results, some unrelated to the Yahoo error, such as the Medical Marijuana Review. While a few pages may still have this word out there, on the whole, the topic seems like an unimportant historical footnote. WP:NOTNEWSPAPER encourages us to consider "the enduring notability" of topics, and I don't really think this one has any. --BDD (talk) 23:45, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 23:47, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 23:47, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • A merge into Scunthorpe problem may be appropriate. --BDD (talk) 00:01, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete perhaps merge the citations, but clearly every word ever mis-spelled by software does not deserve an article! W Nowicki (talk) 23:54, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not a random "word mis-spelled by software", it's a problem (semi-notorious about ten years ago, written up on Slashdot etc.) whereby people's words were transformed without their knowledge or consent into gibberish. "Clbuttic" has already been merged with Scunthorpe problem, but unlike Clbuttic, Medireview never involved any words considered naughty by anybody... AnonMoos (talk) 02:50, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about a merge/redirect to Email filtering, new section Email filtering#False positives, or similar? AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 03:10, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Scunthorpe problem. Going through the Google results, it seems this has gotten more coverage than your average misadventure in filtering, but probably not enough to meet GNG, as BDD notes. The Scunthorpe article is pretty listy as it is, so this could probably just be thrown in as a bullet point. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 06:25, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Scunthorpe problem is about problems caused by "text contain[ing] a string of letters that are shared with an obscene word". This does not apply to Medireview... AnonMoos (talk) 14:02, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The word medireview is not notable. The Yahoo incident is probably barely notable. The concept of "dumb" filters for antivirus (as opposed to censorship) is certainly notable. As written, this deserves a section in some other article. Scunthorpe problem isn't quite appropriate, as it's not quite the same problem, but I think it would be acceptable. If not for the neologism I'd suggest moving it to Medireview problem and populating it in parallel to Scunthorpe problem with similar examples. AdventurousSquirrel's merge suggestion is reasonable. Autocorrection might be as well. (I am aware that I have not !voted). -- stillnotelf is invisible 14:58, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 19:43, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into new section in Scunthorpe problem.Cleckheaton Cloghoppers FC (talk) 16:42, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Scunthorpe problem. Labels are not definitions. The Scunthorpe problem is not a problem afflicting Scunthorpe (the place or the name); it is a problem inherent in some implementations of filtering software. "Medireview" is an example of such a problem. That Yahoo's blacklist included words that were not considered obscene is irrelevant. Cnilep (talk) 03:43, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep: I recall a lot of publicity about this at the time, including the fact that this error had gotten into résumés and even some scholarly publications. People working in the field were genuinely asking "What's this new word I'm seeing everywhere?" So for one small coding error it had a very wide impact. Of course, it is more of a historical footnote now, but I came to this article today because I cited it to a colleague in order to avoid repeating the same mistake in a different context. I will be sad if the article has disappeared next time I try to refer to it. Bovlb (talk) 19:19, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Scunthorpe problem as above. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:18, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. LFaraone 00:43, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Popinjay (song)[edit]

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

None notable single per WP:NSONG. I could not find where this song has ranked on any chart or any other source of notability. User226 (talk) 18:49, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Another example of creating an article for every single released, a job which is handled much more cleanly and efficiently by a discography. --Richhoncho (talk) 04:50, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as lacking evidence of in depth coverage in independent reliable sources. If such sources are added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:24, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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) 18:34, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mariko Shinoda[edit]

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

My redirect was reverted, so we're here. Non-notable member of a 92-member group, whose only apparent reason for independent notability could be that she hosted a TV show, for which reliable sources are lacking--sources that are not fan sites and indicate that this was indeed a notable and noteworthy thing. For the rest her career (and the entire article) is that of AKB48. This is just another fan site in the ABK48 on Wikipedia series. Drmies (talk) 17:51, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Michitaro (talk) 20:20, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. User who brought this AfD has turned a number of articles on individual AKB48 members into redirects. This is one that was clearly unjustified. First, as WP:NRVE states, "Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation. Wikipedia articles are not a final draft, and an article's subject can be notable if such sources exist, even if they have not been named yet." Just because this is a mediocre article does not mean it warrants deletion. Searches for her in Japanese, however, will find numerous reliable sources in major media about her individually (Nikkei, Sanspo, Asahi, Hochi, Mainichi, etc.). Second, it is true there is a legitimate argument that of the 100s of members of AKB and its sister groups, the vast majority do not deserve their own articles. Notability is not inherited. But it is basic to not only the AKB marketing strategy but also of many other talent agencies like Johnny's to create individual notability for the major members by having them appear in different musical groups, appear individually on TV, have individual contracts to do TV CMs, etc. So it is not the case that all AKB members are only notable because of AKB. Each must be judged individually. Shinoda is a clear keep because she has already pursued significant activities alone. In fact, she was ranked the number one female tarento of 2012 in Japan in terms of the number of television commercials she appears in (see here). I have added this and some other references to the article, though it could still use some improvement. Michitaro (talk) 20:49, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. She is notable. There has been many, many articles about her. E.g., these were on top of Google search: [5], [6], [7]. I think Michitaro has already explained everything. By the way, look at the Wikipedia article traffic statistics of her article in the Japanese Wikipedia: [8] and her Twiiter [9], where she has 1.6 million subscribers. --Moscow Connection (talk) 22:57, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have never heard of her before, not knowing much about Japanese music. But while doing an Internet search for "Mariko" for unknown reasons, I observed that a large number (perhaps a majority) of the results were for this individual. Since Mariko is not an unusual Japanese name, it seems like the conclusion must be that she is notable (or that other people named Mariko are not very interesting or popular, which seems unlikely). Vectro (talk) 01:24, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per Michitaro's excellent commentary. Jun Kayama 02:52, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow Keep - Is clearly popular in Japan, but more importantly, has received a lot of coverage. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 14:19, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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) 18:25, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Minami Minegishi[edit]

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

My redirect of this article to the "band" [AKB48]] was reverted. This is a poorly referenced BLP for a person who outside that band has no notability, and it's part of the conglomerate of fan articles on this band--AKB48 on Wikipedia. The article consists, besides a nauseating list of "appearances" (in J-pop every fart is notable), of nothing but one bit of gossip: supposedly she spent the night with some boy. Gasp! In that sense, BLP1E might even apply. Besides that there is nothing here--nothing but a fan site. Drmies (talk) 16:52, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Also, I just noticed this is the second nomination, and I am not convinced by the first one. One of the keep arguments is her participation on an AKB48 single--well, band members aren't automatically notable if the band has success, and as you can tell from this fan article, there's a TON of persons on that record. I think we're forgetting that this is an industry and that the "characters" in those bands are just that, characters, who can be exchanged from one day to the next. Individual notability can therefore most certainly NOT be derived from membership, if that were in any doubt. Drmies (talk) 16:58, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This page should not be deleted. It is quite obvious that "Drmies" is biased against J-pop ("in J-pop every fart is notable", and "I think we're forgetting that this is an industry and that the 'characters' in those bands are just that, characters, who can be exchanged from one day to the next. "). Just because "Drmies" is not familiar with Minami Minegishi does not mean she is not well known in Japan, and in Asia in general. I am getting the impression "Drmies" is more guided by cultural imperialism than objectivity. Nilbuk (talk) 17:54, 13 June 2013 (UTC) — Nilbuk (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Speedy Keep. There are plenty of reliable sources. The article has been nominated for deletion last year, and was kept. Since then, she only became more famous. Many new reliable sources have been added to the article since then. Here's the latest article I saw: [10]. As you can see, Oricon Style cares about everything about her very much. --Moscowconnection (talk) 20:19, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. User who brought this AfD has turned a number of articles on individual AKB48 members into redirects. I will not judge whether this user is biased again this or any other pop group, but the statement "I think we're forgetting that this is an industry and that the "characters" in those bands are just that, characters, who can be exchanged from one day to the next" indicates a personal opinion that, while some may share, is irrelevant to this AfD because it is only a subjective opinion. Even "characters" one personally thinks are "exchangeable" are notable as long as they pass WP:GNG, which demands more objective criteria. As I noted with the Mariko Shinoda AfD, it is true there is a legitimate argument that of the 100s of members of AKB and its sister groups, the vast majority do not deserve their own articles. Notability is not inherited. But it is basic to not only the AKB marketing strategy but also of many other talent agencies like Johnny's to create individual notability for the major members by having them appear in different musical groups, appear individually on TV, have individual contracts to do TV CMs, etc. So it is not the case that all AKB members are only notable because of AKB. Each must be judged individually. Even before her scandal, Minegishi was active in multiple groups/bands (indicating her notability was not solely derived from AKB), appeared in TV commercials by herself ([11]), and was a regular on TV shows by herself ([12]). Then there was the scandal. True, this was a scandal, but it was reported by the media not just because it was a scandal, but because it was perceived to be emblematic of the Japanese idol system ([13], [14], etc.), . Perhaps ironically, Minegishi came to represent something more than AKB. Infamy is still fame, and passes WP:GNG. Michitaro (talk) 21:33, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - First of all, having an opinion about the notability of a group of articles is NOT the same as bias. Drmies is entitled have an opinion without it somehow invalidating the whole discussion. As for the article, I'm wondering if it shouldn't be about the head shaving incident, rather than the person. I have very little interest in idols, but I do remember reading about this when it happened. As Michitaro said, this incident was widely discussed as being an example of sexual norms in idol culture, and a number of other areas outside of the usual gossip mills. The article needs a lot of work, but it seems like it might be worth it. Grayfell (talk) 23:55, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep and clean up a lot - the head-shaving incident does make this particular member stand out - not as a member of the group, but as a representative of the entire industry. It is true, though, that most of the article's content is unacceptable. Ansh666 00:52, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Per Michitaro's last argument about her head-shaving incident. Incident was reported in domestic and international media; in Japan it was the source of serious discussion on the state of idols in Japan. In excellent articles such as in The Atlantic [15] or CNN [16] it generated culturally relevant commentary on gender relations and abuse in the Japanese entertainment industry. In lieu of a stand-alone article on the incident, better expansion of that section in this article is warranted. Jun Kayama 02:49, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Sure she is mainly famous outside Japan for shaving her head; however, in Japan, it was a big deal. Also, the sheer volume of coverage for that incident, along with the fact she was already famous even before it, means this isn't a BLP1E case. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 14:21, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - National media continues to refer to Minegishi's incident and her affect on the Japanese idol perception including this article posted today which made the New York Times [17] WP:NEWSEVENT -AngusWOOF (talk) 16:39, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Her apology and head-shaving struck a nerve because it reminded people of the bad old days when Japanese were expected to committed suicide in such situations. See this BBC story. It's not very often that individual J-pop celebrities get covered in the international press. Kauffner (talk) 11:19, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Minami also "is a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles" (AKB48 and no3b), which is "Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Criteria for musicians and ensembles" criterion 6. --Moscow Connection (talk) 20:52, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. I'd recommend unlinking the red links and adding a proper lede. -- Y not? 16:30, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of former members of AKB48[edit]

List of former members of AKB48 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced fancruft which, even if it were sourced, would still be cruft. These people are not (unless in exceptional cases) individually notable, and this is part of the AKB48 on Wikipedia conglomerate of fan articles. Drmies (talk) 16:44, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Everything in the article can be sourced easily. The info has been moved from the article AKB48. When a member leaves the group, she is cut from the main article and moved to this list. Cause the main article is too long already. --Moscow Connection (talk) 20:11, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The nominator seems to be biased against J-pop and K-pop. So here we go again... --Moscow Connection (talk) 20:11, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This isn't information. It's trivia, only for fans. Moscowconnection here seems unable to distinguish between trivia and knowledge, and should think about reserving space on Wikia. Drmies (talk) 21:12, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:TRIVIA says trivia is a list of miscellateous information. This is not trivia. The scope of the list is clearly defined. --Moscow Connection (talk) 21:30, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I said "trivia", not TRIVIA. Drmies (talk) 22:11, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a very clear keep. The function of this list is well defined, and the list is long. This information is also not contained on the AKB48 page meaning it is not duplication. Merging them is also not an option per WP:SIZERULE since the AKB48 page is already over 100,000 bytes. I do not feel a delete is justified either and this article could be considered a justified use of WP:SPLIT. User226 (talk) 22:09, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Size is not a valid reason to keep an article, per WP:ASZ. Looking over this list, it seems like it's merely a WP:DIRECTORY. There's not any real indication of who these people are or why they are notable other than the time period of their membership in AKB48, but, of course, notability isn't inherited. If this were confined to notable former members of AKB48, then it might be work keeping, but it would also be about 1/20th the length. This kind of list reminds me of sports related articles like New York Yankees all-time roster, only without any actual history or statistics. Grayfell (talk) 22:28, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:DIRECTORY does not seem to apply unless you can explain further. Most pages about bands list former members and due to the nature of this group they have a long list. It is a very well-defined and specific list and not an indiscriminate collection of random members.
List are also covered under MOS:LIST and have different requirements for inclusion than articles. Per WP:LISTPURP this list does provide information and navigation. In addition, not every member of the list is required to meet notability independently to be included. Having a Short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group is all that is required per WP:CSC. The group would be "Former Members of AKB48", a common group for notable bands. In addition, this list is also not unreasonably long.
If the WP:ASZ is in regards to my comments about WP:SIZERULE, then it also does not apply. The WP:ASZ argument is in reference to keeping a piece JUST because it is long or deleting an article JUST because it is short. The WP:SIZESPLIT is in regards to splitting information out of an article because it has grown too long. The AKB48 article is already long. The information in this list would otherwise be there making it even longer. Given this information I feel there are really only two options: Keep or Merge. Obviously, I think Keep is fully justified in this situation. User226 (talk) 23:06, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Write the article first comes to mind. We don't have a list of every past member of the Boston Symphony Orchestra, or every cast member and understudy who ever performed in Cats, because that would be ridiculously out of scope for Wikipedia. How about List of former members of the Mormon Tabernacle Choir? I don't think AKB48 is different. Listing past members of a five person rock group is very, very different from listing past members of an 86-person... conglomerate? It's not even a single band, so it's an especially silly comparison.
I mentioned ASZ because you said that the article should be kept because it was well defined and long, and I do not agree. If this was spun off of AKB48, I think that was a mistake, and it's my opinion that it should've been deleted instead. The fact that this article and the AKB48 article are very long can mean that they need to be split, or it can mean that they need to be pruned. I think the latter, obviously. The niche interest of the topic suggests, as Drmies said, that it rightly belongs on a site like akb48.wikia.com, where it would be of greater benefit. Grayfell (talk) 23:58, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In what way do you consider someone saying "see what links here, AKB48 on Wikipedia" a "personal invitation"? Please explain. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 00:01, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Drmies showed you the deletion discussions while knowing that you will feel about them the same way as he does. It is not against the rules. As I understand, it is only forbidden to post to multiple user pages (per WP:CAN). So it was just a comment, nothing much. A note to a person who finds himself here and sees your vote and thinks that an experienced user like you knows better than the other two voters. --Moscow Connection (talk) 00:12, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) You note is false. There was no "invitation"; noone was invited to anything and for sure it was not "personal". Because of that, I think you should fully retract the words "personal invitation" on the grounds that they are patently false and misleading. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 00:20, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for trying to improve this. But in reality Drmies didn't show me this discussion. They pointed me to the links of AKB48 on Wikipedia which are many. So your statement I noticed Drmies showed you this discussion: is still misleading. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 00:41, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I will just stike everything out. But I still think it is not fair that you practically "work together". (Just my opinion.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 03:02, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for striking the comment. However as you strike one unfair comment you make another: practically "work together" No, definitely we do not. First, we never practically "work together" at AfDs. To my recollection this is the first time I participate in an AfD with Drmies. The vast majority of our edits in K-pop articles have to do with cleaning disruption caused by socks. "Working together" to fight socks is a good thing and should be done more often and should not be used as a reason for criticism. That is very unfair. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 04:17, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. I assumed absolutely wrong. I just saw one Drmies's comment and I came to a completely wrong conclusion. --Moscow Connection (talk) 04:41, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comment. I appreciate your intellectual honesty and greatly respect it. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 04:48, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dr. K. and I have a long history editing such articles. He tells me when some sock is doing this or that, and I sometimes drop him a line telling him what I'm up to. It's hardly much in the way of canvassing, since we check each other's edits every now and then and what's going on on talk pages. Besides, it's only one line, to one editor--and if you look again, you'll see that we have considerable overlap on K-pop articles, for instance, sometimes by chance and sometimes because we know where the other is working. ABK48 on Wikipedia is kind of like X on Twitter: an indication of how fan cruft easily threatens the relevance of our project, given the overwhelming amount of cruft dedicated to this particular topic. If anyone wants to see what really matters, what really needs to be written, where editors' energy and server space and electrons should be directed, check WP:CORE. Drmies (talk) 01:30, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say it was canvassing. I didn't know you look at each other's edits. That probably explains why another editor appeared at another discussion too, and you didn't ask her. It is okay, but as I said above, it is not fair. --Moscow Connection (talk) 03:02, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trim. The group is comparable to squads like Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders (which also had a reality TV audition show and movies) or any large theater group or band/orchestra, where the list can be reduced to the notable alumni and years active. If it needs to be a complete list then use something similar to Mickey Mouse Club or List of SNL cast members, with a simple table (not the big bar graph chart) of name, years active, reason for leaving (graduated, resigned), and notes/references. The election ranks and birthday, birthplace need to go away, but if you want to write about the youngest member to join or oldest member to graduate, the list can support that in prose. If the Team graduations are different from one other, you can specify final team designation in the chart. I like the sentence from List of Therion members: "For detailed information, such as voice range or specified songs appearance, see the proper album article of the relevant year." On the other hand, if you want to go nuts over describing every member's joining or leaving of the group, and can support it with reliable sources, you can write up a section like List of Red Hot Chili Peppers band members, although in that article's case, there were plenty of notable members. Then remove the detailed personnel changes from the main article. -AngusWOOF (talk) 00:45, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Therion list strikes me as overdoing it (look how poorly referenced it is), and it seems like the Therion article itself is over the top qua fancruft. The list of members of the RHCP can hardly be compared to the current one. First of all, it has text, and that text is verifiable and well-written and so on--it's a Featured article. In comparison, this list has nothing in the way of verified content, and what content it has is pretty much trivial. Second, the former members of the RHCP are without any question at all notable and have notability outside of the band, even if that notability relies to some, or a great, extent on the band--that's how Anthony Kiedis et al. got started. And when they leave the band, they're still notable: you're talking about Dave Navarro and John Frusciante and people like that. It is my opinion that list articles should list notable things, or at least things that are likely to be notable--and there is no way in which that can be established for this one. It's not a principle here that should be at work--"If there are band members of a notable band there is an encyclopedic value for a list of the former band members". Remember that notability is not inherited. Rather, the question should be taken on a case-by-case basis: does the list serve an encyclopedic function beyond cruft? Does it contain elements that by themselves are notable? That's a matter of editorial judgment, the kind of judgment that Moscowconnection seems to deny by arguing from some principle of "it can be verified so it's of encyclopedic value". Drmies (talk) 01:41, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - This article only serves to showcase a nonstop parade of non-notable idols. It would be on the same level as a page devoted to who is on the cover of ヤンマガ week after week. None of the information on this page is historically or culturally significant with regards to Japanese pop culture. This list is a stack of redlinks. Equivalency with something like Dancing with the Stars in the West is not justifiable considering the vast majority of AKB members are not individually notable in Japanese media, and even in the Dancing with the Stars example, the individual contestants are listed on the main page, not on a list with growth potential only for stacking redlinks. Jun Kayama 02:26, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Drmies and Δρ.Κ. are not arbitrars on cultural relevancy of artists they are not knowledgeable about and they obviously dislike (numerous condescending comments vis à vis Jpop and Kpop and its audience by those two, here and on other pages). Nilbuk (talk) 03:01, 14 June 2013 (UTC)— Nilbuk (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Please see also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vgleer[reply]
  • Strong Keep. It is very simple: AKB48 is a highly influential musical act, dominating world`s biggest music market, and this alone makes it`s (former) participiants relevant to an encyclopedia. This discussion should be totally avoiding any comments such as "In J-Pop people are exchangeable" or any personal opinions about Idol culture in general. Proponents of this deletion seem to have their own history with expressing their personal bias towards the genre. Deletion of the article would in turn lead to the inclusion of it`s content into the main article again, and i can see no benefit from that. Rka001 (talk) 05:22, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The actual size of the Japanese music market is second in the world, per RIAJ. [20] This significance in the world market is something I am proud of, and being tagged as disliking J-Pop is tedious, even after I voted Keep/Strong Keep on current AfDs for individual AKB members who without doubt meet criteria for WP:N.
I am not arguing for deletion because this article is WP:UNENCYC, which is a fallacious argument. I am pushing for deletion because this article is a stack of redlinks. Listing all team members in AKB just because they are in AKB is like listing every single cast member for all the productions in Cats during its 21-year run. Acceptance into the ranks, transfer, graduation, in a separate list is like trying to list all the drafts, trades, and retirements of every single member of the Tokyo Giants. These redlinks have no value as stand-alone articles because the vast majority of these individuals fail WP:N or WP:NM in their own right, so this list is a collection of independent entries for redlinks, where room for growth is more redlinks. I have nothing against listing members in the main article in a format such as [21]. This article for AfD fails to serve to strengthen the main article, or in its present form serve as anything other than WP:CRUFT because of an absence of WP:RS to illustrate context. If someone wants to tag every last スポニチarticle generated for every redlinked member here in an attempt to fix this, they are welcome to it, but just because they are AKB is not sufficient criterion for WP:N for redlinked members or this article. Jun Kayama 13:55, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: A separate list of the band members, current or present, is better than having everything in the central article.—Ryulong (琉竜) 06:45, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the Takarazuka article has a much better solution [22] which should serve as a model. Jun Kayama 16:00, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I am also willing to flip my vote to a Keep if this page does not cover only former members, but current ones, and the structure takes after the JA Wikipedia page here [23] somewhat. Jun Kayama 16:20, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I agree on merging the member section of the main article and this one into a "Membership history of AKB48" main article. If that is not agreed upon, i stay to my Strong Keep. Another sample to organise a membership section is shown here: [24], which may be introduced with the tables of the current roster as shown in the main article. Rka001 (talk) 19:35, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The member section of the main artile can't be merged to any "history" article cause we need a list of current members anyway. I think the article should be first kept, and then we can start a discussion about how to present info about members differently. The Japanese Wikipedia has both a member list in the AKB48 article and a separate article about "AKB48のグループ構成". --Moscow Connection (talk) 19:56, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - JA Wikipedia serves the Japanese language community first, so articles about AKB are going to be in abundance and content fork more readily, with much more WP:RS. This low quality list of redlinks in a separate article is an eyesore. It wouldn't be done for Takarazuka, it wouldn't be done for A Chorus Line, and even アイドル追っかけ isn't served by the way this information is presented. A mass list of redlinked former AKB members who fail WP:N on their own is not an article that should inherit notability from the main AKB article. Future growth for this article is to add more redlinks. Trying to pass off some 研究生 as being notable after getting cut from the group [25] never to be seen again is unbelievable. Jun Kayama 20:43, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I was not advocating to merge the Timeline article with the member section, i was proposing to move the member list of the main article to the one that is discussed here to make room in the main article AKB48. As for the notability of former kyenkusei, i daresay that most of them did interest more people than the myriards of obscure Grindcore, Death Metal or EBM bands that have their own article on WP. Bands like Depeche Mode have entire articles devoted to concert setlists, which is arguably only of interest for fans. Noone complains there. Just to put into context what we are discussing here. Rka001 (talk) 21:45, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Those other genres have no relevance here. Dozens of Japanese idols are debuted every year and the vast majority do not meet WP:N. Not everything associated with AKB48 is notable, and this EN Wikipedia article is a fraction of the quality and detail of the JA Wikipedia article, especially in discussing 問題点とトラブル [26] most likely because the majority of AKB fans on EN Wikipedia can't work with the Japanese language. If no one complained, this article would obviously not be up for AfD. Contrasting this redlink-loaded article to something like List of Depeche Mode tours does not make sense. One comparison shows that the Depeche Mode article is linked to further articles, not lined with redlinks. "AKB is awesome and everything about it deserves an article, if you don't agree you are a J-Pop hater" is not a credible defense for an article like this of such low quality with poor organization and conveyed information. How many people have read the JA and EN articles side by side here? Jun Kayama 00:08, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Hm, that wasn´t exactly my point. May i ask you this question: How would you rate the non-inherited notability of Depeche Mode tour set lists compared to the non-inherited notability of former AKB members, especially in respect to fancruft? Because, i get this feeling some people are under the impression to give idol groups a special treatment, for whatever reasons they might have. At the very start, idol groups are music/entertainment acts, and AKB48 happens to be an idol group with just many members. Repeat, the only difference here is the number of members. Everything else is theorycrafting. That said, i like DM much better than AKB btw:) Rka001 (talk) 09:17, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Individual band members may or may not be notable, but in any case the band itself is notable. Perhaps worth a merge, but the main article is large enough and this seems like a valid content fork -A1candidate (talk) 13:53, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Trim the article appears to contain unsupported statements about living people in breach of WP:BLP. If the article is kept, a proper lead needs to be written. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:31, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Certainly more sources are required, so either more sources need to be found or unsupported statements removed. However, this list is definitely a notable topic itself.--192.5.110.4 (talk) 18:15, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Are the WWE alumni pages going to be deleted next because it is "fancruft"? Former members is encyclopaedic information and the only notoriety necessary of former members is that they were part of this band. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.226.5.172 (talk) 11:49, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:IINFO. Miniapolis 20:12, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to the closing admin
    1. Even if you decide to delete it in spite of no consensus (like a similar AfD that was closed a couple of days ago), please merge it to the article AKB48. If simply deleted, it will greatly damage the coverage of AKB48 history in the English Wikipedia. This info will still be needed. It will have to be rewritten from scratch and added to the article AKB48 anyway. Maybe in some other form, but it will have to be somewhere in Wikipedia.
    2. I guarantee that there's nothing in the list that can't be easily sourced. Most of "graduations" were covered in multiple reliable sources. If there are a few that weren't written about in the media, they can be sourced from the official site. The problem is that there are too many, so the article needs a hero to reference it. --Moscow Connection (talk) 00:58, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have already posted several suggestions for improvement in the talk page of the article. I would also volunteer in searching references, if somebody else would do the formatting into tables. Rka001 (talk) 09:13, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. 192.5.110.4 commented: "this list definitely a notable topic itself". I concur to this. This list can even be remade into a "normal" Wikipedia article. --Moscow Connection (talk) 01:02, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Looking at WP:List Purposes: Most entries are not topics of articles to be written (insufficient development purpose) and most entries are not and will not be internally linked terms (insufficient navigation purpose). This list mainly is an information source. The question is whether it is a valuable information source. For people, that issue is addressed by WP:Lists of people. To avoid trivia, each entry in a list of people must have the same importance to the subject as would be required for the entry to be included in the text of the article. An importance of the AKB48 topic is the come and go of members. However, this does not also mean that the importance of the AKB48 topic is the come and go of each specific member, which is what this list covers. While fans of the group may find value in this list, the list is not a source of valuable encyclopedic information. Since the list lacks encyclopedic purpose within Wikipedia, it should be deleted. -- Jreferee (talk) 14:58, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Pointless fancruft and the reasons for deletion havve already been articulated. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:23, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Secret account 20:52, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AKB48 timeline[edit]

AKB48 timeline (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Utterly redundant to the main article, where all this is dealt with in excruciating detail already. AKB48 on Wikipedia should be created; it would point to a large conglomerate of fan articles that devalues the project as a whole. Drmies (talk) 16:39, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fancruft, pure and simple. LadyofShalott 17:56, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. There is plenty of reliable sources. The timeline was created by me with the intension to split some content from the main article and some very important content has been already moved from the article AKB48 to make it shorter, see the discussion here. --Moscow Connection (talk) 19:55, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am having difficulty finding any information on when a list of this nature is appropriate as an independent article outside of having a WP:SIZE issue. Currently, I cannot see what value this article adds to Wikipedia that is not already covered under the main article AKB48. User226 (talk) 20:31, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If there are no rules against it, then it is permitted. There are some timelines in Wikipedia already: Category:Timelines of music. AKB48 is a very popular group, every member "graduation", etc. is covered in multiple reliable sources. And yes, its popularity (in Japan) can be compared to The Beatles, U2, The Supremes, etc. that have timelines as independent articles. There are just too many events. I don't understand the nominator. If Wikipedia editors took time to write a detailed history like this one, why delete it? --Moscow Connection (talk) 20:45, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think the time editors put into an article should justify keeping one on that merit alone. It does appear that there are many timelines for music, but in my brief searching I only see a few for bands (Beatles, The Supremes, U2). For a very notable band with a long history, then I can see a timeline being a good addition. Does a group that started in 2005 have a long enough history to justify an independent timeline? Obviously, the band's notability has been proven, but at what point is a timeline justified? I guess we would need to look into if there have been AfD's for other timelines of this nature and if there are guidelines for independent timelines. I have not found any yet. I currently am leaning toward a keep. Thinking about user experience, a timeline would improve a reader's understanding of the topic which is something we should always keep in mind. On the AKB48 timeline, what is meant my "graduation"? User226 (talk) 21:44, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's just too much information. The group is being written about all the time. Some people think it is important and want to make the info obtainable in English (cause in Japanese it is present in the main very, very long article). I don't know about "greatly" but it will certainly improve a reader's understanding of the topic. I actually wanted to delete a big part of the history from the main article and move it to the timeline. And the timeline would be much more useful than prose in some cases. For example, when a reader wants to find some info about some particular event that he knows occured around a certain date. Or when a reader whats to know when a particular girl joined and when she graduated. Or when the group gave some important concert. --Moscow Connection (talk) 21:58, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Career section in the Japanese Wikipedia: AKB48#経歴. --Moscow Connection (talk) 22:02, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lists of articles about AKB48: on Oricon, on Natalie, on Barks. As you can see, Oricon and Natalie each typically publish multiple articles about AKB48 per day. The amount of information is immense. The timeline is so small compared to that. --Moscow Connection (talk) 22:10, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looking into it some more it appears Timelines are covered under list guidelines per MOS:LIST. Per the section WP:LISTPURP I can see how this Timeline fulfills two needs for providing Information and Navigation. Again, improving user experience. Also, since the main AKB48 article is over 100,000 bytes, then per WP:SIZERULE, splitting history out of the main article seems appropriate. I will have to be a Keep on this article. User226 (talk) 22:20, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Reiterating information discussed in the sequence of comments above, I am a strong keep for the following reasons. It appears this Timeline does fall under the guidelines of creating a list per WP:LIST. This list does provide good information to readers to help them understand the topic of AKB48 better including understanding of their history through chronological information and wikilinks to related pages. It also helps improves the users navigation of the topic. See WP:LISTPURP for the guidelines. I can see no clear reason to delete this page. User226 (talk) 22:30, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and per Lady of Shalott. This is utterly trivial fancruft. I can't see any encyclopaedic purpose for it. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 23:50, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I just want to note that the editor was personally asked to come here by Drmies: [27]. --Moscow Connection (talk) 23:53, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Correction. I noticed Drmies showed you this discussion: [28]. --Moscow Connection (talk) 00:30, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to comment above: Please do not make duplicate postings. I have repled to you on the other discussion: [29]. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 00:09, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Corrected. Sorry. --Moscow Connection (talk) 00:30, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - An article in JA Wikipedia does not need to be mirrored exactly in EN Wikipedia. The target audience for each is different, just as the cultural impact of AKB in Japan makes it significant, notable, and worth expanding into articles which do not have relevance to anyone in the West. That having been said, individual segments of this article either fall under AKB discography, or the personnel changes should fall under the main article on AKB or that of notable individuals. There is no reason for having these non-notable concert appearances listed. It is not historically or culturally significant and does not contribute to encyclopedic information about Japanese pop culture. Jun Kayama 02:39, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • What you said is your personal opinion. It doesn't have anything to do with Wikipedia policies whatsoever. The detailed history of AKB48 doesn't have to have relevance to anyone in the West, this is not a Western Wikipedia. The English Wikipedia is read by many people in many different countries, including Asia. The timeline just has to have relevance, and it certainly has huge relevance in Japan. Singapore reads the English Wikipedia too. -Moscow Connection (talk) 02:59, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - You must think you're addressing a gaijin. This entire article is WP:OVERCAT. Single releases, concert venues, captaincy, graduation, demotion, there is no room for growth in this article other than generating WP:CITEKILL. The JA Wikipedia article is long because Japanese readers understand the context of the information far better thanks to cultural proximity. The timeline does not have the same relevance outside Japan. If it did, there would be a mass of citable articles in non-Japanese media for AKB, and there are not. There is a difference between generating an article which contributes to enhancing understanding of the cultural significance of AKB, or generating WP:REFBLOAT in an article to the point it gets attacked as WP:FANCRUFT. Jun Kayama 03:22, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The main AKB48 article will be attacked as fancruft anyway. It has been attacked and it will be.
  2. The list has huge room for growth. Every day brings something new. --Moscow Connection (talk) 04:12, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Refer to earlier comment below. A low quality list article is worse than having no list. Now you have to defend two articles, one of which is justifiably WP:CRUFT because it lacks the inline citations and the quality writing which demonstrate WP:N for the individual entries. Jun Kayama 04:43, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - To illustrate, here is a sampling of information in the JA Wikipedia page which is not present in this EN version up for AfD. The omitted information is highlighted in italics:
a. 2009, October 21 - River released as single. AKB's first #1 showing in Oricon.
b. 2010, October 27 - Beginner released as AKB's first platinum single. AKB achieves its 5th #1 Oricon charting, #1 single of the year, and highest sales of any single for the decade in Japan.
c. 2011, March 11 thru April 1 - Missing all the charity work done for victims of Fukushima.
d. 2012, October 31 - Uza released as AKB's 10th platinum single on Oricon.
e. 2012, December 30 - AKB wins 54th Japan Records Award for Best Domestic Album. AKB becomes the 6th Japanese group to win two years in a row, and the first all-female group in Japanese music history.
f. 2013, May 22 - Sayonara Crawl released as single. Sales on the first day exceed 1.45 milion, beating the previous record for Manatsu_no_Sounds_Good!. Total sales exceed 21.852 million, beating Ayumi Hamasaki's record of 21.416 million and placing AKB as the top-selling female musical act in Japan.
The EN article, through omission, incomplete translation, and lack of context, is just WP:REFBLOAT. Only a Japanese reading the list would have knowledge of the significane without detailed explanation, due to direct media exposure and understand a truncated list. For anyone else, the list is useless WP:CITEKILL. There is no context in this AfD article to illustrate AKB's impact on the Japanese music scene or Japanese society. All references to charity work, missing. No indication of why a single is listed (was it platinum, was it a record-setter). Just members coming, going, single released, concert at some venue. There is no justifiable reason for this article to exist as such. Preventing bloat of the main AKB article is not a justifiable reason. Either produce a relevant article, or WP:TNT. Jun Kayama 04:00, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I read your examples. If it is that incomplete, it is still has to be rewritten, not deleted. --Moscow Connection (talk) 04:17, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Okay, I'll explain. The purpose of the timeline was to make the main article shorter. Cause I thought the history section in the main AKB48 article was too long and therefore unreadable. What I intented to do was to make a comprehensive timeline, and then I would be able to write a shorter history using it. I don't really know all the details myself, so something like this is absolutely necessary. It would also help many people who wanted to know the history of the group. Sadly, I didn't get to it... --Moscow Connection (talk) 04:12, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I am not blaming you for the current state of the article, but resources should be put into the main AKB page, not this spinoff list, just like in JA Wikipedia. The timeline is only relevant in the context of the group's achievements, which make it WP:N, not who is captain, who graduated, who crashed her bicycle on way to the train station, et cetera. Jun Kayama 04:43, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. By the way, some of the people who edit the main article don't know anything about the group. At present there are still some people who make good edits and add something useful and look after it. If some info they need (e.g. lists of members, election ranks, graduation dates) is deleted, the AKB48 article will be useless to them and will bog down in the quagmire of ignorance. The article needs fans cause they are the only people who can keep it in a decent state. --Moscow Connection (talk) 04:12, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Any editor who can't utilize Japanese primary sources to meet WP:RS for this topic and needs this low quality list article to keep the main article straight has no business trying to contribute to begin with. During this entire AfD I don't see significant and meaningful direction in improvement at all. Jun Kayama 02:38, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - How is the list of omitted information not justification to keep this article and expand it more? I also don't see how this is WP:CITEKILL. The referenced essay talk about too many inline citations making it difficult to read an article as well as a few other negatives. User226 (talk) 04:17, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Because this omitted information is much better served in the main article, just like the list in JA Wikipedia is in the main article, not in this spinoff. If I thought I could defend this article and rewrite it, I would have already done it in this last hour. I voted for deletion because this EN article as it stands weakens the main AKB article. WP:CITEKILL is not because of multiple citations on a single entry, but because there are already EN articles for the majority of the singles listed so they don't need an additional citation to the same EN Wikipedia page. It forces back and forth and is pointless. I am not going in circles over this AfD.
This article deserves AfD because it fails to properly illustrate WP:NM repeatedly for this group. Just because the main AKB article is vandalized does not justify creating a list article like this. If you improve it, you create a parallel article with redundancy. If you keep it the way it is, it fails WP:NM and is guilty of WP:REFBLOAT. A mirror of the JA Wikipedia page is more useful than redundant pages. Moscow Connection stated there was little time to manage this page already. If there is so much new information every day, why maintain a page that is guaranteed to stay low quality? Delete this page. Jun Kayama 04:54, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How does it weaken the main article? It already made the main article a bit stronger because some info was moved from there and the article became simpler. What you will achieve by deleting the timeline is that some info will be lost. You showed some examples how the timeline corresponded to the career section in the Japanese article. So, as you demonstrated, it is already half-written. It is much easier to expand it than to start from scratch. I personally won't rewrite it all over again. --Moscow Connection (talk) 05:36, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You should unbold the last words cause it looks like you voted. Someone may count your vote twice. --Moscow Connection (talk) 05:39, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Done. As for the rest of it, I'm tired of going round and round on this AfD, especially after I demonstrated how this timeline falls drastically short of the career section in the JA Wikipedia article, not the other way around. You stated you created this timeline as a repository for unimportant information [30] and now it's important because it faces AfD? This EN article lacks substance for WP:NM. An AKB fan should work on it now rather than talk about hypotheticals. Either produce a quality relevant article, merge relevant content, one or the other. Jun Kayama 16:28, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Reply to this comment and to your new comment above.) But the article faces deletion. What would it change if I improved it now? (Also, you said that you left and would not come back. So I didn't expect you to come back. :)) I promise I will carefully translate everything from the similar section in the Japanese Wikipedia if the article is kept. --Moscow Connection (talk) 03:14, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I decided to do it now. I'll expand the timeline article from the Japanese Wikipedia. I'm not sure about right now, but if not tomorrow, then is two–three days. --Moscow Connection (talk) 20:44, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem is that I don't want lots of "deleted edits" to show on my statistics, so I will want to prepare the page somewhere else and paste it when I'm finished. --Moscow Connection (talk) 20:47, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "I don't want lots of "deleted edits" to show on my statistics"--that's not our problem, it's your problem. In fact, it's the worst argument I think I ever heard. Drmies (talk) 19:07, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: Compare The Beatles vs. The Beatles timeline; there's no reason why the timeline of a British band is allowed to be kept while that of a Japanese girl group gets nominated for deletion. Both groups are equally influential in their respective cultural spheres, and a timeline acts as a valid summary of the main article. Some pieces of information may have been mentioned somewhere else, but that alone doesn't make it okay to remove from all other related articles. See WP:RELART -A1candidate (talk) 14:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - AKB is a hybrid between a traditional Japanese idol group and the likes of Takarazuka Revue. Hence, the high number count of members, the fact they run their own theater which has near-daily performances, the adoption of a 'class' system equivalent to [31]. Promotions, graduations, and personnel transfers of independently non-notable individual members in AKB for a separate article borders on WP:CRUFT. It is like listing every last member change in any given Broadway musical production.
The JA Wikipedia article for AKB [32] omits this non-essential information and rolls it into a separate AKB member composition page here [33].
As previously stated, this timeline entirely omits relevant information found in the Japanese counterpart page [34] and this is all information which gives a proper scope of the group's activities, scale of involvement in Japanese pop culture, collaborations with other Japanese artists who meet WP:MUSIC. Comparing this timeline to that of U2, The Beatles, and such is not a true comparison if the AKB timeline is going to be a virtual mirror of List of former members of AKB48. The best thing for this timeline is to be deleted (I'll take merged, even if there is redundant content) and rolled into the main article for AKB. This is the solution that works for the JA Wikipedia page admirably. Jun Kayama 16:16, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Pure WP:FANCRUFT. Any important events in the group's history can and should be included in the main AKB48 article. --DAJF (talk) 02:41, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. LFaraone 00:43, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Holding My Own (The Darkness song)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Holding My Own (The Darkness song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No consensus was deduced from the previous afd. I have decided to nominate this article again in order to generate consensus from the community. The song meets none of the 4 criteria at WP:MUS/SONGS.

  • Criteria 1 The song has not been the subject of any independent coverage. All citations are taken from reviews of the album Permission to Land, therefore the album in its entirety is the subject. WP:MUS states The "subject" of a work means non-trivial treatment and excludes mere mention of the song/single. Therefore writing a sentence about a song in an album review does not indicate broad coverage.
  • Criteria 2 The song is not a single and has not charted anywhere in the world.
  • Criteria 3 The song has not won any awards or honors.
  • Criteria 4 The song has never been independently released by any other notable artist. It only appears on 3 Darkness CDs; see Allmusic link [35] Bluidsports (talk) 15:54, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 13 June 2013 (UTC):[reply]
  • Delete - I agree with the article not meeting WP:NSONG. There is no information showing this song is notable on its own and the information there should be covered under the band's page. User226 (talk) 20:06, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as lacking evidence of in depth coverage in independent reliable sources. If such sources are added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:32, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. LFaraone 00:43, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Love on the Rocks with No Ice[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Love on the Rocks with No Ice (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No consensus was deduced from the previous afd. I have decided to nominate this article again in order to generate consensus from the community. The song meets none of the 4 criteria at WP:MUS/SONGS.

  • Criteria 1 The song has not been the subject of any independent coverage. All citations are taken from reviews of the album Permission to Land, therefore the album in its entirety is the subject. WP:MUS states The "subject" of a work means non-trivial treatment and excludes mere mention of the song/single. Therefore writing a sentence about a song in an album review does not indicate broad coverage.
  • Criteria 2 The song is not a single and has not charted anywhere in the world.
  • Criteria 3 The song has not won any awards or honors.
  • Criteria 4 The song has never been independently released by any other notable artist. It has only appeared on two Darkness discs; see Allmusic link [36] Bluidsports (talk) 15:48, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I must agree. Unless new information is found, then this song does not meet the WP:NSONG guidelines to have its own article. This information should be covered under The_Darkness_(band). User226 (talk) 20:34, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as lacking evidence of in depth coverage in independent reliable sources. If such sources are added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:33, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. LFaraone 00:43, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Friday Night (The Darkness song)[edit]

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

No consensus was deduced from the previous afd. I have decided to nominate this article again in order to generate consensus from the community. The song meets none of the 4 criteria at WP:MUS/SONGS.

  • Criteria 1 The song has not been the subject of any independent coverage. All citations are taken from reviews of the album Permission to Land, therefore the album in its entirety is the subject. WP:MUS states The "subject" of a work means non-trivial treatment and excludes mere mention of the song/single. Therefore writing a sentence about a song in an album review does not indicate broad coverage.
  • Criteria 2 The song is not a single and has not charted anywhere in the world.
  • Criteria 3 The song has not won any awards or honors.
  • Criteria 4 The song has never been independently released by any other notable artist. It has only appeared on 3 Darkness CDs; see Allmusic link [37] Bluidsports (talk) 15:38, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree with the article not meeting WP:NSONG. Even with the Music Video section and expanded critical reception, there is just nothing to show this song is notable on its own to have an independent article. User226 (talk) 20:55, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as lacking evidence of in depth coverage in independent reliable sources. If such sources are added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:42, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. LFaraone 00:43, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Givin' Up (The Darkness song)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Givin' Up (The Darkness song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No consensus was deduced from the previous afd. I have decided to nominate this article again in order to generate consensus from the community. The song meets none of the 4 criteria at WP:MUS/SONGS.

  • Criteria 1 The song has not been the subject of any independent coverage. All citations are taken from reviews of the album Permission to Land, therefore the album in its entirety is the subject. WP:MUS states The "subject" of a work means non-trivial treatment and excludes mere mention of the song/single. Therefore writing a sentence about a song in an album review does not indicate broad coverage.
  • Criteria 2 The song is not a single and has not charted anywhere in the world.
  • Criteria 3 The song has not won any awards or honors.
  • Criteria 4 The song has never been independently released by any other notable artist. The only other CD it has appeared on is True Music, a compilation album. See here [38]. Bluidsports (talk) 15:23, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with the article not meeting WP:NSONG. There is no information showing this song is notable on its own and the information there should be covered under the band's page. User226 (talk) 20:56, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as lacking evidence of in depth coverage in independent reliable sources. If such sources are added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:34, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. --BDD (talk) 20:11, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Heritage Grill[edit]

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

Nonnotable local restaurant. The events described in the sources are local news coverage that are not about the restaurant itself. See WP:CORP and WP:NOTNEWS. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:49, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per my comments/points at Talk:Heritage Grill. Fundamentally WP:SPAM, WP:NN, WP:LOCAL. I know New Westminster and Columbia Street well, there are a good two dozen heritage buildilngs and other things of note within a six-block radius of this. Like Five Stones Church and Christian Life Assembly, this article also plugged Tara Teng by way of mentioning her appearance at a film screening, which is WP:TRIVIA as well as WP:NOTNEWS.Skookum1 (talk) 15:10, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Oh, I see that deletion and others have been reverted by the page's author, plus the addition of info on open mics and poetry slams. If every restaurant or bar or church that hosted such events were "notable", Wikipedia would have half a million more articles....100,000 anyway, just in North America and Europe alone. Wikipedia is not a community events calender, nor a log of non-notable events held by non-notable cafes.Skookum1 (talk) 15:12, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It was the other then-linked article Five Stones Church I removed the trivial/non-news community events reportage from; this one I had no time to as my time on these matters was taken up by talkpage exchanges with the author, who continues to claim that non-notable and NOTNEWS references are notable, they are not.Skookum1 (talk) 16:06, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - A quick Google News search reveals plenty of potential sources for this article. This subject clearly passes Wikipedia's general notability guideline. Neelix (talk) 15:37, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Those are not newsworthy or notable sources, nor about anything more than community reportage and are advertorial in nature. This is not a notable restaurant in New Westminster which I know well. All kinds of restaurants and churches and other establishments have such "news" copy, from community papers such as this one, that does not make them notable.Skookum1 (talk) 16:06, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This does not seem close to meeting WP:CORP. Major SPAM and LOCAL concerns for me. Mkdwtalk 01:46, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable local BBQ joint. No indication it's especially notable or that there's any reason it should be in an encyclopedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:00, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not one of those 'newspapers,' except for Xtra, is anything other than a purely local rag which will publish quite literally anything about anything within a hundred metres of their office. Xtra, while relevant to the queer community, is based in Toronto and has no idea about what is notable or relevant anywhere beyond the Church-Wellesley village. NN here. — The Potato Hose 05:56, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Lack of signficant coverage in multiple independent secondary sources. Only local new coverage. Fails all notability guidelines. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:32, 16 June 2013
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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) 18:35, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Five Stones Church[edit]

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

Local church with only local news coverage, of the sort you'd expect for any church anywhere. I don't think this satisfies WP:ORG. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:45, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This church clearly passes Wikipedia's general notability guidelines. In addition to the four sources currently on the article, there are another six valid sources that were removed because they relate to the church as an organization rather than the church as a building. Two different newspapers have written full-page spreads about this organization, and it has received coverage in several other news sources as well. Neelix (talk) 15:33, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Clear case of WP:SPAM, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:LOCAL. The "references" that were removed were community-events reviews from a local paper, by way of advertorial-style content; the material added from them that I deleted was WP:TRIVIA and non-notable. Also removed was a plug for Tara Teng, who though she is notable her activities for her own promotion are not. They also linked to Heritage Grill, which is equally non-notable and tied by business/promotional relationship to this church.Skookum1 (talk) 16:00, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete My rationale is tied into my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian Life Assembly where the article should be deleted under WP:BRANCH with only WP:LOCAL coverage and borderline WP:SPAM. I'm from Vancouver and usually I'm all for subjects relating to this city but I cannot in good conscience support this article where it really has no notability outside it being a local neighbourhood church. Mkdwtalk 01:48, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete very WP:MILL local church. Doesn't really seem to be anything encyclopedic to say about it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:53, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Run of the mill local churches rarely satisfy WP:ORG. This one is no exception. Wikipedia is not a directory of every religious congregation and/or the building where it meets. For the thoughts of a number of editors about what it takes to make a church notable, see WP:CHURCH. Edison (talk) 03:46, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:MILL; seems to lack encyclopedic content and only have local coverage. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:21, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Lack of signficant coverage in multiple independent secondary sources. Only local new coverage. Fails all notability guidelines. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:32, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 20:34, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Coalition to Reduce Spending[edit]

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

Listing for lack of notability. All the references they cite are written by those aassociated with this group, fleeting references, or about fiscal issues generally. I see no in depth coverage on this group and nothing indicating they are having an impact or are somehow noteworthy. UnrepentantTaco (talk) 20:52, 29 May 2013 (UTC) [Edit reverted as per WP:BE and [39].  Unscintillating (talk) 03:48, 24 June 2013 (UTC)][reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 22:54, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Adequate sourcing already showing in the footnotes for a pass of GNG. Carrite (talk) 04:14, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mdann52 (talk) 12:46, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I'm willing to userfy upon request. --BDD (talk) 20:14, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Robert C. Bush, Jr.[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. This is a WP:BLP with a pile of unsourced information. The section that is sourced is about media appearances; he's been on television and spoken at some conferences, but nothing earthshattering. I tried purging out some unsourced info, but the creator reinstated it. I've spent some time the last couple days trying to locate some sources, but I can't find anything that really establishes notability for him. Ishdarian 00:50, 23 May 2013 (UTC) Ishdarian 00:50, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This clearly reads as if it is an advertisement.Jeff5102 (talk) 18:55, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It has nothing to do with advertisement, It's just a bio. Aimatokritis (talk) 10:24, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's a blatant press release right now, with much of the content apparently copied from several web sites, which I've noted in an edit summary. As well, more appears to mimic text here [40]. Even if copyright violation weren't an issue, tone and sourcing are. 99.149.85.229 (talk) 11:39, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've made the appropriate changes. Aimatokritis (talk) 08:04, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LFaraone 00:16, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
there are some more you need to make: remove jargon like "he was uniquely challenged with" (I think you mean, he has the job requirement to) , or "investment culture of transparency and discipline; " , or "transferring financial acumen" . Besides being buzzwords, they are claims with no 3rd party sources. Then, in his career, what exactly is a "merchant advisory boutique" or "a private equity investor" Is he investing his own money, managing a fund of other people's money, or giving advice to someone doing one or the other of that? What I gather he actually did, was to be one of the people giving investment advice to the government of Dubai. What he actually does now I cannot determine, besides giving talks. DGG ( talk ) 02:03, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The passages of jargon cited appear to be lifted from the Linkedin page I mentioned above [41]; it's a press release copied from a press release. 99.149.85.229 (talk) 03:12, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userify - Considering the CV issue, this either needs to be addressed properly or deleted. It is unacceptable in this state, but the subject appears to meet GNG. It just has to be rewritten properly. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:23, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mdann52 (talk) 12:45, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I'm not convinced he even meets GNG. Hairhorn (talk) 15:59, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, In my opinion Robert Bush,Jr doesn't meet the notability guidelines.User:Lucifero4
  • Delete: Suggestions that the subject meets the GNG shows a lack of understanding about the GNG's provisions. That the subject is an occasional talking head for media outlets is verifiable, but the GNG requires that the subject be discussed himself in "significant detail" in multiple reliable, published, independent, third-party sources. He doesn't meet the GNG by talking about things in reliable sources; he would only meet the GNG were the reliable sources talking about him. So far, I see no evidence that this is the case.

    That being said, that the SPA who created this article is trying hard to understand our guidelines is apparent. One key question is this, and it's one that's very seldom posed to SPAs: why is he pushing this article so hard? What's his stake in coming to Wikipedia solely to push this somewhat obscure subject? Ravenswing 10:18, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, is it ok now with the latest changes? Aimatokritis (talk) 08:05, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm very sorry for all the work the creator put into this page, but this is still nowhere near to being a real encyclopedia article. The subject appears to be a run of the mill businessperson from what's in the article. Even if, for argument's sake, he's notable, it's still written like a press relaase, needing a start from scratch. Delete or userfy. Bearian (talk) 19:06, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Given that this discussion has now been running for over a month, I believe that no consensus is the only viable option. We have three different options that have been put forward in the discussion - Merge, keep and delete. All sides make sensible arguments for their position. As such, there is no consensus that shines through. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 09:53, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ProDG (software)[edit]

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

Corporate product puffery. It's a set of very run-of-the-mill development tools with no evident distinctive features, notability or referencing. See also SN Systems. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:54, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 18:29, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 22:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I can't find any proper references. --Ysangkok (talk) 22:41, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • My initial impression is Keep - Meets WP:GNG. I see plenty of RS sources on just a very brief check (e.g. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5). The article is in sad shape of course, and should be expanded. -Thibbs (talk) 02:11, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I looked at the five sources mentioned by Thibbs above, and believe they could be based entirely on company announcements. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 01:30, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course that's just a drop in the bucket, though. There's coverage of this product suite in IGN, Edge Magazine, Ars Technica, etc. etc. etc. The commentary may be based on company announcements in some cases but it's not merely publishing first-party press releases. At worst I'd say merge this into SN Systems until it becomes large enough to split out on its own. I don't see any point in outright deleting it. -Thibbs (talk) 02:21, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd be happy to see SN Systems merged into ProDG, provided that we can get some independent (i.e. not press releases) sourcing such that games developers regard ProDG as an important and distinctive tool in their working lives, comparable to Visual Basic or the JDK, and rather more than merely a-n-other C compiler. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:10, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • SN Systems merged into ProDG or ProDG merged into SN Systems? Right now the SN Systems article appears to be longer and in better shape than the ProDG article. I'd merge ProDG into SN Systems if merging is indeed required. There's no requirement that ProDG be very notable ("comparable to Visual Basic," etc.). Normal "Wikipedia Notable" (significant coverage by multiple reliable third party sources) should be sufficient. And third party sources that merely use press releases as their source material are not the same thing as citing press releases directly. -Thibbs (talk) 14:57, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Just as an aside, we're working on the ProDG page offline, taking on board the feedback here and generally on Wikipedia. The ProDG page has been left to stagnate too long, and as it stands, needs to be addressed. If we can hold off merging for now, we'll get the first draft up this week and hopefully you folks can assist us making it as suitable as we can. SnClee (talk) 15:01, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Merge SN into ProDG. Any notability that SN Systems have is inherited from ProDG. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:25, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Darkwind (talk) 01:57, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relister's comment I relisted not due to insufficient discussion, but to give some additional time for article improvement. —Darkwind (talk) 02:01, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Merge SN into ProDG There's definitely enough material here for a NOTEable article, but I don't think having two articles serves any real purpose. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:14, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – clearly notable from the references. SN Systems is a bit more stubby so a merged article would not be too long but this on it's own is notable. A merge, and which way it should be done, can therefore be decided later.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 01:13, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable; all sources are promotional. Miniapolis 16:03, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mdann52 (talk) 12:43, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into SN Systems. If it is easier, merge SN into ProDG (software) and move. One combined article much more likely to survive the next challenge. Both would need much work, alas. Generally companies can sometimes come out with a second product, or change product names, which is why I would lean to keeping the company name as the primary topic. But do not feel strongly if there is some other consensus. W Nowicki (talk) 16:47, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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) 18:38, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas S. White, Jr.[edit]

Thomas S. White, Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This appears to be a vanity article about a subject with insufficient notability. This article was previously deleted by prod, but another admin declined the current prod only on that grounds. Rklawton (talk) 12:12, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The 1999 Forbes piece is a substantial article which is entirely about White - him, his business practices, and his firm. (Note it is not an article about the firm, except in as much as it is his firm - it describes the customers as "his customers".) The article mentions numerous ways in which White and his business activities are notable from a business perspective - $US440M under management, various field-leading rates of return, and so forth. Forbes is a reliable sources on business topics. I don't have access to the Smart Money or Crain’s Chicago Business articles or the other Forbes articles, but I have no reason to believe they are any less acceptable as sources. Thus White is notable by the required standard of significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. (He also picks up more minor coverage for example in Businessweek in 2004, and is widely quoted as an expert on financial matters, for example in a Los Angeles Times piece dated Jun 13, 1999, article author KATHY M. KRISTOF, page 2 of the business section). I would also add that the deletion rationale falls under the essay section WP:Not notable and should be discounted. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 12:57, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The articles are all old - so the information in the article is badly dated. In the industry, the assets he manages are peanuts. When you look at the top 100 funds in his field, his are nowhere to be seen. In short, he's a minor player with 14 year old coverage. 14 years ago when he was just starting out and got some limited coverage I would have claimed "crystal ball". Here we are 14 years later, and it's clear that I would have been right. Rklawton (talk) 19:14, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not temporary - see WP:NOTTEMPORARY. Regardless of whether he is a small player or a large one, or whether he was once a potential leading light and now is not, he has received substantial coverage in reliable sources in the past - it does not matter whether he still receives further coverage now. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 08:49, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good grief: I never would have expected an admin with many thousands of edits to so blatantly ignore the guideline that notability isn't temporary. "The articles are all old?" So what? We have hundreds of thousands of articles on historical figures about whom there's been no breaking news since, well, a really freaking long time. "[T]he assets he manages are peanuts?" So what? Is there a dollar amount under which the GNG no longer applies to a financial manager? You've been around way too long for such arguments. From where I sit, the subject meets the GNG, and I advocate Keep. Ravenswing 10:31, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep = based on what is in the article, and per Arthur and Ravenswing. Bearian (talk) 19:01, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Passes GNG, plus per comments by Arthur, Ravenswing and Bearian. AuthorAuthor (talk) 19:26, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. --BDD (talk) 20:15, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sekou Niare[edit]

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

Non-notable athlete. Article is referenced only by blogs, and the teams Niare is supposed to have played for don't seem to exist. (At least, they are not listed in the List of basketball clubs in France, which means that, even if the teams do exist, they are surely not at the top professional level required by WP:ATH. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:23, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see clear evidence that this guy has played professionally anywhere. Eurobasket.com doesn't seem to have a profile for him, and they're pretty comprehensive. He was never mentioned on any of the NBA Draft sites, and it's unlikely the Grizzlies were considering him over fourth-overall pick Mike Conley, Jr. Zagalejo^^^ 20:11, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Perhaps of note, an article on Niare was deleted from the French Wikipedia in December 2012. (See the discussion here.) The French Wikipedians couldn't find any sources about this subject either, and presumably would have access to French language sources not easily available to English speakers. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:13, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vanity article. The article was created by User:Sekouiverson, which hints that it might be him or a person closely associated with Sekou Niare. Nonetheless it still fails GNG. Jrcla2 (talk) 20:41, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. --BDD (talk) 20:17, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Amzi Armstrong[edit]

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

Murdered minister fails WP:VICTIM. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:49, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete as per WP:LASTING. Nothing remarkable about the murder. LibStar (talk) 10:57, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "Nothing remarkable about the murder" is not a criterion for exclusion from Wikipedia. WP:Notability: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article". If a murder took place in 1910 and is written up in Seven Jersey Murders in 2003, that would be the definition of lasting. -Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 12:16, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
why are you talking about a bike race like criterium? LibStar (talk) 12:46, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Sorry, but I don't think that a seventh of a single book counts as more than a blip. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:05, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • A seventh of a book from a major selective publisher would certainly go a long way towards demonstrating notability. The problem with that source isn't the amount of coverage, but that it is self-published via Xlibris. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:17, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Notability has not been established. I note that the sources provided reflect the subject's name in a list; a 1910 report of the funeral; an account of the subject's murder in a self-published book (Seven Jersey Murders), which itself lacks evidence of notability; and an obituary of the subject. A search for additional sources provided nothing that would serve to support notability. Best regards, Cindy(talk) 22:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article hasn't established notability. As for "Seven Jersey Murders", there isn't enough information from the book to establish notability at this time. The book could be a treasure trove of biographical information about the subject. It could be the basis for an article about his wife. It could also potentially be used for an article about the murderer, or it could be used as the basis for an article about the murder. The book could be used for all sorts of things, if someone editing here has actually read it. It's fairly clear it hasn't been read, as its only being used as a back up reference for the fact that Armstrong was murdered. If the source actually had been read, one would assume editors would use it to actually give details about the murder. If someone actually read the book, I'm sure they would be able to state why this murder was vicious enough to be included. They also would likely know if the victims were stabbed or shot. Since July 2011, our article stated they were stabbed to death. The article from the New York observer that was added says they were shot. One would assume that "Seven Jersey Murders", which is being touted as proof that this has lasting notability, would give us more details than the obituaries. None of that is in the article. Citing a source without reading it is extremely, extremely irresponsible. AniMate 19:37, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. --BDD (talk) 20:18, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SpongeBob's Nicktoon Summer Splash[edit]

SpongeBob's Nicktoon Summer Splash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is non-notable, no sources, stub, and doesn't need to have an article. Mediran (t • c) 10:43, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Inane branding that wrapped around a bunch of SpongeBob repeats with 'continuity' consisting of redubbed existing scenes solely to say 'we'll be right back'; only notable to extreme Nick fans who must catalog every little branding Nick has had here, and most other kids ignored because all they cared about was that SpongeBob was on. There's no way the creator of SpongeBob created summer time-filler either. Nate • (chatter) 19:02, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, since its fancrufty and does not pass WP:GNG. JJ98 (Talk) 19:21, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete, consensus that this kind of content has no place on Wikipedia. (The article essentially constituted promotion of an obscure fringe theory; qualifying it in the first sentence as a fringe theory makes no difference. In addition, several users have noted the misuse of references.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 17:01, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Note: I believe that at one point it was believed that planets had formed from matter that has split from the central star, and that Venus, Earth and Mars constitute stages of planetary evolution; this theory has long been discredited. That a star could actually become a planet? I don't think anybody has seriously suggested that in the past 100-200 years; if for no other reason, then because a star is way more massive than a planet. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 17:01, 16 June 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Stellar metamorphosis[edit]

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

This is very fringe pseudoscience presented as legitimate in violation of WP:FRINGE. It is seemingly based on unreliable self published sources. It is also consists mostly of a synthesis of sources to make an article. The mainstream sources themselves are not about this topic, nor do they mention it, rather the writer has used them to make deductions about their fringe theory. Thus it is a mixture of pure original research liberally sprinkled with nonsense. Does not satisfy WP:GNG and I could not locate reliably published secondary sources which are " independent of their promulgators and popularizers" (Wikipedia:FRINGE#Notability). IRWolfie- (talk) 10:07, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The nebular hypothesis cannot explain the formation of gas giants. So we keep theories that do not work and label possible alternatives as fringe and censor them? That is the motto of wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wavyinfinity (talk • contribs)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:09, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Pure fringe blither and OR. Zero mention in reliable independent sources. Eggregious abuse of sources. Fails all notability guidelines. Nothing worth merging or saving. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 10:30, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The General Science Journal, Arvix, vixra, .edu, sites are not reliable? So, what sites are reliable? .gov sites? Why are you really here? Is somebody paying you? Wavyinfinity (talk) 23:15, 14 June 2013 (UTC)wavyinfinityWavyinfinity (talk) 23:15, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'll bite. Creating and pushing this article is your sole activity on Wikipedia ... you have NO other purpose for being here other than that. Why are you really here? Is someone paying you? Obviously you have some personal agenda, since you don't appear to believe that anyone else is here without their own personal (and, presumably, sinister) agenda.

I don't suppose you much care for such insinuations. That's part of the reason we don't make them, here on Wikipedia, and doing so is a civility violation under WP:CIVIL. You would be better off to stop doing so at once. Ravenswing 10:43, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. I will be civil as I am on a steep learning curve with wikipedia. Though it is not easy being civil, unearthing a piece of human history that dates back almost a century, while people call it fringe or crackpottery, ridiculing and condemning. Makes it difficult to be civil when others are not. I am a scientist and it is my responsibility to share new understanding regardless if people agree with it or state that it is fringe based off their own dogma. If we can not share understanding publicly, then why do science? Why bother? Why not just state that everything is known and claim to be masters of the universe, when we haven't even ventured outside of our comfortable solar system? Nobody is paying me. I have a responsibility to my species to share this, regardless. If it gets censored then so be it. I gave it my best shot. Reasonably though it has garnered more public attention than the nebular hypothesis all day yesterday. The numbers don't lie: http://stats.grok.se/en/201306/stellar%20metamorphosis Wavyinfinity (talk) 11:40, 15 June 2013 (UTC)wavyinfinityWavyinfinity (talk) 11:40, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You can share your science, but Wikipedia is not the place to push original research. It's an encyclopedia, where the main criteria are notability and verifiability. Read the policies. In the meantime, there are countless other places to publish your research. Also, it would be nice if you responded to my delete vote, since I took the time to read the 1924 paper and have responded in detail. You complained earlier that people weren't reading it. 24.218.115.184 (talk) 18:12, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: What 24.218.115.184 said. Wikipedia has specific policies and guidelines governing what can be made into an article or not, and they revolve around reliable, published, independent, third-party sources with a reputation for fact checking. Should this article be deleted for failure to meet any of those sources, nothing prevents you from disseminating your research wherever you can. It just can't -- until and unless it is published in peer journals or finds its way into the mainstream media -- be published on Wikipedia. Ravenswing 18:22, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. At first I thought this was a fringe theory which was no longer accepted but had at least been discussed in the academic literature, like panspermia or the static universe, and thus worth having an article. However, upon further investigation it seems that no reputable astronomer has proposed this theory. A search on ADS shows four publications which use the phrase, none of them peer-reviewed and all figuratively referring to other processes. The article relies on a) fringe sources on e.g. vixra, fake 'journals' and personal websites, b) cherry-picking facts from otherwise reliable sources which do not actually discuss this theory and c) doesn't mention that the theory has no current support among professional astronomers. Delete and remove all references in other articles. Modest Genius talk 11:20, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Pure nonsense disguised as science. Some bits have completely untrusted sources others have reliable sources grossly misinterpreted and most of the crazy stuff has no sources at all (obviously). Cheers. Gaba (talk) 11:48, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It makes some solid observations about how are current model of the universe basically guesses to fill in the blanks of what we dont understand yet. Until Our current theory can be proved %100 accurate deleting alternate theories is counter productive to science. Leave the entry. Let people look for supporting evidence and then decide for themselves. Unsigned by 69.171.163.85
  • Delete as a fringe theory with no significant discussion in academic sources. I have been contacted before on my talk page regarding just a theory, and it seems now that the user, or someone else supporting his position, has (after many months) gone ahead and created the article anyway. IP, our current theory is quite good to explain the formation of stars—said formation has been observed by Hubble, Spitzer, and other space telescopes. Granted, our current theory does not explain everything about the formation of stars or stellar systems, but that doesn't necessarily open the space for pseudoscientific blither supported only by viXra "papers". Wer900 • talk 22:59, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good to explain the formation of stars. Okay. How about gas giants? It is common knowledge that current theory cannot explain the formation of gas giants as it is even written on the nebular hypothesis page itself. Not to mention there are backwards orbiting "exo-planets" that falsify the NEB hypo. Yet it is kept? Why are you really here? Is someone paying you too?
If you were so sure of your "knowledge" why attack alternative theories? You have something to lose if this understanding gets attention? Ego? Pride? Please come back when your argument is sound. Wavyinfinity (talk) 23:15, 14 June 2013 (UTC)wavyinfinityWavyinfinity (talk) 23:15, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wavy, I am not being paid by anyone to be here, I am doing this out of my own passion for astronomy. The Earth is not a black dwarf; otherwise it would have the mass of a star, and in any case it would be impossible to form black dwarfs with the current age of the universe. If you think the Earth is a sub-brown dwarf, by contrast, those exist, but the Earth did not form as one; it formed as a regular planet, from the leftover material from the process of star formation.

Your statements about our not knowing how gas giants form is either naïve misunderstanding or outright dishonesty. Gas giants form beyond the frost line, where water vapor deposits into ice and therefore allows the formation of larger planets. These larger planets, in turn, attract the hydrogen and helium around them, becoming giant planets. Giant planets are quite well-explained by the current theory; hot Jupiters are formed by the gravitational interactions of several gas giants in a system, and are in any case incredibly rare. The only reason we see them so often is that they are the easiest exoplanets to detect. Wer900 • talk 01:27, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per all the reasons mentioned above by others; I have nothing else to add. StringTheory11 (t • c) 01:29, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:With all do respect there is no room in science for "Quite good explanations". How many famous scientist were called quacks for ideas that went against traditional beliefs before being vindicated or inspiring someone else to make a new discovery? This is not religion is it science. Alternative theories should be embraced and at least tolerated. Otherwise we are no different than the ones who persecuted some of our most celebrated and important theorist. We have been going down a slippery slope of censorship in the scientific community the last decade or so in regards to alternate theories of the universe. So i suggest we temper that ugly trend with some tolerance for once. I am not the author of the theory and i am done responding. I just wanted to clarify my position and reasoning behind my original comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.163.233 (talk) 00:56, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to have confused wikipedia, an encyclopaedia, with the scientific community. If you want to publish the original research, do it in a real scientific journal. Claims of "censorship" in the scientific community are usually based on "My nonsense was rejected by journal X, therefore they are censoring me". Considering the number of scientists who espouse fringe beliefs generally (a number of individuals come to mind) the claim that the scientific community censors people is untenable. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:03, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to be confused as well, Mr. Alexander Oparin is the originator of the theory and developed this understanding in 1924, so it is not original research. If you had even bothered to actually read the sources you would know this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wavyinfinity (talk • contribs) 11:13, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Who decides what is a real scientific journal? Is not a real scientific journal a journal that keeps scientific articles? Tell me, what constitutes a fake journal? How does one write fake scientific articles? Is there such a thing or did you make that up? Why are you here? Your motives are clear, you have something to lose if this understanding gets to have it's own page. Personal reasons to delete an article are hardly appropriate. Wavyinfinity (talk) 23:28, 14 June 2013 (UTC)wavyinfinityWavyinfinity (talk) 23:28, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A fake journal is one with no meaningful peer review that prints any old garbage submitted to it (possibly in exchange for cash). Allegations that I have something to gain are amusing, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:03, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: It's clearly pseudo-science that does not put forward a unique, testable hypothesis, but that's besides the point. It fails Wikipedia notability requirements; most of the listed sources are just a smoke screen intended to provide the appearance of credibility. Praemonitus (talk) 04:39, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- Fringe crackpottery that fails our verifiability policy. Reyk YO! 07:22, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fringe pseudoscience and synthesis of sources, with no support from reliable sources. Others have said it all. Begoon talk 08:38, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fringe garbage. -- Kheider (talk) 10:17, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This theory is older than the Big Bang Theory itself as it was developed in 1924 by Mr. Alexander Oparin in his book "The Origin of Life" in reference number 3. It is not original research. If the people who are requesting deletion even bothered to actually read the sources they would know this. Wavyinfinity (talk) 11:06, 14 June 2013 (UTC)wavyinfinityWavyinfinity (talk) 11:06, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alexander Oparin, the biochemist? The citation you refer to is supposed to support the sentence "The conclusion of stellar metamorphosis is that we observe many stars in different stages of evolution, and we interact with one a daily basis as the Earth itself is a black dwarf star." Could you help me with a page number in the pdf as I can't find the part that supports that sentence...
There's a passage where he likens planetary formation and cooling to star formation, even using the term "yellow star", but that's just a reflection of some thinking in the 1920s, from a biochemist... It certainly doesn't support the sentence it is placed after, and is, in fact, a fine example of misuse of a source.
You could maybe use that source in another article to support a statement about what some 1920s scientists believed, provided you clarified that current scientific thinking had moved far beyond that, and that Mr. Oparin was not an astronomer or astrophysicist. I'm not even really sure that would be at all useful, but using it like this is utterly inappropriate.
It's been a useful example of why this 'article' is synthesis and OR, so thanks for that, but it doesn't help much otherwise. Begoon talk 11:24, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Page 18 for those who propose deleting without actually researching anything, "There was a time when the Earth, too, was passing through the same stage of development as the Sun, namely that of being a yellow star. Later, as it gradually radiated its heat outwards into the cold interplanetary space, it became cooler and cooler. It turned from a yellow star into a red one, its light became dimmer and dimmer and finally went out altogether. The Earth became a dark planet." I hope that helps the censorship process along well. It has been known for some time the Earth is a dying star, since 1924.Wavyinfinity (talk) 14:17, 14 June 2013 (UTC)wavyinfinityWavyinfinity (talk) 14:17, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, that's the passage I assumed you must mean, so no need for me to amend my comments. Cheers. Begoon talk 14:42, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Concerning about what some 1920s scientist believed? So you mean Einstein's Theory of Relativity or Darwin's Theory of Evolution which was developed before the 1920s isn't worthy of science either based off that logic. What is your true purpose here? You are not making any sense. Not to mention on the nebular hypothesis it states quite clearly that the formation of giant planets is still a mystery and stellar metamorphosis solves that problem. So both the 1920's argument and the more advanced understanding are both bunk as the nebular hypothesis was conjured up in the 1700's back when people didn't even have electric lights. Wavyinfinity (talk) 23:15, 14 June 2013 (UTC)wavyinfinityWavyinfinity (talk) 23:15, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I moved your comment from inside mine, maybe you didn't see the advice in my previous edit summary. Please read WP:INDENT and WP:TPG and follow the correct posting format. Thanks. Other than pointing out that you dropped the 's' from scientists where you roughly 'quoted' me, I can only apologise that you don't feel I'm making sense. I shan't confuse you any more. All the best. Begoon talk 00:36, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A new article would basically need to start from scratch since the current article violates several policies. There is little value in userfying this version. Rather they should consider writing a new article when the sources appear, otherwise they'll just have a stale draft in their userspace. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:13, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The original research policy is bunk, the man who developed this understanding is already dead as noted above. The fringe policy is bunk because this theory is developed by three independent sources, two in scientific publishing, and one on a .edu site. Which other policies did it violate? It isn't user friendly? Sure it is. There are more papers written by these two individuals and literature exists in reference to non-equilibrium thermodynamics that has yet to be touched upon. This is a genuine scientific theory, albeit alternative, that needs to have its say regardless of what people vote. Censoring this would be a tragedy of the human spirit. Wavyinfinity (talk) 22:34, 14 June 2013 (UTC)wavyinfinityWavyinfinity (talk) 22:34, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Being on a .edu doesn't make something intrinsically reliable. The sources which mention your fringe theory are not reliable and not scientifically published, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:04, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I read the references carefully. The theory fits the classic definition of fringe science (or "anti-establishment" if you prefer.) This is not to say that the theory itself is false or useless, but just that fringe ideas don't belong on Wikipedia. We have also been through similar discussions (on fringe science) before. Thanks, Anand (talk page) 13:26, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: the two main images that go along with this article are also up for deletion here and here. Regards. Gaba (talk) 12:20, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request for immediate deletion: could we please move this along? User:Wavyinfinity is going crazy with the replies/attacks on other editors and has once again inserted a comment inside Begoon's comment above (removing his signature in the process) even though he was told to stop doing that earlier today. There's no point in dragging this along. Regards. Gaba (talk) 23:35, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes. If I were an admin, I would speedy delete this under G3 right now; the "theory" is that obviously wrong. StringTheory11 (t • c) 00:32, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Guys, remember it's not pleasant to have an article deleted, even one like this, and User:Wavyinfinity may not have seen my previous edit summary. He's obviously not experienced posting in this format, and AFDs are harsh sometimes. He probably doesn't realise that replying to every comment in this fashion weakens his position, and should almost certainly read WP:BLUDGEON.
As a user new to editing he deserves some leeway. (Personal attacks are obviously unacceptable, though, and there's a need for more care there.) That said, I'd agree there's not really any doubt about the result, but AFD is what it is, and often these things just rumble along like this. My personal solution will be to not waste any more time here, having already spent more time on it than I would wish. Cheers. Begoon talk 00:47, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Lacks notability and is original research (which includes synthesis from the page creator). Lacks reliable sources. "General Science Journal" is not peer-reviewed ("The original and continued purpose of these pages is to provide an opportunity for public presentation of scientific theories without prior and arbitrary assessment, criticism or rejection by the recipient."). Neither is viXra ("We will not prevent anybody from submitting and will only reject articles in extreme cases of abuse, e.g. where the work may be vulgar, libellous, plagiaristic or dangerously misleading.")
I read the 1924 paper, but as noted by Begoon, Oparin was a biochemist, and it does not appear that he was trying to advance a new theory of Earth origins. His main point was in trying to describe the conditions that life would have originated under if it originated on Earth, and in doing so he describes science as it was understood by those at the time. Here's an example on page 5: "There was a time when, according to the views now generally accepted among scientists, the Earth was a white-hot ball. Astronomy, geology, mineralogy and other exact sciences provide evidence for this and it is beyond doubt." Did he then misconstrue that to mean other scientists thought that Earth was a cooled star, or did that represent the mainstream position of the day, or was he advancing a new theory? If it's the first, then it isn't notable. If it's the second, that is notable and it should be easy to find reliable sources supporting this, and the Wikipedia page on planets could be updated with theory. If it's the last, it isn't notable unless other sources can be found. 24.218.115.184 (talk) 04:46, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can someone WP:SNOW this? We all know it's going to be deleted, but in the meanwhile we are misinforming a large number of people: [42]. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:09, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The cleanup notice at the top of the article provides sufficient warning. Praemonitus (talk) 19:53, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move Suggest the article be cleaned up, summarized and moved to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_cosmology . The theory is based on the work of a well respected scientist. Although it is not a mainstream theory, at its core it is a legitimate theory worthy of note. It stands out from its peers as a theory of Earth's origin based upon biological requirements rather than astronomical models. Only the parts that acurately reflect the theory as put forth by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Oparin should be maintained. Magicjava (talk) 14:04, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is unclear that this is a theory "based on the work of a well respected scientist", as I outlined in my delete vote. The single reliable source for "Oparin's" theory referenced so far is ambiguous in this matter. More reliable sources need to be found for both notability and verifiability. 24.218.115.184 (talk) 15:38, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I may have been a bit unclear in my first post. I think that only a reference to Oparin's work should be kept and moved to Alt Cosmo. The Stellar metamorphosis theory page should be deleted and not moved to alt cosmo. As to Oparin considering the Earth to have been a star, I think he is very explicit on it being both a yellow and red star in the past. See the Origin of Life PDF page 18 paragraphs 5, 7, and 8, and page 19 paragraph 5. In all four he refers to earth as once being a star.Magicjava (talk) 16:26, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced that that's his idea. It seems to me he is simply repeating, somewhat ineptly, what some astronomers thought at the time. Again, he was a biochemist, not an astronomer, so even if it were his theory, it would not be, as Gaba says below, of any special significance, especially considering that it lead nowhere. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:35, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See below for my main reply. But I am interested in the idea that the earth being a star was taken from others. Do we have links to any books or papers that support that? I ask because I'm interested in learning more about the background to Oparin's theory. Magicjava (talk) 16:47, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, Non-standard cosmology deals with alternate views of the formation of the Universe, this article is about stellar evolution. Also, this "well respected scientist" was a biologist and this is definitely not a "legitimate theory worthy of note" in the astrophysical field. At this point it's neither legitimate nor worthy of note. We are doing a great disservice to WP and its readers by keeping this crap around. Gaba (talk) 15:51, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oparin's theory on stellar evolution makes direct statements about the formation of the universe, namely that it is older than the Standard Model would indicate as the standard model does not provide enough time for a star to cool to a planet. Further, his theory on stellar evolution directly informed his theory on life on Earth, which is one of the more noteworthy theories of the 20th century. So it seems to me to be relevant to Alt Cosmo and noteworthy. And, to repeat part of my above comment for clarity, I think that only a reference to Oparin's work should be kept and moved to Alt Cosmo. The Stellar metamorphosis theory page should be deleted and not moved to Alt Cosmo.Magicjava (talk) 16:36, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. LFaraone 00:44, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Rio de Janeiro building collapses[edit]

2012 Rio de Janeiro building collapses (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Prime example of WP:NOTNEWS. While a significant amount of news coverage was published when the incident happened, "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion." This is a perfect example, headed for perma-stub status and is pretty much an orphan. Toddst1 (talk) 15:22, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 00:53, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Cinelândia (the square adjacent to the site) and delete as an unlikely search term. Stalwart111 01:47, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:47, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Right, as mentioned in the nomination. That's a given. How does it pass WP:NOTNEWS #2? You haven't addressed that. Toddst1 (talk) 03:04, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge under WP:NOTNEWS. Bondegezou (talk) 10:37, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The nominator has admitted that the article subject is notable. AfD is here to consider notability. Other concerns, such as tone or style, can be settled on the article talk page. WP:NOTNEWS is supplementary to our basic guidelines on notability and style. ∴ ZX95 [discuss] 16:46, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTNEWS requires eduring notability - not GNG. Toddst1 (talk) 17:09, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep : Plenty of coverage, not routine news, so passes WP:NOTNEWS. --Cyclopiatalk 18:30, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep sufficient sourcing, & sufficient importance, probably lasting importance.. (AfD , btw, is able to consider other considerations than notability in determining whether an article can exists--it is clear from many discussions that we can consider in addition whether something is worth covering at all, whether it would be more appropriately covered in a merge and, tho not applicable here, whether a neutral nonpromotional article is possible, as well as whatever other factors are considered relevant) DGG ( talk ) 17:48, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. LFaraone 00:45, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gianluigi Carelli[edit]

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

Local theater, bit parts, non-notable actor. Judging by the user name, this article is primarily the work of the subject himself. I Prodded it for deletion - giving the subject a chance to sort things out, but he immediately removed the tag - and so here we are. Rklawton (talk) 02:11, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The career details look far too light for WP:NACTOR (likely peak 2 Home & Away cast appearances), as do the references: a couple of interviews (close to primary sources) and the subject in a photograph of another actor. AllyD (talk) 06:42, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:43, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as lacking evidence of in depth coverage in independent reliable sources. If such sources are added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:44, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 20:33, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Belz[edit]

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

Not notable. Fails WP:BLP1E and WP:LOWPROFILE. Currently listed as a stub, hasn't been edited (sans minor vandalism today) since 2010. Noted that there was a brief discussion of sockpuppeting in the edit history as well. Rcvines (talk) 04:59, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 06:41, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sufficiently Notable: Does not appear to fail WP:BLP1E; publications from Belz appear in well known publications from at least 2003 McSweeney's [43] to the present. His book publishing proceeded through all those years as well Plausible Worlds [44] and Lovely, Raspberry [45] and The Bird Hoverer [46]. Notoriety as a poet means publishing regularly and doing readings regularly. YouTube contains quite a few public readings from Belz [47] . Neither does he fail WP:LOWPROFILE on several counts: In terms of media attention, he has done book signings and was interviewed by the HuffPo http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alexandra-marvar/aaron-belz-on-poetry-and-_b_1099919.html. As far as eminence, there are many eminent modern poets missing from Wikipedia (e.g., Mike Topp), and this probably owes to the generally bivocational life of the poet. Other poets with similar patterns of notoriety and publication would include Adrian Mateika [48] and Sally Ball [49] Barlowjon 13:58, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sufficiently notable. Concur with previous comment. Additionally, Belz's poetry has been reviewed in Library Journal (print), The Rumpus [50], Pleiades [51], and other journals and newspapers. He has also been interviewed several times by nationally-recognized publications including the 2012 edition of Poet's Market (print) [52]. NOTE: It appears that the initial request for deletion came from an account created shortly after the subject's widely publicized debate with comedian Patton Oswalt (see Salon.com, June 5, 2013, "How one Twitter user got famous by allegedly stealing comedians’ tweets" [53]), and should therefore itself be considered part of the vandalism. Recommendation to restore this article to its condition prior to June 4, 2013, the date of the debate and vandalism. Southcherryentropy 19:07, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • You should note that the content that was removed consisted entirely of favourable reviews of the author's work and was deleted to enable the article to conform with Wikipedia's strict guidelines on neutrality.Deb (talk) 18:01, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:41, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sufficiently notable. Concur with above comments. Does not appear to fail WP:BLP1E due to his continued activity as a poet: books published in 2005 (Plausible Words [54]), 2007 (The Bird Hoverer [55]), 2010 (Lovely, Raspberry [56]) and 2014 (Glitter Bomb [57]). He has also been published separately in The Bedside Guide to No Tell Motel (2007) [58] as well as those mentioned above. He also does not appear to fail WP:LOWPROFILE; in addition to citations above, he has been published in the Wall Street Journal [59]. Punchy5k (talk) 02:47, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The references give no indication of notability. There appears to have been some canvassing going on above. I will investigate further. Deb (talk) 11:56, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Closing admin, please note that of the three users voting to keep this article, one has a total of 21 wikipedia edits, another has a total of 9, and the third has made only one edit - the one above. The similarity in the non-standard wording suggests collusion at the very least. I will place advice notes on all their talk pages.Deb (talk) 17:37, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as lacking evidence of in depth coverage in independent reliable sources. If such sources are added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:44, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. This is clearly a split debate. Both sides to the argument make valid points. Those wishing to delete the article argue that it fails our neutral point of view policy and that Wikipedia is not for neologisms. Those wishing to keep the article argue that it meets out notability guidelines. I'm persuaded by both arguments here and believe that they are both as valid as each other. Given this, I must decide that this is debate has ended without consensus and as such the conclusion defaults to keep. I strongly suggest a rewrite of the article to take into account the concerns of the users wishing to delete. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 23:05, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decoloniality[edit]

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

Article appears to just be an essay that was copied and pasted here. Capscap (talk) 05:31, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and above. Intothatdarkness 15:00, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nothing like a Wikipedia article, falling entirely foul of WP:NPOV, introducing a new and apparently made-up term, and arguing for it in a tendentiously written WP:ESSAY. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:32, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Statement from author [implied keep] I wrote this entry. It is a synthesis of information found in the listed references. It is not filled with my opinions. It is not copied and pasted from a thesis. It is created entirely for the purpose of introducing the term to the wikisphere, and distinguishing the term from others which are often conflated with decoloniality. I did not make up the term. "Decoloniality" and decolonial studies are widely recognized in ethnic studies discourse. A simple search of Decoloniality on Google verifies it isn't made up. Decolonial is no more "tendentious" or impartial than the terms Eurocentrism, racism, or post-colonialism. To argue that it "runs entirely afoul" of wikipedia's impartiality standard is to argue that any entry based on critical theory should not be so critical. — Preceding text originally posted on Talk:Decoloniality (diff) by Nlsilva (talk⋅contribs) 22:14, 7 June 2013‎ (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Capscap (talk • contribs)
  • Keep: Google Scholar and Google Books do seem to provide lots of reliable sources for this term - and I therefor think we should have an article. I think the current version is essayish in style but the topic and the fact there is substantial content make deletion undesirable. (Msrasnw (talk) 10:42, 10 June 2013 (UTC))[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:39, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Original essay about a non-notable neologism. Carrite (talk) 16:02, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Objections to the style of the article in its current form are irrelevant. The article has citations (even if they're not formatted correctly) and, thus, passes under WP:GNG. I am curious as to why Chiswick Chap feels this is "a new and apparently made-up term" when citations are given, or indeed why Carrite calls this a neologism? A quick Google search shows that is not the case, so I am surprised to see such opinions expressed. Bondegezou (talk) 16:04, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This week's social science buzzword; start one and the path to full professorship is yours... The fact that this is a non-stop attempt to promote a new word as an encyclopedic concept in contradistinction to decolonialism is a dead giveaway. Burn with fire. Carrite (talk) 16:47, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is not for editors to make value judgements over what is a "social science buzzword". It is certainly not for editors to ignore WP:GNG. We are guided by reliable sources and multiple sources in the academic literature clearly demonstrate notability: Saal (2013), "How to Leave Modernity Behind: The Relationship Between Colonialism and Enlightenment, and the Possibility of Altermodern Decoloniality", Budhi 17(1); Drexler-Dreis (2013), "Decoloniality as Reconciliation", Concilium: International Review of Theology, 1:115-122; Maldonado-Torres (2012), "Decoloniality at Large: Towards a Trans-Americas and Global Transmodern Paradigm", Transmodernity: Journal of Peripheral Cultural Production of the Luso-Hispanic World, 1(3); Gilmartin (2013), "The Colonial Tendencies of Internationalisation", Querelles, 16; Yehia (2007), "Descolonización del conocimiento y la práctica: un encuentro dialógico entre el programa de investigación sobre modernidad /colonialidad / decolonialidad latinoamericanas y la teoría actor-re", Tabula Rasa, 6; Boatca (2012), "What's in a name? postcolonialism and decoloniality as difference within sameness" Second ISA Forum of Sociology; Bhambra (2012), "Postcolonialism and decoloniality: A dialogue" Second ISA Forum of Sociology; Tataryn (2012), "Irregularities are the New Frontier – McNevin’s Contesting Citizenship", Theory & Event, 15(4); Mignolo (2011), "Geopolitics of sensing and knowing: on (de)coloniality, border thinking and epistemic disobedience", Postcolonial Studies, 14(3): 273-283. Explain to me how your WP:JDLI overrides reliable source citations. Bondegezou (talk) 08:15, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - if subject is deemed to be appropriate, then WP:TNT it. If not, then just plain get rid of it. Reasons per above. Ansh666 19:24, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep- Agree that there are problems with the article, but it is a documented term and the article is well sourced:prejudice against social science buzzwords is not enough to argue deletion Rankersbo (talk) 09:20, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Rankersbo. It is not so bad that it needs TNT. Bearian (talk) 18:52, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- This is not a subject that I know, but we have a list of what are clearly academic sources. If the term is in fact being used by academics, WP ought to have an article on it, however little we may like the term. My view is strenghthened by the number of sources cited by Bondegezou. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:30, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NEO. I have concerns that this article documents a neologism in such a manner as to promote it. --BDD (talk) 20:21, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment There are multiple academic papers on this subject going back to 2007. How does it fit WP:NEO? How many academic papers are needed before you don't consider it so? WP:NEO says, "To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, say about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term." Those have been provided. Bondegezou (talk) 22:18, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Carrite above. The term is decolonialism. Perhaps we could move the article there and fix it up accordingly. --BDD (talk) 22:28, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In this AfD, 14 academic papers discussing decoloniality (as distinct from "decolonialism") have been presented. It would seem to me to be original research to ignore multiple reliable source citations because of your argument based on... well, if I may ask, based on what? What is your and Carrite's verifiable basis for rejecting the term? Bondegezou (talk) 10:29, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NEO. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:00, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: As has been argued above there are sources which have used the term Decoloniality in their title. I have added these to the article.
  • Walsh, Catherine. (2012) "“Other” Knowledges,“Other” Critiques: Reflections on the Politics and Practices of Philosophy and Decoloniality in the “Other” America." TRANSMODERNITY: Journal of Peripheral Cultural Production of the Luso-Hispanic World 1.3.
  • Wan-hua, Huang. (2011) "The Process of Decoloniality of Taiwan Literature in the Early Postwar Period." Taiwan Research Journal 1: 006.
  • Bhambra, G. (2012). Postcolonialism and decoloniality: A dialogue. In The Second ISA Forum of Sociology (August 1-4). Isaconf.
  • Drexler-Dreis, J. (2013). Decoloniality as Reconciliation. Concilium: International Review of Theology-English Edition, (1), 115-122.
  • Wanzer, D. A. (2012). Delinking Rhetoric, or Revisiting McGee's Fragmentation Thesis through Decoloniality. Rhetoric & Public Affairs, 15(4), 647-657.
  • Saal, B. (2013). How to Leave Modernity Behind: The Relationship Between Colonialism and Enlightenment, and the Possibility of Altermodern Decoloniality. Budhi: A Journal of Ideas and Culture, 17(1), 49-80.
I am not sure why this is not a wide enough usage of the term to warrant an article. A newish term which has been used a lot amongst a group of academics (Msrasnw (talk) 07:48, 21 June 2013 (UTC))[reply]
  • Comment Several people above have cited WP:NEO, which is an important policy. So, let's look at what it says. "To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, say about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term. [...] Neologisms that are in wide use but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia. [...] when secondary sources become available, it will be appropriate to create an article on the topic, or use the term within other articles." The key point being made (which really just comes back to WP:V and WP:GNG) is that we need reliable secondary sources "such as books and papers" that are about the term before it can be covered. I count 14 academic papers above that are about the term, and more are already given in the article. As WP:NEO says, "when secondary sources become available, it will be appropriate to create an article on the topic". Those secondary sources are available and given. Bondegezou (talk) 10:40, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


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

The result was delete. The policy based comments are weak or non-existent at best (including one admin who should know better that restoring an deleted article by request has never been a valid reason to keep/delete it in AFD). Yogesh Khandke comment about the sourcing is rebutted successfully. But no prejudice to recreation if the subject ever meets our guidelines in the future. Secret account 21:12, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Parikipandla Narahari[edit]

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

Earlier the same article was deleted after a long discussion. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/P._Narahari. The article is again created with full name. A broad discussion is required so that the acceptance/deletion of the page can be determined . Jussychoulex (talk) 07:58, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No article is not made again with another name. The article was restored again by King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ and it was redirected from P. Narahari to Parikipandla Narahari. Shobhit Gosain (talk) 16:37, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are telling us that one person, who has not commented here, has indicated that he thinks the article is acceptable. That is not a reason for keeping the article. If you believe there are good reasons for keeping it, you need to tell us what those reasons are, not merely that there is someone else who thinks there are good reasons. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:46, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I should have made clearer that I wrote keep rather than comment because I have read the references and agree with KoH that this and this lift this above being a standard bio of a mid-rank civil servant, and are enough for notability. JohnCD (talk) 14:59, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In last discussion, all the people strongly recommend to delete the page. Then how a single person, who did not take part in the discussion, can restore the page. What was the basis of restoration? I still did not find any notability of this person. He is just a normal civil servant.Jussychoulex (talk) 13:34, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thereafter, the creator of the article contacted User:King of Hearts - see 25 on his talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:King_of_Hearts&oldid=552252566#Articles_for_deletion.2FP._Narahari and he reinstated the page under its present title. No discussion ever took place about this, the other participants in the first AfD discussion were not given the chance to have their say and nothing of substance appears to have been added to the original article. User:King of Hearts has also not made an appearance on this AfD page so far. The subject of the article is a mid-ranking local officer who seems to have decided to use social media sites to help him do his work. He may have achieved some success in doing his job better, but I don't think that makes him notable. This article seems to rely on his activities via social media sites to do what other officers of his rank also do - as a matter of course - to establish his notability. I think he does not meet WP:GNG.--Zananiri (talk) 13:35, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As JohnCD said and I would also like to tell you that http://tehelka.com/gwaliors-game-changer/ and http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/MadhyaPradesh/Got-a-complaint-Poke-Gwalior-collector-on-Facebook/Article1-945195.aspx makes him notable. In no ways it seems to be a self promotion and neither I have seen District Magistrates getting so familiar with people on social media. King of Hearts also regenerated the page due to those notable links.Shobhit Gosain (talk) 12:44, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm not sure what King of Hearts was doing - it is all a bit vague - but this is basically a recreation of an article previously deleted via AfD and upon reviewing the rationales given in the original AfD I tend to agree that the subject is not notable. He is not the only person in India who uses social media but it needs to be borne in mind that access to the internet in that country is extremely limited and thus his efforts will have a pretty minimal impact. His main achievement appears to be self-promotion. - Sitush (talk) 09:46, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you help hundred people and those hundred people talk about you then you won't call it a self-promotion because your main motive was to help, promotion will come unknowingly. Shobhit Gosain (talk) 12:47, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:37, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
* To date, this is the only contribution to Wikipedia by this person.--Zananiri (talk) 12:01, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
* Great search and your good in locating IP addresses, that's what I can say about that thing. Call the owner of that IP and ask why is he/she doing such things. I have nothing to do with it.Shobhit Gosain (talk) 05:49, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Similarly page of an non-notable civil servant was recently deleted.. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Upendra_Tripathy_%282nd_nomination%29. Jussychoulex (talk) 18:45, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak KeepAs a person who has made pages on civil servants and also nominated many a pages on civil servants for deletion,i think this page deserves to stay for the simple reason because he has a credible contribution,he has won a famous award for his work!As pointed out by an another editor his contributions are of a higher grade,I think that makes him a bit notable,but i also agree to the fact that he is of a bureaucrat of low ranking and we as editors must actually set some standards of notability on the basis of rank and contributions maybe a WP:Civil Servant ?Uncletomwood (ta lk) 06:41, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In India, a "major award" would be Film Fare, Padma Bhushan etc, not a tacky something from a promotional spiel by a newspaper group (the Pride of India thing). I can't even verify the Crisil award, which comes from a risk management agency that it shames me to say I've never heard of: despite being recently recreated, the links are dead where I am. - Sitush (talk) 23:01, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've just deleted probably the most significant paragraph in terms of notability. It needs rewriting but I am very tired and need my sleep. The thing was a blatant copyright violation of the Tehelka source, even after I'd tweaked the odd word here and there. - Sitush (talk) 23:08, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You deleted that whole notability factor? What do you exactly want? I guess you just need the deletion nothing else. You can make a template about rewriting, rather than deleting the whole stuff man or you can notify me about the copyright violation. You really seems to have some serious issues with this article and as you had with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priyadarshini_Raje_Scindia too. What can I do if you haven't heard of Crisil award, that doesn't mean you start deleting everything what comes across. You nearly deleted the whole article http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Parikipandla_Narahari&action=history and you did the similar thing with Priyadarshini Raje http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Priyadarshini_Raje_Scindia&action=history. After deleting whole factors and sources your saying this article needs to be deleted now. Man, I think you really need sleep after that.Shobhit Gosain (talk) 07:18, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
At its current stage the article needs to be deleted.Uncletomwood (talk) 06:13, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Shobhit, I had said "delete" prior to spotting the copyvio. I deleted the content because it was a copyrigh violation. That's what we do because there are legal implications when people such as you violate copyright. As I said, the thing needed to be rewritten but I didn't have the time to do so then. I have been very open about this and I note that your rewrite since my deletion is still a copyright violation, although less so than it was. Having slept, I'll try to fix it but let me tell you now: the fact that I have problems with some articles that you have created is a reflection of my opinion regarding the quality and subject notability of those articles and nothing more. You should also be aware that in the light of the copyvio just found, I'm probably going to check every contribution you have made to mainspace: it is simply not acceptable to do what you did. You seem likely to be involved with a magazine - SoulSteer - and should surely know what copyright is? Oh, and Soulsteer is based in Gwalior, which is the same location as the IPs I refer to above. Sitush (talk) 08:09, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
talk No offence brother as your an Indian too, but I would really like to let you know that your one of those people who not do anything good to the society and don't let anyone else do the same. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jai_Vilas_Mahal&action=history, and the above mentioned history links, your now deleting everything what I have contributed here, stop being so NEGATIVE about me, you can find another articles in Wikipedia to satisfy your disruptive nature. And no, I have no relation with that magazine, your a genius, you can check my IP and you will find it to be a different one. As of the P. Narahari article, its nowhere near to the copyright acts leaving behind the statistics and perfectly notable.Shobhit Gosain (talk) 08:34, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not Indian, nor do I have any idea why that should be relevant. You took the photo of Narahari that we use and it was published by SouLSteer. You created the now-deleted SouLSteer article, at the AfD of which it was suggested that you were connected. You have been socking from Gwalior, which is where SouLSteer is based. Go figure why my assumption of good faith is on the wane. - Sitush (talk) 14:11, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I made the initial nomination for deletion of the article here based on an objective assessment of the content. I did not know it had been phoenixed but there is nothing in the new page to warrant it being retained. Sesamevoila (talk) 21:01, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: A comment has been made above regarding Indian Internet user statistics: For the benefit of everyone I share them here; India has the world's third largest Internet user base at 13.7 crore .[61] Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:05, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as lacking sufficient in depth coverage in independent reliable sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:05, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Per WP:SK#3, the nominator is a sockpuppet of a blocked user. No one has seconded deletion, so this discussion is speedily closed. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 00:56, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vasily Yakovlev[edit]

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

This article has not had a single source since being created in 2011, and there is no evidence that this is anything but original research. User:Ikeepforgettingmyaccountspassword (talk, contribs), 08:46, 13 June 2013 Original AfD creation was done without templates or signature so I've fixed that. Dricherby (talk) 09:34, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have added two references located using Google Books on the title of this article, though both relate to a single incident: the subject's role in the last days of the Russian Czar. However I have also linked to the Russian Wikipedia article on this person, which is under his birth name (Konstantin Alekseyevich Mâčin) and carries more references. This is an improvable article and I see no strong reason for deletion. AllyD (talk) 05:30, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clearly existed and held a senior rank in the Red Army (and thus meets WP:SOLDIER). Just because an article is unreferenced does not mean it is original research, as a quick glance at that policy will reveal. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:43, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. the consensus after relisting is clear enough; I have no personal opinion DGG ( talk ) 17:41, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neuromuscular dentistry[edit]

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

No MEDRS sources. Not a real subspecialty. Merge to TMD a possibility but TENS an uncommon treatment, needs due weight, i.e. very little. Lesion (talk) 17:37, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Possible OR by linking other organizations (e.g. AACFP) to the term when it doesn't sound like they use it.
  • Overall impression: almost entirely based on 2 sources= 2 dentists' personal websites. Self published, unreliable and biased information aiming to increase financial revenue by promotion of treatment modalities (without evidence base and uncommonly used) that they specialize in. Lesion (talk) 17:41, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commment Just based on the article itself I would say to delete it. It has blank references all over the place and the references that are there are more or less unreliable. However, neuromuscular dentistry in itself is a significant topic. Try doing a Google Scholar search and you will see many reliable sources on the subject. Based upon the actual topic, I would keep the article. I am not sure why the creator did not use these sources from scientific journals.—Σosthenes12 Talk 17:49, 29 May 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes12[reply]
Google is not necessarily reliable source for medical content. If we did use only WP:MEDRS sources for this article, then there would be no evidence. I am happy for the article to remain, as long as it is described for what it is-- an advertising gimmick by some dentists rather than making all these ridiculous claims about well the treatments supposedly works. Pseudoscience. I've been working on the TMD page for some time now and I chewed through loads of sources and I am confident to say that TENS is only rarely used for TMD. There are much more commonly used treatments. Those sources I have come across that do mention TENS for TMD do not use the term "neuromuscular dentistry". My argument is that this page is entirely focused on TMD, however it does not present the topic with any degree of accuracy (see the extended list of supposed signs and symptoms), and neutrality with regards (i) how commonly this concept is actually used in routine management of TMD, and (ii) how effective it is at managing TMD. It's bullshit basically is what I'm trying to say, and we are presenting it here as accepted, mainstream medicine with a sound evidence base. This kind of page is written with COI as an advertisement only, you see it all the time. They want to piggyback on wikipedia's high profile in google search results. They link to their own appointment details for God's sake. And the best thing is they don't have to spend a dime for this great advertizing while it reaches far more potential customers than any other type of advertising could. The concept of "neuromuscular dentistry" could much better be presented with due weight withing the main TMD page. Lesion (talk) 18:05, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here's another: Biofeedback headband. Lesion (talk) 18:08, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean now. I reread the article more carefully this time with your comments in view and I think I agree with you. My first thought was that the article was trying to explain what neuromuscular dentistry was as a general subject so I gave it the benefit of the doubt. But the focus is on a treatment not commonly used as you said. Delete it due to the promotional nature? —Σosthenes12 Talk 21:58, 29 May 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes12[reply]
Apart from the 2 dentists' personal homepages, the other source is too old (see WP:MEDDATE), but guess what, it doesn't even contain the term "neuromuscular dentistry". This leaves this article with no reliable sources at all. If we delete all unsourced content (as we are supposed to), this effectively leaves nothing to merge. I think a redirect to TMD might be ok, or a delete as you suggest.
I ran a pubmed search with keywords "neuromuscular dentistry" and it yielded 3 results: [62]. Only one conforms to MEDDATE (the 2008 one), and none are marked as reviews (so not sure if they are secondary sources). I can't access the full text and they don't have abstracts. This source [63] also might be useful, not sure if we can use it. Potentially this might be be a notable topic if some of those sources are MEDRS acceptable, but in that case the entire page will require a rewrite I suspect. It should be explaining what neuromuscular dentistry means, and then linking to the relevant pages. As it is ATM, it is basically an extension of the main TMD page which is "doing its own thing" with no heed to the bigger picture or any evidence. Lesion (talk) 22:27, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 22:45, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:28, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lack of sources. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:43, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Obscure concept, difficult to source verifiably. JFW | T@lk 19:06, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Seems unlikely to be able to standalone in its own article; perhaps if someone digs up one of the 3 pubmed sources they can be used in another article. Also, please do not spam an article with citation needed tags. It makes it very difficult to read the article in which case I'm not going to comment! II | (t - c) 02:27, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It could be argued that I have over-tagged this page in this instance. Lesion (talk) 09:24, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Promotional; definitely fringe; probably quackery; poorly sourced. If someone wanted to volunteer to rewrite it, making its fringiness clear, detailing the controversy, laying out the almost total absence of useful evidence, I'd support that. But it would take some time and would need to make the status of this "philosophy" very clear to our readers. This can't be achieved by simply culling or tweaking the existing text. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:33, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Both TENS and occlusal adjustment covered with due weight, referenced and in a NPOV in main TMD article. None of those secondary sources used the term "neuromuscular dentistry". This is the only source that I can access to maybe say something about it [64] and I don't think it is MEDRS, and also it doesn't actually define what the term means, it just mentions it. Of the 3 pubmed hits using this term [65] only one does not violate MEDDATE [66]. So I guess a potential rewrite would be largely based on that paywalled source. I will request it on the Wikipedia resource requests page, and if it is any good I will add some content explaining what the term "neuromuscular dentistry" means on the TMD page. Lesion (talk) 09:24, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Further to the above, the potentially usable source [67] is published in a journal (looks like more of a magazine [68]) of questionable reliability, and the internet archive starts at 2010, so... I'm out of ideas about where to get a reliable source to define this term. Lesion (talk) 12:23, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 20:32, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rodney Marks[edit]

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

fails WP:ENT. I found no significant coverage for him. note there is an Australian astrophysicist of the same name. Rodney Marks (astrophysicist). A number of sources merely confirm what universities he attended. LibStar (talk) 08:27, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 10:33, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 10:35, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. The references in the article, if each exists and is more than a passing mention, are enough to satisfy WP:GNG. I'd certainly rather see the references but, per WP:AGF and the limited insight of the articles' titles, I;m happy to work on the assumption that they're sufficient. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 14:37, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AGF does not apply to the quality of the references. LibStar (talk) 23:30, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How do you mean? To clarify, I'm assuming that the editor who added the references acted in good faith and didn't intend to deceive or to exaggerate the level of coverage. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 06:43, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As cited in the article, the references are mostly small mentions and do not satify WP:ENT. there are no indepth reviews on his work, or coverage in major press about his achievements. I'm judging on what's in the article. you can't WP:AGF on the existence of information you can't see in the article. LibStar (talk) 07:20, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Where in the article is it indicated that the references are "small mentions"?
  2. References aren't required to satisfy notability guidelines, articles are.
  3. The Bulletin, The Sunday Telegraph and The Australian Financial Review are "major press", though so far as I know no Wikipedia policies or guidelines distinguish between "major" or "minor" publications.
  4. Basing one's !vote exclusively "on what's in the article" would require one to never read an article's references, which seems a strange way to judge an article's notability. See also WP:NOTCLEANUP. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 14:50, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 22:53, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:28, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and allow recreation. The current article has major problems that WP:TNT might best be used to fix but he is notable. It was created as an unsourced biased puff piece and still reads like that. Refs were thrown in seemingly at random to make it looked well sourced. Ref 4 (Fin Review) does not verify the sentence it follows, it makes no mention of Marks education. With that deception can we trust the rest of the article? Below is some of the available refs which add up to enough coverage to start a new article with. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:33, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Langfield, Penny (23 July 2011), "The sound of two hands clapping", The Australian
"Built on making people laugh", Canberra Times, 3 February 2009
"Marks raised for degree of comedy at UNSW", Canberra Times, 31 December 2006
Herbert, Kate (8 April 1998), "RODNEY MAKES HIS MARK", Herald Sun
Potts, David (21 December 1997), "The Best And Brightest Fall Hardest", Sun Herald
  • Comment I don't understand Duffbeerforme's argument. If he's notable, then WP:FIXIT. Bondegezou (talk) 10:40, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Let me be clearer, WP:TNT is merely an essay. WP:FIXIT is a guideline, and WP:PRESERVE is policy. Bondegezou (talk) 11:12, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Re: so fix it. I think the best way to fix it is to start again. Re: preserve. "Preserve appropriate content". A deceptively sourced promotional BLP is not appropriate content. duffbeerforme (talk) 00:37, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think duffbeerforme says it best when he says 'A deceptively sourced promotional BLP is not appropriate content'.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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) 19:34, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PEC Limited[edit]

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

No indication of notability CorporateM (Talk) 23:09, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:25, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted by admin Peridon (non-admin close). Stalwart111 11:44, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wlinkster, Inc[edit]

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

Just adverting to promote, not notable, no RS. Also the creator left a message for me and said "his friend's site is not advertising" which clearly states he has a conflict of interest WP:CONFLICT. Also fails WP:WEBSITE and was just created a few weeks ago. Tyros1972 Talk 09:47, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Also the person who is Spamming appears to be using a proxy (they do get by) or it is multiple users doing this SPAM. I am glad you figured this out, not sure how they can deal with this since the article keeps being re-created under various names. I'll leave it up to the admins. Thanks for your help. Tyros1972 Talk 11:29, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
can we block a name? Just block the "Wlinkster" name if possible that will stop posting of the URL and creating of the article. Tyros1972 Talk 11:30, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You can ask for the URL to be blacklisted - in this case wlinkster.com. But this has been deleted so I'm closing the AFD. Stalwart111 11:44, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. --BDD (talk) 20:23, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Collings[edit]

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

A finalist of Britain's Got Talent who hasn't gone on to gain notability since appearing in the show. I don't believe having hits on YouTube makes someone notable. Has apparently released singles but all failed to chart. Fails WP:MUSICBIO and is WP:1E. Has a list entry, which suffices for this act. –anemoneprojectors– 08:38, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Promotional bio for non-notable musician, probably written by his management company (Waited99 is possibly Dan Waite, the article subject's management contact). Note that article creator also makes a point to include management company info in the titles of all related images he uploads. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 16:39, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. Some people have used a Got Talent appearance as a springboard to a successful career. He doesn't seem to be one of them though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:13, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete A7. Fram (talk) 09:37, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Subhani khokhar[edit]

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

Is not a notable person, no RS. Tyros1972 Talk 08:23, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. postdlf (talk) 04:52, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dog and Duck (TV series)[edit]

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

PROD removed by Colonel Warden (talk · contribs) in an attempt to 'overwrite' the topic, I have reverted. There is no evidence of notability here, and it fails WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 08:21, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I suspect the article content tagged for AFD may not meet notability guidelines but that version was recreated by the nominator. This version looks like notability is established and if so it should not be deleted on irrelevant grounds. Generally, it is not becoming to replace notable content with non-notable and then issue an AFD submission. However, in this case I can understand that the newly created content was an unnecessary irritation and it would have been better created at a disambiguated title. When I was a lad there were all sorts of pubs called Dog and Duck and maybe some more of them are notable. Thincat (talk) 09:02, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Thincat:, you have got that all wrong I'm afraid. The original article, created in June 2009, was about a children's TV show. The version I PRODded was about a children's TV show. Colonel Warden then attempted to overwrite which is a big no-no. I reverted. If Colonel Warden believed the idea of a Dog and Duck (tavern) article was notable then he should have created a new article, not attempt to overwrite an existing article on a different topic that had the same name. That is basic stuff. GiantSnowman 09:20, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also feel that reverting Colonel Warden's over-write was the correct thing to do and, since the PROD had effectively been turned down, bringing the article to AfD seems reasonable. Dricherby (talk) 09:22, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I entirely agree with the facts GiantSnowman states and I don't think I said anything to the contrary. Is there a policy or guideline that non-notable content (as perceived by one editor two editors) should not be replaced with (intended) notable content if that involves changing the underlying topic? It is certainly the case that articles at AFD may be improved and the reason I have not restored Warden's material is that a reversion might seem disruptive. Somehow or other Warden's version needs to be restored or discussed for possible deletion on its own merits. Thincat (talk) 09:34, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "that version was recreated by the nominator [...] Generally, it is not becoming to replace notable content with non-notable and then issue an AFD submission" implies I have done something wrong/underhand. GiantSnowman 09:49, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • and to answer your question, no, I am not aware of any related guidelines, perhaps we could write an essay at Wikipedia:Overwriting articles or similar? GiantSnowman 09:51, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • @GiantSnowman: I'm sorry I may have given a wrong impression. I do think that generally it is not a good thing to do. But in this case what Warden did was not good at all so you were in a bind not of your own making. Thincat (talk) 10:02, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Thincat:, I'm not sure whether it's your wording or your implication, but one of them is well-off. The comment I quoted above (" it is not becoming to replace notable content with non-notable and then issue an AFD submission") implies, to me, that you thought I had taken an article on a notable subject, over-written it with a non-notable one, and then taken to AFD. That is simply not the case. GiantSnowman 10:05, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I shall apologise again. I still think what I said, if read carefully, was appropriate, partial quoting of it is not so helpful. However, I realise that I gave a wrong impression to you and so I now understand that other people might also get a wrong impression. When they read this their minds will be at rest. Thincat (talk) 10:19, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a suggestion. Copying right now is not best practice. I enquired on a related point here. If the TV version gets deleted, the deleting Admin could (should) restore Warden's version.[69] If the TV version is kept Warden's version can anyway be copied and the relevant attribution tags put on the talk pages. Either way, anyone can subsequently nominate the tavern for AFD. Thincat (talk) 10:13, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As I understand it, what happened here was that a prod was placed upon an article about a children's TV show. This prod stated, "If you can address this concern by improving, copyediting, sourcing, renaming or merging the page, please edit this page and do so. So, that's what I did. I didn't find much about the TV show but I found plenty of good sources about a notable and historic tavern in London. I set to work and started by transforming it into a stub supported by three good sources. This is valid content which is now in the history of the article and I can't see any good, policy-based reason to delete this. I shall continue to work upon this notable topic, which has good promise as a DYK. Please withdraw this AFD as it seems rather silly and contrary to WP:BURO. We're here to build an enyclopedia, not to have pointless discussions about a version of the topic that nobody wants. Warden (talk) 10:50, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • An article on a TV show has been nominated for PROD, and has now been nominated for AFD. Please comment on that article. GiantSnowman 10:57, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The deletion function removes the entire edit history from article space, not just the current version. There is valid content there and I want it back. That content belongs under this title, because we do not disambiguate unnecessarily and there is no competing, notable topic with this title. Warden (talk) 11:06, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re-create it at Dog and Duck (tavern), and then move it if/when th article is deleted (which won't happen if editors such as yourself make POINTy 'keep' !votes. GiantSnowman 11:11, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're one engaging in pointy behaviour here. When you put a prod on an article, you're saying that you don't care for it. Coming back to revert its content is contradictory. If you'd just stayed out of this, then I would have gone on to expand the article about the tavern and the project would have benefited without any fuss. The only reason I didn't do this right away was that development may require a library visit and it was late and time for bed. Now we have this absurd AFD which is your doing, not mine. Warden (talk) 11:20, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jesus, this is very simple. The article was started about a TV show, the editing history is about a TV show, my PROD was on an TV show, my AFD is on a TV show. You should not have attempted to hijack one topic by this name for another you thought was more worthwhile. We can have two articles by the same name y'know, we even have guidelines on the mater. GiantSnowman 11:28, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • A prod explicitly gives one carte blanche to do what one likes with the topic to make it viable. You're trying to hold onto the non-viable TV material just so you can delete it again. What is the point of that? Warden (talk) 11:35, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The tavern seems to be the primary topic for this title - the only one worth writing about. Please revert to that version, withdraw the AFD and then we're done. Do you really want seven days of this? Warden (talk) 11:50, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, we're not "done", because you'll simply try to over-write again. What evidence do you have that the tavern is the primary topic? GiantSnowman 12:13, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • We can find many good sources for the tavern but not for rival users of this title. It seems to have been quite an institution, like Dirty Dick's. I have some experience in working on articles of this sort - see De Hems, for example. Warden (talk) 12:29, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I reverted you over-writing an article about a TV show. I did not prevent you in any way from creating a new article about a pub. GiantSnowman 13:06, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This whole discussion shows that there is no consensus for replacing the TV show article with a pub article. So please don't do that. Can we now move on and discuss the notability of the TV show? Dricherby (talk) 13:09, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The consensus seems to be that the TV show is not notable so we should not cling to it. I'm here to defend the content I created about the tavern which would be destroyed if the page in question is deleted. That is certainly notable and I shall be doing further research and expansion accordingly. Warden (talk) 13:13, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where are you getting that consensus from? The AFD has been open for six hours, with only one !vote - you, wanting to keep the article. Mixed messages much? GiantSnowman 13:17, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both Blofeld and myself have searched for sources about the TV show and didn't find any worth considering. There doesn't seem to be anyone with a good word to say about the TV show. Warden (talk) 13:29, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Warden, please remember to assume good faith and not accuse other editors of being "rather silly". To address the issue of the pub stub, there are several pubs called the Dog and Duck both inside (Crawley, Highmoor, Mansfield, Shadlow, Soho, Torquay, Wellingborough, Wokingham, ...), and outside the UK (Austin, Texas). As such, it doesn't seem appropriate for an article about a particular, now-closed pub of that name to appear at just Dog and Duck. Dricherby (talk) 12:41, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, but there could be a claim made (as I think CW is) that one historical pub by this name was notable, for whatever reason. GiantSnowman 12:47, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
CITV series is mainstream TV and I certainly think a 195 episode series on CITV would probably be notable. However I can't seem to find any decent sources for it, nothing in google books. Ugly list too and needs a lot of work. Unless somebody can find some decent sources I'd delete. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 12:12, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion A technical solution for those who are determined to delete something might be to use revision deletion to delete the versions which relate to the non-notable TV-show but leaving the version with the stub about the tavern, which then would be the basis for development of the primary topic. Warden (talk) 13:23, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A gracious compromise Colonel, always a shame to see others work deleted, but sometimes sacrifices have to be made. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:34, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Someone has swooped by and created Dog and Duck (pub) with the colonel's content but probably with inadequate attribution. I have tried to remedy this at Talk:Dog and Duck (pub). If not already, I think this should become the primary topic and then we'll lose the inelegant "pub". Thincat (talk) 13:28, 13 June 2013 (UTC) PS I now see this happened very shortly after this AFD nomination this morning. Thincat (talk) 13:42, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A worthwhile attempt at a compromise, but not an ideal solution, as if this article is deleted, the link used to credit the original author will no longer be valid. Better to keep this article, and maybe re scope the new one. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:34, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) That's a copyright violation contrary to WP:CUTPASTE. The user who did this previously edited an article about prime numbers, concerning Polignac's conjecture. This might be a sock-puppet of a mathematical editor who has recently been in conflict with GiantSnowman. Or it could be a joe job. The plot thickens... Warden (talk) 13:38, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and restore to the Colonel's version. GiantSnowman has a valid position, its a well accepted tactic to save an article from destruction by a rewrite, but must admit I've not before seen such a bold change of scope. That said, nothing gained by destroying the article, and the Colonel's version is undoubtedly notable. As for the point about there being other Dog & Duck pubs, if someone creates an article which consensus deems is more notable, a renamed to something like Dog and Duck (St George's Fields) would be trivial. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:34, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We're talking about the CITV article not the pub. If that gets deleted then the pub can be moved back to Dog and Duck. Quite rightly, Giant Snowman is questioning the CITV programme and he has a point, I can't find any sources despite my feeling that a long running CITV series would probably be notable.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 14:23, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • We're obviously talking about both. The deletion discussion is for use of the delete function to delete the page of this title and its history. When I find time to actually work on the topic, rather than this discussion, I shall be expanding my draft here to show the potential of the topic. Working from this version is important for reasons of precedence as it affects DYK, which requires specific evidence of edits made at particular times, per the rules of that project. Warden (talk) 14:29, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I dug up some sources. Not great, but there is some snippet-view discussion in books, and a number of casual mentions in short bios of people involved in the production. A show that ran to so many episodes was bound to be noted. Then it can be moved to "Dog and Duck (TV show)" and this title made into a disambig. There are various pubs, some now closed but notable in their day. "In St George's Fields, which faced the Radcliffe's home on China Terrace, the famous Dog and Duck tavern was demolished in 1811 to make way for the New Bethlehem Hospital." Aymatth2 (talk) 15:32, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Go for it on the historic tavern as Dog and Duck (tavern), but keep also the piece on the TV show. In practice network TV shows at AfD are invariably kept, because there are TV critics writing and previews published about episodes all the time. The cut-and-paste episode list needs to go as a copyvio, I'm actually gonna nuke that now. But keep under the policy of WP:IAR as a presumed pass of GNG. Carrite (talk) 16:10, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The episode list could probably have been kept. A list like this is "mere facts", not subject to copyright unless there is some creative aspect like selection or sequencing, which does not apply in this case. But I see no good reason to keep it - way too much detail. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:01, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is essentially a GNG pass from footnotes already showing, actually. Carrite (talk) 16:13, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the article about the TV series, it is wp:notable. If the tavern is notable, then a new article should be created, not the current one overwritten. Perhaps this article could be renamed, but if so Dog and Duck should be a disambiguation page as there are many Dog and Duck pubs.Martin451 (talk) 21:41, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment At risk of causing further confusion, I have moved the article to Dog and Duck (TV series) and pointed the inbound links to that title. Assuming the decision is to keep the TV show article, the "Dog and Duck" redirect can be converted to a disambiguation page. Several pubs by this name may turn out to be notable. Readers may well be looking for one that is open today rather than the London one demolished in 1811. I see at least one book with this title. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:55, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • A good idea, but the move should ideally have waited until after the AFD was closed. GiantSnowman 15:17, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The fine work of Aymatth has proved my gut feeling right. Both the TV series and tavern are notable and the sensible dabbing has been done.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 18:41, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why? The article about the pub is not up for discussion. GiantSnowman 19:07, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I thought and that's also why I think it is likely to be correct there is no AFD template there. Thincat (talk) 19:12, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Like Yes! We Have No Bananas. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:22, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you know that the page about the tavern has now been nominated? It seemed best to pursue that separately now that the TV show topic has found some support. Warden (talk) 10:06, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... which has precisely zero relevance to this AfD. Dricherby (talk) 10:48, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • As explained above, now that the tavern page is well-established, the cut/paste edit which ties the two pages means that this one cannot be deleted without further work. See WP:COPYWITHIN. Warden (talk) 11:19, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...and if you hadn't attempted to hijack the article, none of these problems would have arisen. GiantSnowman 11:26, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I had not taken action at prod patrol, the page would have been quietly deleted and we'd have nothing instead of multiple articles which now show good promise. All's well that ends well... Warden (talk) 11:33, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Never demolished to make way for a hospital, nor a war museum, but equally special, I'm sure. And probably far more significant to many toddlers of the 1990s. Not sure why CW is getting quite so much flak - surely two good articles are better than one poor one. [71] Martinevans123 (talk) 18:23, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable series, broadcast on minor network. Refs are passing, press releases or industry-related. Miniapolis 00:58, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I assume the above comment is facetious. The show was broadcast nationally on CITV, a programming block of the ITV Network, between 1999 and 2001. Until 2005 ITV was the most widely watched network in the U.K., ahead of BBC One. As stated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Broadcast media, "Television series broadcast nationally by a major network or produced by a major studio are usually kept as they are considered notable." The cited books and other sources do indeed discuss the industry, as one would expect. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:24, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
CITV is a subsidiary of ITV, and does not have the latter's viewership numbers; it's a niche channel. Miniapolis 02:07, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
CITV is Children's ITV. It is not a "niche channel" but a programming block carried on the main ITV channel at times when children are likely to be watching. TV series, even when broadcast nationally by a major network as this one was, never reach 100% of the network's audience. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:31, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 speedily deleted by User:RHaworth under criterion G11 (unambiguous advertising or promotion). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Usman khokhar[edit]

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

Opening AfD for same reason: Is not a notable person & no RS to be found. Tyros1972 Talk 08:21, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Repeatedly created self-promotional article about a person with no evidence of notability. The references in the article are dead links, and the web site they refer to is a site for hosting personal web pages. I can find no source at all for the claim that he is a Naib Nazim, i.e a deputy mayor, which is the only claim to significance in the article. (In any case, per WP:POLITICIAN, even if he were a deputy mayor, that would not be enough notability.) The article was subject to a PROD, which for some reason Tyros1972 replaced by this AfD. JamesBWatson (talk)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#A7 JohnCD (talk) 14:45, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Frank JD Lee[edit]

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

Who is this "Frank JD Lee"? I see him on Wiki (this page), Flicker, LinkedIN...any RS? Looks like a self pub bio to me. Tyros1972 Talk 08:19, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Why is this at AFD, we don't have enough to do already? Looks like a clear CSD A7 to me, or else a BLP PROD, as there aren't any sources. --Randykitty (talk) 08:52, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete no credible assertion of any bona fide notability. Taroaldo ✉ 09:17, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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) czar · · 08:14, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Aluminium museum[edit]

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

Unable to find any RS on this except user created (facebook etc.), as stands is not notable. Tyros1972 Talk 08:14, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I had no difficulty finding a selection of reliable sources in Norwegian on this museum. Have added a brief description of the museum, the history, and visiting, with 3 references. There are plenty more available. I'd suggest renaming the article to "Holmestrand Aluminium Museum" which is its usual name. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:45, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've added regional newspaper coverage. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:36, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Article has been expanded and notability established (thanks to Chiswick Chap and Yngvadottir). jonkerz ♠talk 19:11, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Per WP:SK#3, the nominator is a sockpuppet of a blocked user. No one has seconded deletion, so this dicussion is speedily closed. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 00:54, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eugene Kobylinsky[edit]

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

Entire article is original research. User:Ikeepforgettingmyaccountspassword (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I've fixed this nomination with a sub-heading and templates. Stalwart111 14:55, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clearly existed (as a brief search will determine) and played a significant role in a major event in world history. Just because an article is unreferenced does not mean it is original research, as a quick glance at that policy will reveal. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:40, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Completely unreferenced? Yes. Original research? No, not really. The article needs attention, not deletion.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 14, 2013; 13:30 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep - nominator is an obvious WP:SOCK of DogsHeadFalls. Stalwart111 03:33, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Per WP:SK#3, the nominator is a sockpuppet of a blocked user. No one has seconded deletion, so this discussion is speedily closed. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 00:56, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vasily Yakovlev[edit]

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

This article has not had a single source since being created in 2011, and there is no evidence that this is anything but original research. User:Ikeepforgettingmyaccountspassword (talk, contribs), 08:46, 13 June 2013 Original AfD creation was done without templates or signature so I've fixed that. Dricherby (talk) 09:34, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have added two references located using Google Books on the title of this article, though both relate to a single incident: the subject's role in the last days of the Russian Czar. However I have also linked to the Russian Wikipedia article on this person, which is under his birth name (Konstantin Alekseyevich Mâčin) and carries more references. This is an improvable article and I see no strong reason for deletion. AllyD (talk) 05:30, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clearly existed and held a senior rank in the Red Army (and thus meets WP:SOLDIER). Just because an article is unreferenced does not mean it is original research, as a quick glance at that policy will reveal. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:43, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep per WP:SNOWBALL. Safiel (talk) 02:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jinnah Barrage[edit]

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

Isn't notable as is, just 1 sentence and does not seem to be going anywhere. Tyros1972 Talk 07:50, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep This is a major barrage on one of the world's major rivers. Exceeds the generally low notability standard with dams and hydroelectric projects. I added two references and will expand more in the coming days.--NortyNort (Holla) 21:48, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable enough . Allow time to for improvement .Shyamsunder (talk) 23:04, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep tagged for deletion 24 hours after being started, with a silly deletion rationale and no WP:BEFORE. Cavarrone 07:58, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 20:41, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Conservatory of the Ozarks[edit]

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

This "fine arts academy" is a non-notable small business. Much of the article serves only to promote the entity. Taroaldo ✉ 07:17, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nn self promotion as per nom Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:18, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Every one of the places in this category are businesses Category:Music_schools_in_New_York. Yes it is a small business, but I think it is more than that by its nature as a school. Places that teach art are different than places that peddle knick-knacks, because they have lasting impact on the communities they teach.Jacqke (talk) 08:24, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG. Schools and "places that teach art" do not get automatic acceptance. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:51, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the article even admits that it's a small business. Seems to be pretty clear. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:32, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please explain, with specific examples, how it meets WP:GNG. In fact, the subject clearly appears to fail GNG. Taroaldo ✉ 20:00, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. The debate has gone on for a while, and regardless of the revised WP:NSONGS, it passes GNG. Bearian (talk) 17:31, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Poison (Beyoncé Knowles song)[edit]

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

Non-notable song - sources cited are basic writing and production credits etc, and a few critical reviews. It charted only on a Korean chart specific to international songs - hardly an important or noteworthy chart. Adabow (talk) 06:45, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. 06:45, 13 June 2013 (UTC) Adabow (talk) 06:45, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Adabow, charting is not a requirement. It charted at number one on a national chart, we don't distinguish between types of charts or say that some charts are more important than others. A chart is a chart, no matter what country or what position it charts at. I wish people would learn the rules before nominating a load of noteworthy articles which pass guidelines. It's getting very tiresome and petty now.

Songs and singles may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria:

  1. Has been the subject[1] of multiple, non-trivial[2] published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. This excludes media reprints of press releases, or other publications where the artist, its record label, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the work.[3] Green tickY
  2. Has been ranked on national or significant music or sales charts. Green tickY
  3. Has won one or more significant awards or honors. Wasn't a single, so no.
  4. Has been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands, or groups. Wasn't a single, so not as many people would know about it.

It passes WP:GNG and WP:NSONGS. It passes two our of four for the latter, I might add, as demonstrated above. It's also not good faith to AfD for a GA nominee.  — AARON • TALK 11:17, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Meeting one of those criteria don't make a song notable; while the notability guidelines are indeed very helpful in measuring and judging notability, at then end of the day the question is: is there a wide audience which knows of the subject and is interested in learning the finer details? Articles like this are essentially fancruft compilations of album reviews. Nothing "stands out" about this song. If people want a song on every album track for an artist they should create a relevant wiki; Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a fan forum. Adabow (talk) 21:39, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it does, that's the whole point of the guideline, that it meets at least one of them. Exactly, this is an encyclopaedia, it's not a bias article, so it's not a "fan forum". You can't argue this I'm afraid.  — AARON • TALK 23:15, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Aaron. It has been backed up by multiple non-trivial references (7, 9, 11, 13), this and as it topped South Korea, this song satisfies the "Songs and singles may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria". It may be notable as it meets two points of NSONGS; win an award or receive a cover does not always happen, even with singles. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 04:49, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that it meets the criteria set out by NSONGS, which means that it "may be notable". However, the article basically consists of writing/production credits, album reviews and a charting. The credits are already included in the I Am... Sasha Fierce article, there is probably a mention of the critique of this song in the critical reception section of that article, and the charting could be mentioned there if necessary (though it is pretty minor...). Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and to me this article seems superfluous. (To be honest, I think editors' time would be better spent raising the quality of existing articles, rather than delving into every obscure nook and cranny of possible articles... but I'm getting off topic here) Adabow (talk) 06:47, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, may be notable if it meets one of the four points, and it meets two. If it didn't meet any, then it may not be notable (but it's highly unlikely that an article would not meet at least one). You've just said it meets the criteria, so you really haven't got a leg to stand on now.  — AARON • TALK 12:35, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The song is notable enough and it was a chart-topper in South Korea. It's not like it peaked outside the top 50. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 16:38, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or redirect to the album, either I Am... Sasha Fierce or whatever else it's from. Songs from notable albums are good redirects if they don't qualify for their own articles. Nyttend (talk) 19:41, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect to the album (redirect per Nyttend). I really don't see enough convincing independent "Poison"-only sources to make this notable on its own, and charting is inherently dubious when dealing with South Korea and their unusual system. Notability is not guaranteed by meeting one or more of the "may be notable" criteria listed in WP:NSONGS, it just means it might be possible; Aaron's interpretation that two criteria means it's automatically notable is simply wrong. I'm also not convinced this meets WP:GNG. (Incidentally, a GA nomination is not a get-out-of-jail-free card; articles should be notable, and a number of GA-nominated articles have proven not to be in the past.) Additionally, I think it's a serious matter that the article's Charts section is seriously flawed: its assumption that source 15 covers January through April looks wrong to me, when a clear look at what would be February (2.2010) would make it clear that it isn't February at all, since there's no way that any single would sell over 337 million copies (the country has only 50 million people), much less in 28 days. And since "Poison" was released in February and supposedly made number 1 for at least one week—I can't get that chart data to display on my screen when I access source 14, and don't see the name "Beyonce" anywhere, much less "Poison", so I'm AGFing on this one, though I think a 2011 access date in the ref for a 2013 article is odd—it would almost certainly have sold better in that month than any other. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:34, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Supposedly" ? You can't access it because you can't be bothered to find out how to. It's a bit of a poor excuse. Ask someone, and I'm sure they would help.  — AARON • TALK 09:59, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you'll read carefully, you'll see I said I was AGFing it. And, if you'd wanted to be helpful, you could have explained how, since simply clicking on the link in the ref doesn't work, and that's the standard method. (Some refs that require more than a simple click do explain how the info can be found, which makes them useful for ordinary readers.) Thanks anyway. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:01, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had actually already tried that before I posted my initial comment, clicking on the Gaon weekly link, selecting the year 2010 and the week 2010.02.07-2010.02.13: I get a pop-up with what I assume is an error in Korean and no listing. I've tried other weeks, and the earliest week I can get to work is 2010.04.11-2010.04.17; testing half a dozen others before then gets the same pop-up as the week we're looking for. Does that February 7, 2010 date work for you? BlueMoonset (talk) 23:18, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It does work because I've seen Poison at number before when I've been going through week by week. The website isn't working for me right now, I'll try again tomorrow.  — AARON • TALK 01:08, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect to parent album. Aside from the usual personnel info from the album booklet and various comments compiled from reviews of Sasha Fierce, this article appears to contain no other information about the song other its than inclusion on a (non-notable) DatPiff mixtape, two sentences about composition, and a placement on a relatively minor Korean international downloads chart. A third of the sources used in the article are from album booklets and listings of the album on digital retailers (in fact, a majority of the background section is duplication of the personnel section in prose form). It should be noted that just because a song may pass a criterion of WP:NSONGS or WP:GNG does not automatically make it notable. Having taken a look at the article's content, I don't think the song has enough stand-alone information to warrant an entire article. Holiday56 (talk) 15:14, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Important note: the WP:NSONGS criteria have just changed—an RFC on the change was closed today after being open for well over two months, and the new wording is in place. The Poison article, to my mind, is even more clearly non-notable under the revised guidelines, and some of the arguments made above are no longer applicable as they relied on the old wording. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:39, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 07:20, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Đulijano Camaj[edit]

Đulijano Camaj (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(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 Zeta played in the Champions League 2007-08. However, Mr. Camaj did not appear in any of Zeta's matches meaning this does not grant notability, and since the matches were in qualifying they would not have done so even if he had. A second objection was that Zeta are a fully pro club. This may be the case, but since the league in which they play is not (see WP:FPL) this does not confer notability per WP:NSPORT either. More importantly, he has not received sufficient coverage in reliable sources to meet the general notability guideline. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:53, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:54, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 07:18, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kristijan Jajalo[edit]

Kristijan Jajalo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(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 without a reason being provided. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:41, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:42, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. The community appears to be evenly split about whether this is an indiscriminate list or whether sufficient sourcing about this topic exists to satisfy WP:LISTN. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:44, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of unusual deaths[edit]

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

OR, suffers from a terminal case of WP:RECENT. List is totally subjective, and as a result is essentially limitless. Initally appears to be well-sourced, but more than a few of the references are of dubious quality (Everything2.com, trivia-library.com, howstuffworks.com, several personal blogs, and irretrievable dead links, plus a whole passel of references to snopes.com, instead of the original sources from which snopes drew their data). Article cannot realistically be preserved in its current form, as the subject is too broad and subjective to limit criteria for inclusion. Horologium (talk) 04:30, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - very few keep arguments in the past 4 AfDs have been policy-based (more WP:ILIKEIT), while the delete arguments have been policy-based. Article suffers from WP:OR and can't help but fall under WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Also agree with nom. Ansh666 04:44, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • And from the below, I see that this AfD follows the pattern of the previous couple, though I see a couple (intentional or not) invocations of WP:IAR too, which I may agree with. Ansh666 20:42, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the nominations in the box on the right are quite out of order. I'll leave you to figure which is which, but they're really all the same in any case. Ansh666 04:44, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 06:31, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Why is that case "terminal"? Recent examples, hastily added, are usualy removed. The list is not "totally subjective" - editors have worked hard to establish objective criteria for inclusion - maybe that should be made clearer. List is not "limitless" in any way. By all means add those "original sources from which snopes drew their data" lack of good references is not an argument for article deletion. So this articke has survived 4 AfDs? Even with few supporting arguments? Additionally there have been recent concerted efforts to improve it. Seems you just don't like it. Martinevans123 (talk) 06:44, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. If there have been four previous AfDs, why is this one the 2nd? Martinevans123 (talk) 07:20, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That would be because of a quirk in the way that Twinkle sets up XFD nominations. It looks for numeric ordinals (2nd, 3rd, 4th) in titles when checking to see if there are previous nominations, and the second, third, and fourth discussions were all spelled out, rather than numbered with an ordinal suffix. Since the whole process of creating the discussion was automated, I didn't realize until after the fact that it generated a "duplicate" nomination. I'm not sure if we can simply rename this discussion as the fifth nomination and leave redirects from "2nd nomination", but I'm not sure if that would break anything. Horologium (talk) 16:50, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation. Provided there are no undesirable side-effects then, yes, I think it certainly should be re-named. Otherwise it's a bit misleading, isn't it? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:44, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the inherent, unavoidable weakness in this list is the impossibility of defining "unusual" precisely. Result is what we see - an indiscriminate list suffering badly from recentism. Without solid list inclusion criteria, this list will always grow according to editors' whims, whenever they find something vaguely "unusual", and no amount of pruning will fix the problem. Deletion is the correct solution for this ill-formed list. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:57, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I quite agree that large-scale pruning will not necessarily solve the problem. Are you aware of the current informally agreed criteria for inclusion? Why couldn't these be formalised and made more explicit? Why not try to agree what "unusual" means in this context? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:08, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then deletion is certainly the only option. I've never been asked about informal criteria before: such a thing would be quite inadequate to prevent listcruft, and there is no basis for it. The criteria for any list are those stated at the top of the article and indeed named in the title. Here we have "This list includes unique or extremely rare circumstances of death recorded throughout history, noted as being unusual by multiple sources. Some of the deaths are mythological or are considered to be unsubstantiated by contemporary researchers. Some other articles also cover deaths that might be considered unusual or ironic". This is a multiple, overlapping or widely discrete, subjective, and unenforceable set of criteria. To reply to your question directly, we can't redefine the word "unusual", and even if we tried, people would just add whatever they felt was unusual. That way madness lies. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:29, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When did you last add an entry to the list? Were you challenged by RedPenofDoom to provide two WP:RS which used the word "unusual" (or a synonym)? I was suggesting a narrowing of the definition of the word "unusual". Surely, contributors should be expected to read instructions given for valid inclusion? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:08, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do hope that wasn't a personal attack, please recall the policy; the question at the start of your entry is not relevant. I understand the wish to narrow the criteria, but it is not feasible in this case. The instructions as written are so vague that they are probably being complied with almost 100%, and the criteria cannot be tightened because "unusual" is intrinsically subjective. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:24, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Which part of my comment could be construed as "a personal attack"? Surely the term "unusual" coud be defined, and is defined in some fields, with regard to a categorisation by strict pecentage of occurrence? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:34, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see another editor is also finding your conduct uncivil. I meant, asking when I added an entry - it's not relevant. "Unusual" can be redefined as much as anyone likes, it will not solve the problem. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:47, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Could you explain why my reply to you above is "uncivil"? I think it was far easier for anyone, you and me included, to add items to this list over a year ago. User:TheRedPenOfDoom has expended a great deal of time and energy in trying to tighten up the threshold, Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:31, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"i worked so hard" is not a valid rationale, and given all the hard work the fact that there has been no improvement of its encyclopedic and objective standards for criteria are actually more proof that it is an unworkable premise. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:45, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to thank you personally for all the hard work you've done there, RPoD. It's made a big improvement. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:31, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Indiscriminate and unmanageable listcruft. Inclusion criteria are and will always be purely subjective. ANY death can be described as "unusual", and the use of that word by a journalist even in a reliable source is nothing more than a personal opinion, almost always based on ignorance. Whether a particular death has been described by someone as "unusual" is purely trivial and not at all encyclopedic, jsut like calling something "cool" or "funny". Furthermore, having read through all of the previous AfD's, I have never seen an argument that doesn't boil down to WP:ILIKEIT or WP:ITSINTERESTING. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 10:20, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So are you saying that all deaths are equally unsual and that it's mere ignorance to pretend otherwise? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:34, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is very incivil of you to attempt to put words in my mouth and create a strawman argument. I gave my reasons for why the article should be deleted. They do not need elaboration, nor will I provide any. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 10:40, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was trying to understand your argument. I still am. I'm sorry if you find that "very incivil". Martinevans123 (talk) 15:24, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have also read back through all the previous AfDs. It seems editors now simply see articles which are merely "interesting", "captivating", "useful", "amusing" or "quirky" as unencyclopedic rubbish that should be stamped out. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:46, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - we had a similar case with Exotic weaponry (which was more accurately a List of exotic weaponry) - AFD here. Given different people have different understandings of the term "unusual", what might be unusual to some might be completely ordinary to others. Including that subjective adjective is always going to create problems. Stalwart111 15:14, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete - as current the "criteria" lead to a completely indiscriminate and nonobjective collection of cruft. All efforts to actually try and find some type of consensus on criteria that might not be subjective are stonewalled and derailed. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:01, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I had thought that your suggested criteria of two WP:RS sources describing any death as "unusual" (or a suitable synonym), and of holding what appeared to be "likely candidates" which lacked suitable sources in s separate holding area, were very good steps in the right direction. I did not realise that these informal agreements had been "stonewalled and derailed". It's begining to look like, even if the objective bases of this article could be improved and fornalised, many editors think it's not worth the effort. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:23, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You and I had begun coalescing towards something like that as a test run to see if it would indeed be feasible, but there was no sign that any of the others were at all open to agreeing to accept that type of structure and definition. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:38, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The movement to the "holding pen" had nothing to do with any agreement or not about list criteria - it was just basic WP:V and WP:OR. People were mad that content that didn't even meet basic policy for content was being removed, and so the "second chance" step was added. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:33, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But still a perfetly good practical idea that has its merits. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:49, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Utterly subjective inclusion parameter. People jumping to their death off the World Trade Center after it was hit by a suicide attack? That was unusual and those were deaths. Oh, what about that guy that jumped out of an airplane with a camera to film skydivers but forgot to strap a parachute on himself? Definitely unusual and another death. Then again, there are people that get crushed on sidewalks every now and then by drivers having a medical emergency. That's unusual and those are deaths, each one. Oh, but you say, that's not all that unusual, because it happens frequently, even though each situation is different. So it's not that unusual. Or is it. This is basically a rag-bag trivia category, not an encyclopedic topic, and does not fit WP's pretty well established informal standard that lists must be limited in nature with coherent inclusion criteria. Carrite (talk) 16:56, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, most people would not really see "unusual" as a very "encyclopedic" word. I'm not denyimg that the word can be problematic. It just seems a shame that most of those here recommending to delete seem wholly unaware of, or at least give no credence to, the sincere and prolonged efforts to work towards basing the article more soundly on objective criteria. I wonder also how many wanting deletion have ever contributed or even wanted to contribute to the article. Or maybe I'm being "uncivil" again for even wondering this. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:36, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The claim that this is difficult to define exactly is not a reason to delete because many or most topics have this character. For example, see List of rivers by length. This is the sort of information that is routinely found in reference works but, as our article explains, there are many problems of definition and there is not even an exact definition of a river, as opposed to a creek or stream. The test for such a list is not whether it is difficult or not but whether, per WP:LISTN, other reliable media have made such lists. If they have then we are in good company and we can use those other lists as a model and source. Now the topic of strange or unusual deaths has been covered by other people and here's a selection of sources which prove it:
  1. Strange Deaths
  2. Curious and Unusual Deaths
  3. Mysterious Deaths and Disappearances
  4. The Fortean Times Book of Strange Deaths
  5. The Fortean Times Book of More Strange Deaths
  6. Strange Deaths: More Than 375 Freakish Fatalites
  7. Strange Inhuman Deaths
  8. Curious Events in History
  9. Dreadful Fates
  10. Daft Deaths and Famous Last Words
The ease with which one can find substantial sources and the repeated keeping of the topic in previous nominations demonstrate that this is very much a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:NOTAGAIN. Warden (talk) 01:33, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, do you really think List of rivers by length is a comparable article? Length is definitive, not subjective. There is an important caveat in that article - "Even when detailed maps are available, the length measurement is not always clear." - which is obviously true, but the distinction there is the different methods of calculation and arguments about whether to include tributaries or not. It's not List of interesting rivers or List of awesome lakes, both of which would be based on a personal opinion of what it interesting or awesome, just like this article relied on a subjective opinion of what is unusual. For example, the article includes a fellow from the 16th century who shot himself with his own bow and arrow. That would be unusual by today's standards (when accidental bow deaths would be rare) but the modern equivalent (misadventure involving a firearm) is fairly common and I would venture to suggest misadventure with a bow and arrow would have been more common when the weapons themselves were more common. Stalwart111 02:12, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I gotta agree with Stalwart. The two aren't comparable. Length is a defined characteristic. Better comparisons to list of rivers by length would be "List of people who were assassinated", "List of people who were poisoned", "List of people who died in auto accidents", etc pbp 00:04, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The rivers are far more debatable and variable. A river is a fractal and so its length depends upon the length of your measuring stick. And a river keeps changing its course and varies with the rainfall. As Heraclitus famously said, "You cannot step twice into the same river; for other waters are continually flowing in." Deaths, on the other hand, are quite well-recorded and regulated by means of death certificates, coroner's courts, health statistics, &c. The case of the archer is sourced to 10 strange ways Tudors died. That source is the BBC, which is a byword for reliability, and they based the article upon the work of a professional historian who researched coroner's reports of the 16th century. Such a source is an excellent one for this purpose and your personal opinion of the manner of death is not acceptable because I suppose you are not a professional historian or reputable media organisation.
This article has existed for nearly 10 years now and has been tested at AFD many times before. I have looked at it myself more than once because it is featured at WP:UNUSUAL. It seems quite stable and the entries from antiquity are literally classic. For example, the case of Draco, who was smothered by the cloaks of well-wishers, was reported originally by Plutarch and has been included in many encyclopedia. He is the lawyer from whom we get the word draconian and a draconian punishment is one which is too severe. Deleting this article after so many years of effort and after so many editors have expressed a desire to keep it would be draconian. Our deletion policy explicitly says "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hopes of getting a different outcome." It suggests that blocking is an appropriate punishment for such disruption. That would be draconian too but I can see some sense in it as it is clearly quite discouraging and damaging to the project to have long-standing, substantial, good-faith work based upon reliable sources treated in this way.
Warden (talk) 07:21, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
bringing up multiple publications from the Fortean Times to support any position of "notable" does not help your cause. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:45, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Fortean Times specialises in coverage of the bizarre and unusual and so is an appropriate source. The fact that it has multiple volumes of this stuff extracted from its periodical demonstrates the notability of the concept. That's what notability means - that the topic has been noticed and written about. Warden (talk) 04:49, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously I'm not a, "professional historian or reputable media organisation", though it wouldn't matter if I were. I'm not suggesting the event didn't happen and I agree the account itself is reliably sourced (and I agree with your assessment with the BBC as a reliable source). My issue is with the subjectivity of unusual, just as my issue was with the subjectivity of exotic in the AFD I cited. The article you cite says it all, as far as I'm concerned - there were 56 such bow-related accidental deaths in the same coroner's records. Such that it doesn't even seem uncommon, let alone unusual. I'll leave addressing arguments about article age or popularity with readers to others. Stalwart111 08:21, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The BBC found the incident strange and it is then not subjective for us to summarise this independent and reliable opinion. You do not, I trust, dispute that words such as unusual, strange and bizarre may be considered equivalent for this purpose? Warden (talk) 08:31, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is equivalency, sure, but I think you might have stumbled onto the problem. The source seems to suggest that accidental bow-related deaths were not unusual, though that particular case was "strange". We've included it in an article of unusual deaths, despite the contradiction. It's probably not the only item in the list with the same issues. There's an entry about a woman who died from exposure to carbon tetrachloride, a chemical dangerous enough to be banned two decades later. And another about a case of immurement (not unusual, to my knowledge) but because the victim was a prince, it made the list. It was perhaps unusual for princes to die that way, but the death itself doesn't seem unusual. Stalwart111 09:29, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • My God, that's a spooky photograph at the immurement article - thanks for the link. This is what we're trying to do in the project - provide information in an accessible way through a variety of links and lists. We do not have to be mathematically exact because this is impossible for most topics, especially in the humanities - perfect is the enemy of good. So long as it's fairly clear what the reader is being given and good sources are provided then we are achieving our goal. And note that categories are far from perfect too, as the recent fuss about the list of American novelists showed. We need lists and categories to help us navigate this mountain of information. There will always be difficulties of classification and completeness but imperfection is explicitly allowed by policy. Warden (talk) 09:49, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia is quite populist and that's one reason it has been so successful. It is explicit policy that "Texts should be written for everyday readers, not for academics." DYK has a believe-it-or-not style which is deliberately intended to draw readers in. We regularly have curiosities as Featured Articles such as the Tichborne case, Icelandic Phallological Museum and the green children of Woolpit. We have plenty of dull stuff too and there's room for it all. By mixing the two, we season our educational content which is useless if no-one reads it. By browsing this list, readers will be exposed to content about ancient philosophers and pankratiasts; archers and aristocrats. How else are you going to encourage readers to read about people like Philitas of Cos, who studied his arguments so intently that he wasted away and starved to death? Time for lunch! Warden (talk) 10:50, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Glad to see we still have articles for Ripley's Believe It or Not! and the Darwin Awards. Maybe the public think Wikipedia articles are more reliable or believable than the material at those two places? Do you honestly think that having this one article in some way devalues or contaminates he other 4,256,787? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:55, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, and I don't think I suggested it has a relative impact on the value of other articles. I think there is value in covering the stories/events themselves (well, most of them - some of them are badly sourced BLP violations) but this list, with its difficult to define criteria, is a problem. For the Colonel - I'm fine with curiosities (hell, I've helped write about plenty of them) but I have an issue with lists and other things that rely on personal interpretation or opinion or, in this case, a lack of understanding about the commonality of some things. I had exactly the same problem with this AFD where the article was built on "reliable sources" (major newspapers, magazines, etc) that nonetheless were simply speculating on who might get the gig. In that instance, uninformed personal opinion (even from otherwise reliable sources) wasn't enough. But I'll make the point here that I made there. The entries in this list are based on someone's opinion that the death was unusual. If I can find a reliable source of equal weight that says immurement was usual and thus Sado's death was not unusual, can I remove that entry from the list? If I can demonstrate (with RS) that carbon tetrachloride exposure caused enough deaths for it to be banned (it did and it was), can I remove Margo Jones' death on the basis that hers was simply one of many and not at all "unusual"? Can I remove Breitbart if I can show that while his injury might have been silly, a death in the 1920s from blood poisoning would have been far from "unusual"? You see what I'm getting at, right? Stalwart111 01:34, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • One might dispute particular entries but that's not a reason to delete. I've checked out the case of Prince Sado. His death by being encased in a rice chest until he suffocated was the only incident of its kind in the 500 year history of that dynasty. The king improvised this because ordinary execution would have reflected badly upon his dynasty and the prince refused to commit suicide. I see good sources describing it as unusual and so it qualifies. Other people may have been killed in a similar way in other places but that's ok because we are not claiming that these deaths are unique. Where a form of death has happened repeatedly but is still reported as unusual in some way, then it would make sense to link to an article about the method of death and give some notable case as an example. My favourite from WP:UNUSUAL is execution by elephant! Warden (talk) 09:50, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that's funny. Stalwart111 10:37, 15 June 2013 (UTC) [reply]


  • Praise by Time magazine
I found this on the talk page:
So that's the Time magazine selecting this particular article as especially worthy of praise on Wikipedia's 10th birthday. That's quite an accolade. Can any of the nay-sayers produce a reliable source which condemns the article and suggests that it should be deleted? Warden (talk) 07:45, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see "encyclopedic" among those acolades. Or anything even remotely similar. Just WP:ITSINTERESTING. Sorry, but that's all that your arguments boils down to. We're not here to provide entertainment. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:59, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the word "entertainment" either. The actual words they use are "fascinating" and "unforgettable". What do you think they'd call it if they found that this had been deleted? As for WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC, that's an argument to avoid. And there are actually numerous encyclopedia about death and dying. Warden (talk) 09:13, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note also that, not just mainstream media, but also the general readership quite like this article as it seems to get over a million hits each year. A tiny number of nit-picking naysayers should not be allowed to disrupt this. Warden (talk) 09:38, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
again, "it's popular!" and "the fans like it" are not reasons why we have encyclopedia articles. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:45, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The point here is not that I like it but that Time Magazine does. When an article reaches this level of acceptance and reference, we have a duty to maintain it. Deleting the article would cause link rot for sites which reference it. Link rot is a big problem for us and we should not contribute to it. Warden (talk) 05:01, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • rofl - i think i missed it when the Pillars and Wikipedia charter were amended to include part of our duty as an encyclopedia to keep external site's links live. Can you point me to that? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:59, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (edit conflict) I'm surprised people want to delete one of the top 5000 articles on WP. This entry has been viewed 388,358 times in the last 90 days!! -- Hillbillyholiday talk 09:41, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is an invalid argument and should be ignored. You don't keep something based on the number of hits it gets. pbp 00:12, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Allow me to expand. I typed a rather long reply, but accidentally clicked the window shut and lost my wall of text (It was so interesting and informative, not to mention hugely entertaining, but unfortunately, since it has been deleted, you will just have to take my word for it).
To help keep it brief, I shall (for the first time ever) use some of the bewildering array of acronyms and abbreviations which we have on offer here at WP:
WP:RECENT, WP:UNENCYC, WP:ILIKEIT or WP:IDLI = WP:Essays and WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (needs acronym)
WP:Commonsense > WP:IAR? > WP:IAR = WP:5 = WP:Policy
Perhaps this is all a cunning joke, and WP:AfD actually stands for WP:April Fools Day in this case? -- Hillbillyholiday talk 04:39, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Typical case of "hey, let's nominate something I don't like again and again till it goes away". As clarified above, the concept of "unusual death" is notable, well sourced and well set in stone by reliable sources. I fully agree with Colonel Warden above, especially in the "perfect enemy of the good" problem: if we either have absolutely undisputable criteria or remove the article, we end up with basically no category or no list. The Time article and this AfD, juxtaposed, shows how much the average AfD regular is far removed from the readers they should think about. --Cyclopiatalk 13:19, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The fact that people default go to Wikipedia for things that are not encyclopedic does not alter the fact that we are an encyclopedia and WP:NOT Ripley's Believe it or Not and we shouldnt cater to people coming here for the wrong things just because its traffic.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:54, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • "not encyclopedic" is a circular non-argument, basically amounting to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Entire books are made on the topic, so it's hardly unnotable nonsense. Also I find it incredibly arrogant that you can decide what are the "right" and "wrong" things people should look up on Wikipedia. I think we should serve our readers, not be their patronizing gatekeepers between "right" and "wrong" knowledge. --Cyclopiatalk 15:24, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
entire libraries can be filled with books of pictures of naked women. that doesn't mean that we should have "Naked Woman of the Day" article just because it would be very popular and highly trafficked. And it wasnt me that created WP:NOT, it was the community long before I started and has been sustained by wide community consensus. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:28, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But WP:NOT has little to do with this discussion. I am not saying that popularity alone is an inclusion criteria. I am saying (1)that this is a notable subject covered by lots of sources, and as such it deserves a place by our policies and guidelines (2)that this particular subject seems to be considered by the readers (including highly reputable readers like the Time magazine) one of our highlights, and this, while not being alone a criteria for keeping, should still be kept in mind when we do these debates. That is, whenever we decide to keep or remove an article, we should also think: Is this a good decision for our readers? --Cyclopiatalk 15:36, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
NOT is certainly relevant to this discussion. Having a source is only one of the requirements for having an article. Being encyclopedic, as NOT points out, is another. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:29, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What actually NOT says is: "In any encyclopedia, information cannot be included solely for being true or useful. An encyclopedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details. Rather, an article is a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject" - Good. And in fact, "a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject" is what this list is. There is nothing in WP:NOT against this article, unless perhaps you conflate "what I personally think does not belong in my Platonic idea of encyclopedia" with "things that obviously should never be in an encyclopedia, like original research or blogs"--Cyclopiatalk 19:29, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What WP:NOT also actually says is "Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia and, as a means to that end, an online community of individuals interested in building and using a high-quality encyclopedia in a spirit of mutual respect. Therefore, there are certain things that Wikipedia is not." and "In any encyclopedia, information cannot be included solely because it is true or useful.... Although there are debates about the encyclopedic merits of several classes of entries, consensus is that the following are good examples of what Wikipedia is not. The examples under each section are not intended to be exhaustive." -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:10, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like evidence in support of keeping. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:23, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cyclopia, this is not a case of "hey, let's nominate something I don't like again and again till it goes away", and thanks for the heaping helping of ABF. I knew that this had been nominated for deletion before, but I didn't check to see that it had been nominated *four times*. I saw only the first one (which I encountered by chance), and was utterly unconvinced by the "keep" arguments, some of which are not considered viable answers any more. (Remember that that first AFD was seven years ago, and inclusion standards have changed since that time.) While the current version of the article is fully sourced (unlike the version which went through AFD in 2006), some of the sourcing is dodgy, and regardless of how many people read this or find it fascinating (I do), the scope of the article is subjective. There are plenty of deaths listed that I don't find to be particularly unusual, and there are deaths which I do find unusual which are not listed (or in some cases have been removed). "Unusual" can't be quantified, and a reporter using the value judgement of "unusual" in his or her prose does not make it so. Horologium (talk) 18:08, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why fall into your own trap so easily, Horologium, and expect us to do likewise? No one is interested what you personally think of the entries. We're interested in what WP:RS sources say about them. We are also not interested in whether what a reliable reporter says is true, only in the fact that they have said it. If you think references are "dodgy", thenwhy not suggest moving an entry into the holding area until more or better refs can be found. If they can't be found, it will stay out of the article. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:44, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If you have a problem with any of the entries discuss it on the talk page. Reliable sources have been found that call these things "unusual" deaths. Dream Focus 01:06, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
People have a problem with a good number of the entries - for me, it's probably about 1/2 of them - and with the subjective inclusion criteria for the rest, so the article is being discussed here. Reliable sources are also available that suggest many of the deaths are not unusual at all and many of the entries seem to have been included only because the person involved was famous, not because their death was particularly unusual. Stalwart111 02:04, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • 270 BC: Philitas of Cos, Greek intellectual, is said by Athenaeus to have studied arguments and erroneous word usage so intensely that he wasted away and starved to death. British classicist Alan Cameron speculates that Philitas died from a wasting disease which his contemporaries joked was caused by his pedantry.

-- Hillbillyholiday talk 02:32, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • How ridiculous very unusual. Obviously complete fiction. How could anyone waste hours and hours arguing over pedantic word useage and nit-picking trivia. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:13, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A popular and highly encyclopedia entry, as per the abundance of secondary on the subject. Im not seeing any merit in the case for deletion on OR grounds. There's no such thing as terminal recentism. WP:RECENT issues can be sorted by adding historical perspective. As for subjectivity, subjective judgment is always needed to build articles. A great many topics have so much written about them in reliable sources that they're effectively limitless. Our policies help, but ultimately its the subjective judgment of editors that determine what makes it into an article. It's a shame we don't have an inverse equivelent of 'salt', which would let us prevent further time wasting nominations of this article. FeydHuxtable (talk) 07:58, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blocks have been suggested. But apparently these would be draconian, not salt. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:22, 16 June 2013 (UTC) [reply]
:-) , I guess fire and salt can be left to deletionists. I thought about adding Lot's wife , but there's just too many unsightly tags. At least the bright side of this AfD is that a keep close will mean the concerns have been rejected by the community, so all the unwarranted tags can be removed. FeydHuxtable (talk) 08:43, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agree with nom. and first commenter. The inclusion criteria "unusual deaths" cannot be defined in any reasonable way; as such the list can only be upheld by consistent violation of WP:OR. It does not surprise me that such a list gets many clicks as people are naturally drawn to the peculiar, sensational and bizarre; list is still not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 09:57, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd agree that the use of strict statistical definition would lead to a rather large article: "An unusual event is an event that has a low probability of occurring. (Typically, but not always, it has a probability less than 5%.)" e.g. [75]. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:42, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article informs and educates, and therefore is of encyclopedic value. It may not be particularly useful for readers who know, in precise detail, exactly what they are looking for, but - as others have said or implied - it is precisely the sort of article that brings casual readers, including children and teenagers, into Wikipedia. It's a springboard for them to learn more. It's vastly more valuable to society, in that respect, than thousands if not millions of other articles that are only of interest to tiny groups of people. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:27, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

section break[edit]

  • comment does User:Martinevans123 intend to reply to every single delete vote as per WP:BLUDGEON. LibStar (talk) 13:30, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps he does. Or perhaps he wants a discussion. Did he reply to yours? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:34, 16 June 2013 (UTC) "If many editors have replied but your comments take up 50% of the text, you are likely bludgeoning" ?[reply]
perhaps you should try to less to dominate this AfD, it is very obvious to me. LibStar (talk) 13:40, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Bludgeoning the process is where someone attempts to force their point of view by the sheer volume of comments, such as contradicting every viewpoint that is different from their own" LibStar (talk) 13:41, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He's probably hoping for a few more bludgeoned to death, no doubt. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:43, 16 June 2013 (UTC) ... but don't worry, he's not going to conradict you.[reply]

So you admit you've engaged in WP:BLUDGEON? Or will you not actually answer the question directly ? 13:47, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Naturally I refuse to waste anymore more space with an answer. Please feel free to transfer your scolding to my Talk Page. Did you have any views on the deletion of the article? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:59, 16 June 2013 (UTC) p.s. I dont actually work for the Holy See.[reply]
Sigh. I still haven't been badgered by TheRedPenOfDoom yet, I'm feeling quite left out. -- Hillbillyholiday talk 14:05, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If any editors feel too intimidated to vote, they're welcome to email me and let me post their votes for them. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:07, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Popular entry, verifiable, can we block future AFD's? This is beyond a joke. Macktheknifeau (talk) 04:34, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"popular" is not a criteria. and "verifiable" is merely a minimal threshold criteria : "This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page." -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:34, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Badger -- Hillbillyholiday talk 13:29, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article is very useful for projects on deaths and ways of dying. Most of the criticism about this article comes from where the sources come from and what can be catergorized as an unusual death. It doesn't matter! As long as this page is monitored well, it can be useful and informative. Surviving 4 AfD's is very impressive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rich Slacker 123 (talk • contribs) 17:54, 19 June 2013 — Rich Slacker 123 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
WP:ITSUSEFUL not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 03:48, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. This article has over 150 sources, and the topic has been covered in several books, as mentioned earlier in this AFD. Mewtwowimmer (talk) 01:50, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
you would be more accurate in stating "it has over 150 footnotes" - if you actually look at the sources you will likely find like i did that the overwhelming majority miserably fail to be anything close to a reliable source, and those that are reliable sources generally fail to actually call the incident "unusual" and are merely window dressing covering up WP:OR. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:13, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep most of the concerns in the nomination are simply not valid reasons for deletion. WP:RECENT is an essay, and even if the list is biased towards recent deaths that's not a valid reason to delete it. If the article is primarily sourced to unreliable sources that is likewise not a reason to delete it, unless there are no reliable sources on the topic at all. Yes, deciding what constitutes an "unusual death" has a large element of subjectivity, but we can largely avoid problems by pushing the determination of "unusual" to the sources, in a similar way to List of films considered the best. It is clear that there are a very large number of sources listing people who have died in unusual circumstances, and I should point out that most of the sources cited by this page report the circumstances of the person's death because it is considered to be unusual. Hut 8.5 19:21, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:OR unless there's an applicative rule for 'unusualness' and each of the list items is checked against it. Also remove items which contain medical information where there is no indication that there was an autospy or coronial inquest (or similar). Stuartyeates (talk) 22:19, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest possible delete: What the Sam Hill is a "usual" death? We have several lists devoted to well-defined types of "unusual deaths", but having a list that can never be exhaustive (even for bios with Wikipedia articles) and has no real defined criteria is completely against policy/guidelines. The hit count of the article is not an argument pbp 00:01, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 1900s in comics. (non-admin closure) czar · · 04:02, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1908 in comics[edit]

1908 in comics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As with many of the other related articles this one lacks any notability and sources. Maybe the author can create a series of by decade articles and merge this into it. Otherwise it just doesn't hold up on its own. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:01, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge this and other 1900-1909 in comics articles to the 1900s in comics. None of them have enough content to stand on their own, and most likely never will. For what it's worth, this one (like 1885 in comics, was created to de-orphan Harold R. Heaton. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:39, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Argento Surfer. An article on the decade is perfectly sufficient. While we're on the topic, 1910 and 1912 ought to be merged into 1910s and 1925, 1928, and 1929 should be merged into 1920s, as none of them have enough content to be worth annual articles. Grandmartin11 (talk) 16:58, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Looking through all those in the decade 1900 to 1909, there isn't much there at all, and it easier to just stick them all on one page together. Dream Focus 23:16, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. --BDD (talk) 20:32, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Marketplace Homes[edit]

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

Promotional article that might possibly be fixed, but I do not think the notability is sufficient that it is worth fixing. DGG ( talk ) 02:56, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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) 17:30, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Burnt Offering[edit]

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

Non notable fanzine; no reliable references in the article and none on the internets (besides the archive on Worldpress). Drmies (talk) 01:19, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Holocaust (sacrifice) - the title is a likely search term, but not for the subject in question. I don't think there is a need to disambiguate the term to include this obviously non-notable fan-zine or the non-notable album that came after it. And the fact that someone named their album after the fan-zine does not make said fan-zine notable, in my view, especially given the apparent direct connection between the two. Stalwart111 02:44, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Extra note - the un-capitalised Burnt offering already redirects to Holocaust (sacrifice). If people are convinced nobody will accidentally capitalise "offering" in this instance, then I support deletion. Stalwart111 02:47, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I tell you what I'd like: to move Burnt Offering (Galzy novel). Drmies (talk) 02:54, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have no problem with that either, how about...
  • Replace with the content of Burnt Offering (Galzy novel) - someone searching for the capitalised title is likely looking for the book rather than the non-notable punk fan-zine. Just keep the see also tag at the top to direct people to Holocaust (sacrifice) if that is what they were looking for. Stalwart111 03:28, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And we need to sort out Burnt offering (disambiguation). Stalwart111 03:48, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I really want it to be notable, but it's not verifiable. If it were a little earlier (say 1976) I'd be more enthused. The train had pretty much left the punk station by 1979. - Richfife (talk) 01:02, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 07:14, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Henderson (weightlifter)[edit]

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

OK I need some help here. I feel like a crumb for this AfD. It's fairly obviously a semi autobiographical article by some kid in the UK who is into weight lifting. Most of the article is more about the sport than him so I don't see this as any sort of self-promotion. But I can't see anything that makes this article WP:N. Is there anything here that can be salvaged? Unfortunately the last 2/3 of the article appear to be a cut and paste from Olympic weightlifting. Article had previously been nominated for CSD but survived on the very thin possibility that the subject's junior competition awards might lend enough significance to escape CSD. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:17, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. He wasn't the BBC Young Sports Personality of the Year in 2012. Could be some other award of the same name, but where's the reference for that or the competitions he supposedly won or placed second? And what's with all the ridiculous categories? Competitor in the 2008 Summer Olympics? 2012 Olympic Marathon? Nike? Facebook employee? Olympic weightlifters of the United States? Smells more and more like wishful thinking. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:04, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per WP:NOT. As a comment, the article is not subject to CSD A7 as it makes a claim of notability that needs to be discussed at AFD. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 18:54, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have removed the random info, links & cats unrelated to Henderson. No indication that he has performed at a high enough level, nor have sufficient independent significant coverage. The-Pope (talk) 16:07, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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) czar · · 03:55, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Costas Markou[edit]

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

This player doesn't turn to professional yet, second division and below is not recognized by Fifa (Argento1985) 01:05, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2013_June_13&oldid=1142631705"