Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 December 22

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 21 December	23 December >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:33, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Archetype Gaming[edit]

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

Several sources are outdated; There is no lede section; but most glaringly: I have my doubts that this is truly notable. I'd like to get the community's opinion on this one. Thank you. ceradon (talk • contribs) 23:58, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - but I added a short lede. Like all organisations or groups, this needs to pass WP:ORGDEPTH or WP:GNG and I don't think there is nearly enough for them to pass either of those. Most of the claims in the article are completely unsourced (and some are likely to be impossible to source). Without significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, this has a bleak future here. St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:34, 23 December 2014 (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) 16:44, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As stated above, sourcing is seriously lacking. Add to that the large amount of cruft and lack of apparent notability outside of working with the Extra-Life program, and there's not a lot of redeeming qualities about it. Supernerd11 _{Firemind ^_^ Pokedex} 18:34, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I did some hunting under both the Archetype and Suave names and found nothing which could support the article as a 'reliable source'; this includes 0 hits for either team name in HighBeam and reviewing some of the team encounter sites to see if there was some usable information there. I also did a brief look across the Children's Miracle Network Hospitals sites in search of donor information in tax documents and I did not find supporting evidence there, though I did not dig very deep. I think that professional competitive gaming is largely unrecognized as notable by mainstream media at the moment. Further, one of the sources of revenue for professional teams is the video of game play, which some people watch as entertainment; this might turn into a viral revenue source at some time, but remains in the shadow economy at the moment. Articles like this might be able to be supportable in five or ten years, but not at present, unfortunately. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:11, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. User has blanked the page (WP:G7). Note: very little chance of passing WP:AfD as "2015 Northants youth darts" or similar title Shirt58 (talk) 08:35, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2015 northans youth darts[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:N. War wizard90 (talk) 23:46, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:12, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Hearne[edit]

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

Already deleted once for lack of substantive sourcing, the cited sources are not about the subject, they are either primary sources cited for claims about his books (it was in X list, source: X list) or are very obviously press releases originating with the subject's PR. No source has ever been cited which actually establishes the significance of the subject - this is, in effect, an unsourced BLP as there are no independently verifiable biographical details at all. Guy (Help!) 12:43, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The author meets the basic notability standard set out in WP:AUTHOR. The person has created ... collective body of work, that has been the subject of ... multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.. He's a Random House author with twelve books, and a Star Wars novel announced for March. Beyond the multiple sources listed in the article, his work has been reviewed multiple times in Publishers' Weekly, Library Journal and others. [1], [2] The nomination's claim that there are no independent sources simply isn't true. Reviews for books are what we use to determine if an author has been noted; they don't disqualify him for notability. That's silly. The previous deletion was based on an article that didn't have the present sourcing. I think it was also previous to him being sourced as a New York Times best selling author. The New York Times best seller list is something better than a generic "X list" for showing that an author is considered notable.__ E L A Q U E A T E 13:28, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 13:52, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are clearly multiple reviews of his work. A simple Google search in News shows this [3]. Poor sourcing is not a reason to delete an article. If there was such a thing as "Snow Keep" this is a candidate. No chance this author shouldn't be listed. Thanks - Marksterdam (talk) 14:29, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline that says an author of multiple books is likely to be notable, is a pointer to writers about whom there should be reliable independent sources. No version of this article has ever cited any non-trivial coverage of the subject in reliable independent sources, which is what our policy requires; this is a policy because without such sources we cannot ensure the neutrality of the article. It's especially important for living individuals. Not that I deny the subject may be notable, but I am out of patience with people who insist that something must have an article but cannot be arsed to source it properly. And no I do not mean you, I have great respect for you. My impatience is with editors who will do absolutely anything to have an article other than the one thing they actually need to do, which is to source it properly. Bah, humbug. Guy (Help!) 16:10, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zero reliable independent sources absolutely is a reason to delete an article and always has been. The original article was created by his PR, as far as I can tell, and this version is not much different. Feel free to add well sourced information though. Guy (Help!) 16:05, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @JzG and Gene93k: I agree it is annoying when Wikipedia is used for PR purposes (and this can be a big pointer to really check notability thoroughly) but, all told, unfortunately the motive for the article's creation is not a reason for deletion. Regarding sourcing/references, if the person or subject is notable and it is possible to find good references then the article should be kept. It doesn't matter that the actual article is poorly sourced or written. Wikipedia is a work in progress [4] and there is no deadline WP:NORUSH. I quote from the latter: "We can afford to take our time to improve articles, to wait before deleting a new article unless its potential significance cannot be established." Please also see "Why deletion of articles with potential should be avoided" under WP:PNJCS. Please also see WP:DEL-REASON - only when you can't find sources is this a reason to delete. Not that there are poor/no sources in the article itself. When I do a search for "Kevin Hearne author" [5] there is more than enough to prove notability under WP:AUTHOR - Marksterdam (talk) 10:19, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User:Elaqueate's points. Best selling author, kind of a no-brainer, plenty to work with. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:55, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Article definitely needs some expanding, but it definitely meets WP:AUTHOR. BenLinus1214 (talk) 18:00, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm finding plenty of hits. Granted the article can be refined and pruned, but 260,000 hits on Google hints that he's, at the very least, going to pass WP:GNG Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 20:23, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above.--TMD Talk Page. 18:23, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This author definitely has a fan base, but counting Google "hits" is not a way to defend notability -- notability is a quality judgment, and no quantity of hits on blogs, fan sites, books signing announcements, etc., will add up to notability. After doing a search on Google you need to actually look at what you've retrieved and see if any of it amounts to reliable sources. I didn't see any. I can find PW reviews, a Library Journal review (short). I can find his books on the NYT bestseller lists, eBook, paperback. Adding these should help. But I don't find anything about him in particular. This is partly due to the fact that he is considered an author of teen fiction, which rarely gets serious attention. LaMona (talk) 00:36, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aerospeed (Talk) 19:58, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as much as I disagree with the longstanding consensus, Times bestselling authors are almost always notable. Bearian (talk) 14:52, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. (WP:SNOW). NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:53, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Paulele[edit]

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

Recreation of page deleted following PROD. Subject had an undistinguished college playing career, never played an NFL down, and has held non-notable positions since. As such the subject fails the notability requirements of Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#American_football.2FCanadian_football. JohnInDC (talk) 18:48, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Subject does not appear to be notable and the article makes no suggestion there are sources to say he is. It should also be noted that this article was created and recreated by User:K.lane.smww who has admitted, with some mild hostility, here that the subject is his "client". This is clearly a promotional effort. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:17, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable former college football player and coach. Subject does not satisfy the specific notability guidelines for college athletes per WP:NCOLLATH (no major awards), or professional football players per WP:NGRIDIRON (never played in a regular season game in the NFL, CFL, etc.). Insufficient significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources to satisfy the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:44, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Am I missing something, or is this not a case of WP:BLPPROD? I would tag it as such but it has the same expiry as this discussion, which will now end sooner. Go Phightins! 06:11, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - yeah, probably, but the thing having been restored after one PROD already, I figured to go for something a bit more permanent. JohnInDC (talk) 14:01, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced biography about someone who doesn't meet any of the notability criteria for football players or coaches.Jakejr (talk) 03:06, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Iggy Azalea. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (chinwag) @ 14:06, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Flash (Iggy Azalea song)[edit]

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

Non-notable song. –Chase (talk / contribs) 18:41, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Iggy Azalea. I Agree that the subject does not merit a standalone article and fails WP:NSONG, but I Disagree that the page should be deleted. Redirect to the artist because Flash is a non-notable song by a very notable artist. ----Mr. Guye (talk) 22:42, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Guye' is right and they are cheap. St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:00, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above - Better than deleting I guess. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 01:06, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above, title refers to a real song that simply doesn't meet WP:NSONG. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 00:42, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) ceradon (talk • contribs) 05:15, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My Name is Jonas[edit]

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

I'm nominating this for a second time, as the previous nomination (back in August) defaulted to keep due to lack of comments. I'm nominating it again as I plan to do a big tidy up of Weezer articles.

I believe this article fails WP:NSONGS, which demands "multiple, non-trivial sources" for articles about songs. This article's sources are:

the unofficial Weezer biography (which predictably covers almost every Weezer song, and does not prove this song's notability)
the official Weezer site (fails "sources are independent of the artist and label" requirement of WP:NSONGS)
two lists of the best Weezer songs (unimpressive, considering the narrow scope of such lists; it wasn't even named the best song in either list)
a source reporting that My Chemical Romance played the song with Weezer once (possibly not even worth mentioning in the article, and not grounds for notability)
a source reporting that the Thermals covered the song (not grounds for notability)
a source reporting that the song is included in a video game (not grounds for notability - I think?)
a book by Scott Millner which discusses the song for a paragraph (this is the only source that gives me pause for thought, but we need "multiple, non-trivial" sources)

I think the article should be redirected to Weezer (1994 album), where the subject can be covered sufficiently.

Obviously I could be wrong about all this, and if there is a consensus to keep it, I won't challenge the article again. Popcornduff (talk) 18:19, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:GNG. GNG demands significant independent sources. All of the sources that you said were "not grounds for notability" satisfy WP:GNG. --Mr. Guye (talk) 22:50, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Really? Is, for example, the report that a Weezer covers band played the song really "significant independent" coverage? Popcornduff (talk) 00:10, 23 December 2014 (UTC)~~ Forget that, I can't actually find the source mentioning the Weezer covers band, so maybe I imagined that or it's been removed. Whoops! Let me pick another example: does the song's appearance on lists of "best Weezer songs" really constitute significant independent coverage, considering the nature of the article's content means a whole bunch of Weezer songs are going to be on it? This is not as impressive, for example, as the song appearing on a list of best guitar solos, or 90s rock songs, or whatever. And what about two bands covering the song in live performance (not releasing studio versions, just performing them at some point)? Do we really care about that? Popcornduff (talk) 00:24, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: My arguments for keeping this still stands from my comments on these pages: Talk:My Name Is Jonas#Merge proposal and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/My Name Is Jonas. The notability for this song is a lot for a non-single. Kokoro20 (talk) 23:18, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my comment in the September 2014 AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/My Name Is Jonas.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 05:23, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Weezer (1994 album). The song lacks significant individual coverage - it is mostly covered in the context of all Weezer songs, the band itself, or its parent album. That demonstrates the notability of Weezer and their 1994 album, but not the song itself. I see no reason why the content here can't be merged to the album article. –Chase (talk / contribs) 03:51, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Who says it needs individual significant coverage? WP:NSONGS only says that when it comes to album reviews. Also, WP:GNG says that independent coverage is not needed to satify notability, where it says "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." There's significant coverage for the song from multiple sources outside of album reviews. Kokoro20 (talk) 08:23, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NSONG also says, "Notability aside, a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article." I wouldn't exactly call what is in the article particularly detailed or significant. –Chase (talk / contribs) 20:45, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess I'll have to disagree. The article could be made bigger than what is now. Kokoro20 (talk) 23:14, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Weezer (1994 album), fails WP:NSONG. --Bejnar (talk) 12:18, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe that this article meets WP:NSONG and WP:GNG. This song has coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources and appears to be notable. BenLinus 1214^talk 04:49, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:38, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Zdrinca[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that the article says that he played 34 matches in the Romanian top flight in 2002-03. This would of course confer notability. However, the claim is unsourced and highly suspect, considering each club in the Romanian top flight only played 30 matches that season. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:05, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:06, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:19, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He definitely played for FC Astra Ploiești in Liga I (Divizia A) which was the top flight of a fully professional league (WP:FPL) therefore he passes both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. IJA (talk) 13:58, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a reliable source to confirm this? As I stated in the nomination, without it this claim carries no weight. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:34, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find any evidence that Zdrîncă played for Astra in Liga I (I've searched gds.ro and gsp.ro as well as general Google searches with no luck). He's played in the second level and received routine coverage for doing so, and received more routine coverage during his stint as a goalkeeper coach abroad. I don't think there is significant coverage such that the GNG is satisfied. Jogurney (talk) 19:27, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Can not find anything that suggests he even played a game in a professional league and he fails WP:GNG anyway. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 20:59, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:GNG. Quis separabit? 01:46, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I agree with above comments, fails WP:GNG. and I also was not able to find a WP:RS to back up the notability claim.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 11:53, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (WP:SNOW). Per some of the commentary herein, discussion about a potential redirect can continue on an article talk page if desired. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:49, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of football clubs in the Isle of Man[edit]

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

Unsourced and already catered for by the category - Football clubs in Isle of Man Kivo (talk) 16:59, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First, "unsourced" is not a deletion rationale so long as the content is verifiable. What sourcing could this possibly require? That these are football clubs in the Isle of Man? That's the only fact asserted here. All the listed clubs have articles, and so if they are individually notable then there will necessarily be multiple sources covering each of them, and every source that even mentions any such club is going to verify the basic fact of what it is. Second, as WP:CLN makes clear, the existence of a category is not a reason for deleting a corresponding list. So unless you can present a valid reason for deletion, please withdraw your nomination so as to not waste any further time. postdlf (talk) 17:27, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a valid list. The Isle of Man is a separate entity outside the United Kingdom, so its clubs couldn't be listed anywhere else, and the list provides far more info than the category is capable of doing. – Pee Jay 17:38, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A list of notable clubs with clear inclusion criteria. The "already catered for by the category" statement fails WP:CLN. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:39, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above, a valid list. At a push I would say redirect to Isle of Man Football Association. Giant Snowman 18:34, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per above , a perfectly valid list. Fenix down (talk) 19:01, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I admit it could do with some sourcing and more info but AFD isn't for clean-up purposes..... and I'm assuming the nom haden't bothered finding sources ..... Anyway WP:SOFIXIT applies –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 01:17, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - all the clubs listed play in the Isle of Man Football League. Are there any clubs on the island that play in any other league? If not, surely we could just redirect to the article on the league.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:25, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per the above arguments. IJA (talk) 13:50, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: To the Isle of Man Football League. All the clubs are the same anyway, no point of two separate articles. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 20:56, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with above arguments. Also, it might be information available at the parent article but we should be striving for here is an example of what a list can turn into with some love.Cptnono (talk) 03:08, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:33, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Saša Plavšić[edit]

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

Speedy deletion per WP:G4 was declined on the grounds that apparently it is not the same person as was covered by the last afd. Be that as it may, the same notability issues apply here. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:28, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:28, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:18, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He hasn't played in a Fully professional league and he doesn't have any senior international caps either therefore he fails WP:NFOOTBALL. IJA (talk) 13:59, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 21:01, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -Fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 18:45, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:36, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Language Factory[edit]

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

Fails WP:COMPANY, and appears to be primarily advertising. Sources used in the article contain a passing mention, and a quick internet search only brings up general directories and directories of businesses. BenLinus 1214^talk 16:26, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Despite the claims and praise heaped in the article, I can find nothing to show that this company ultimately passes notability guidelines. There are a few press releases and the like out there, but nothing in reliable sources. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:07, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For full disclosure's sake I wanted to mention that I blocked the account creator. In their defense somewhat, I do see where they have tried to tone down the promotional prose, so I think that the advertising is kind of unintentional and is one of those things that happens to people who work in marketing- they're just used to writing in that tone so they don't pick up on it easily. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:16, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find any reliable sources that discuss this company. As mentioned above, they do not seem notable. DiscantX (talk) 11:29, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am sorry to say that I have not been able to find 'reliable sources' which support the notability of this company .... based on online sources. Suggest deletion without prejudice for recreation if such refers to sources which support notability. Quite unfortunate ... this company has been in the business services sector for 20 years and no doubt has contributed to competitiveness and collaboration, though without attribution accessible / accepted by Wikipedia. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:18, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and redirect. This AfD has been closed after consensus was judged independently by 3 uninvolved administrators. We have come to this conclusion; our full rationale can be found at the talk page. Sam Walton (talk) 23:10, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural Marxism[edit]

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

A panel of three uninvolved administrators has been organised to close this discussion. These are: Spartaz, Huon, and Samwalton9. RGloucester — ☎ 01:35, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Black Kite has been replaced by Huon due to concerns regarding involvement with the Gamergate Arbcom case. Sam Walton (talk) 14:00, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This will have been the third time this issue has been brought up for debate under different categories. Before Jimbo’s peace offering to the participants in the Gamergate controversy, the article had been deleted after a discussion ranging a month, far more than befits a fairly obscure term in right-wing circles. Let’s try to have one at least relatively based in the facts.

For previous discussions, see:

Talk:Cultural_Marxism/Archive_2#Merger_proposal and Talk:Cultural_Marxism#Merger_with_.22Frankfurt_School_Conspiracy_Theory.22_.E2.80.93_discussion_2

If it probably wasn't against policy, I’d have to make a bot to comment on all the SPAs and repeatedly disproved sources this discussion will be flooded with the moment it’s linked on Reddit, 8chan or Stormfront. Amitabho Chattopadhyay (talk) 14:13, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing an argument for deletion in this statement, for that matter reading your comment I can't tell if you are for or against deletion.Coffeepusher (talk) 14:36, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm for turning this page into a disambiguation, but my prior involvement in the issue may colour my judgement. The argument for deletion is summarised succinctly here:

"Well-sourced"? Where? Where are there any "sources" that posit the existence of a school of thought that spans the entire 20th century and contains people that never met each other, and never defined their theories as belonging to a school of "Cultural Marxism"? There are none. There never were, and there still are not any. A few books have been cited as using the phrase "cultural Marxism", but none of them support the existence of a school of thought called "Cultural Marxism".

As an example, which I and others have refuted numerous times, people like to cite the Dworkin book called "Cultural Marxism in Postwar Britain: History, the New Left, and the Origins of Cultural Studies" as supporting the existence of a school called "Cultural Marxism". However, the book does not do this, indicative of the fact those citing it have not read it. First of all, Dworkin, writing in 1997, says "My account is the first intellectual history to study British cultural Marxism conceived as a coherent intellectual discipline" (pg. 3). From the start of the book, Dworkin makes clear that the argument that there has been this long-running school of thought called "cultural Marxism" is totally false. He says that he invented the term in this context. His book's purpose is to establish it, long after the theorists were dead, and after the conspiracy theory had already come to light.

What's more, he specifically says that the Frankfurt School and Gramsci, two people that all these IPs and SPAs claim are part of a school of "Cultural Marxism", are explicitly not part of his "cultural Marxism". In fact, he says he proposes the term "cultural Marxism" as an alternative the more mainstream phrase "cultural studies" for an exclusively British movement that began in the 1960s, with the Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies at Birmingham. This is a fringe usage. No one other than Dworkin has proposed this usage, and mainstream academia calls it "cultural studies", which we have an article on. He admits that it doesn't exist outside of his work, and that he is creating term for his own sake to reframe the traditional academic viewpoints on the Birmingham school. He explicitly excludes those who IPs and SPAs say are part of "cultural Marxism". Regardless, his view is not accepted in academia. You will not find any other books referencing this definition. It is exclusively his, and WP:FRINGE. This is just one example of the manipulation occurring here.

Another example is a 2004 essay by Douglas Kellner, called "Cultural Studies and Cultural Marxism", which these SPAs and IPs like to use. These two works are the main sources for the IP and SPA arguments. It was written long after the conspiracy theory had emerged. It is not a peer-reviewed journal article. It was never published anywhere. It is a personal essay of 15 pages long, that only exists on the internet because he has released it personally for free. None of the sources it cites propose the existence of a school of thought called "Cultural Marxism". In fact, Kellner himself does not use "cultural Marxism" to posit the existence of a school of thought, but instead uses it in the purely descriptive sense of meaning "applications of Marxism to culture", which is not a definition that can be used as the basis for an encylopaedia article.

Citation of sources, and WP:V, do not mean that one can just throw a bunch of links in an article and say that it is "well-sourced". WP:V means that the sources must support the text, and that the sources must be reliable, and not WP:FRINGE. None of the sources in the article, especially these two favourites of the IP and SPA crowd, support the idea of a school of thought called "Cultural Marxism". Zero. If people can't read the sources, that's their fault. WP:V is a policy, and to adhere to it, the sources must support the text. All of them have been debunked repeatedly by me, and other editors. RGloucester — ☎ 02:36, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

and, as far as I'm aware, has never been addressed satisfactorily by anything other than the repetition of already disproved claims. Amitabho Chattopadhyay (talk) 14:40, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Smerge to Frankfurt School conspiracy theory or Turn into Disambiguation or Delete, in order of preference. Hipocrite (talk) 15:33, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy Keep~~ per WP:SK, "fails to advance an argument for deletion...making nominations of the same article with the same arguments..." Also the nominator's complaints about SPAs seem saucy when he himself has only made 216 edits and most of his activity in the last 6 months was in this dispute. Andrew D. (talk) 17:02, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - SK not applicable, as I support Deletion over the current status quo. Hipocrite (talk) 17:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As this has not been closed speedily, I am updating my !vote. This is to keep the topic as it is notable, being the subject of multiple books including Cultural Marxism in Postwar Britain, Jameson on Jameson: Conversations on Cultural Marxism and Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture. These sources are reasonably substantial and respectable whereas there seem to be no comparable sources of this weight for the rival page title Frankfurt School conspiracy theory - a phrase which seems to have been invented on Wikipedia. As we have a notable topic and substantial sources, the details should be addressed by ordinary editing per our editing policy: WP:IMPERFECT and WP:PRESERVE. Insofar as there has been any forking, then WP:REDUNDANTFORK tells us "If the content fork was unjustified, the more recent article should be merged back into the main article.". The Cultural Marxism page was created in 2006 while the Frankfurt School conspiracy theory page was created in 2013. The latter is therefore the redundant fork. Andrew D. (talk) 13:32, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is an attempt at an end-run around the (lack of) consensus at the merge proposal. Editors considering participating in the debate on this article should please read the talk page history carefully. —S Marshall T/C 19:27, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (as far as I can tell, there is no substantive content to merge). Ordinarily I'd object to this nomination on DEADHORSE grounds. But this isn't ordinarily, and the process to date has been so beset by irregularity that editors who are dissatisfied with the state of play have every reason to be. The bottom line here is that there is a complete lack of sourcing to establish "Cultural Marxism" as a topic distinct from "Frankfurt School". Given that, it doesn't really matter how many editors feel it should be treated as a district topic. We just can't have article on Wikipedia about things for which we have no specific sourcing. Formerip (talk) 19:32, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See also User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 178 and User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 179
Merge and Disambiguate - delete this POV fringe hijacking of a common usage to describe Marxist theory of culture and which is normally used in the precise context of criticising Structural Marxism as well as more generally, and which doesn't qualify for an article at this precise title despite being widely recognised and qualifying for a hatnote upon redirection. Merge this article elsewhere, and disambiguate between the real Cultural studies-Critical theory and the fringe conspiracy page or a separate article. Or if you can't do that, delete this article. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:34, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(returning 7 days later) or redirect as described by user Jobrot below, for the same reasons. Though really the target isn't that important (as long as it's not a conspiracy page). These are two niche terms - one academic, one a meme or redefinition of sorts, neither deserving an article at this title, both having existing content elsewhere. Let the academic search term have priority. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 05:11, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve with reliable sources representing varied perspectives on the subject in proportion to their mainstream acceptance, as per the standard NPOV process that we use for everything else. Covering contested subjects and representing conflicting viewpoints is part of our job as an encyclopedia. JimmyGuano (talk) 20:59, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - We already have an article on every topic this term can encompass: Frankfurt School, Frankfurt School conspiracy theory and Cultural studies. Regarding your second sentence, see WP:DUE; I will presume you meant 'present', not 'represent'. We don't have an article on 'Jews and communism', which this article might as well be. অমিত talk 21:34, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite clear on the distinction you're trying to draw between "present" and "represent", however I certainly didn't mean "support", if that's the meaning you are trying to steer me away from? As far as I can tell from the sources the whole point about "Cultural Marxism" as a concept is that it is seen by those that posit its existence as a wider phenomenon enveloping all of those things you mention and more. That is precisely why it can't be replaced by any of them. You may well argue that this makes it a paranoid delusion and you may well be right (though similar usage by non-right wing sources though rare doesn't seem to be completely unheard of). Even if it is a paranoid delusion, though, it is a notable paranoid delusion, as it is discussed in reliable sources who are not themselves trying to promote it. JimmyGuano (talk) 21:57, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, Jimmy, what sources are you refering to when you say "as far as I can tell from the sources"? Can you give an example of a fact about "Cultural Marxism" that can be cited and is unambiguously something Wikipedia should mention, but for some reason could not be incorporated into the Frankfurt School article? If you can, I might think about changing my vote. But if you can't, I think you should think about changing yours. Formerip (talk) 22:18, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fair challenge. For me the Frankfurt School article should focus on the actions, writings and documented thought of a defined group of German academics largely from the 1930s to the 1950s and their followers, including well-sourced criticism of their (actual) thought, as it largely does already. Critical theory and similar articles should focus similarly on the wider scholarly disciplines. The Frankfurt School conspiracy theory article should focus on the specific historical allegations about the behavior and motivations of those individuals in the US in the mid 20th century, as covered in sources such as this[6]. The Cultural Marxism article should focus on the perception - largely on the right, largely since the 1990s - of the existence of a variously-defined but supposedly widespread intellectual theme running probably from Gramsci through to the current day, including but by no means limited to the Frankfurt School. It should include coverage of issues at best tangentially related to whether a group of mid 20th century German philophers wanted to bring down American society, including the perception that "Cultural Marxism" underlies supposedly pervasive modern phenomena such as multiculturalism,[7], its role as a rallying cry for the homicidal far right [8], its relationship to the role of "common sense" in the ideology of UKIP,[9] the representation of homosexuality on American television,[10] the extent to which the Birmingham School represents continuity or change with respect to its intellectual predecessors,[11] and the fear of Muslim immigration in early 21st century Europe.[12].

The two subjects are obviously related and are often connected but that doesn't mean that they're the same thing. Here [13] for example, is a respected commentator in Britain's highest circulation broadsheet national newspaper, openly mocking the Frankfurt School conspiracy theory as anti-Semitic paranoid madness, while simultaneously arguing that "Cultural Marxism" exists and is a legitimate object of criticism. It isn't our job to say whether he's right or wrong, but we should represent the fact that such arguments at least exist. JimmyGuano (talk) 09:44, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You were asked for sources that could be cited unambiguously as sources suitable for Wikipedia that identify Cultural Marxism as warranting an article of its own (ie. separate from the academic meaning). The book you've cited is specifically about distorted (ambiguous) views of reality (as it's Amazon page describes it [14]), and the website you've cited is a blog[15] (albeit a blog from a daily telly journo). Just because a journalist writes something on their blog (particularly if as in this case, it's unevidenced), doesn't substantiate that blog entry as evidence any more than it would if it appeared on any other blog (to claim so is an Argument from authority). On top of this West's specific words are "The ideas of Antonio Gramsci and Herbert Marcuse, to name just two prominent Cultural Marxists, were very influential in creating the New Left of the 1960s and the radical campus politics of the 1970s." which solidifies these thinkers (and more specifically the frankfurt school) as the source for the legitimate (albeit rare) academic meaning for the term Cultural Marxism (and ergo, is only an argument for the destination of a merger, not for keeping a page dedicated to a rarefied academic use that refers to other things [things that have their own pages already]) as has been stated time and time again. What this blog entry DOES NOT DO - is provide evidence that the highly contextualized academic meaning of the term, can be extended as proof positive that Cultural Studies, Critical Theory, Multiculturalism, Gay Rights, Feminism, Political Correctness and Atheism are innately Marxist in their teachings and agenda. It's not good enough to just claim (or cite someone who claims) "Cultural Marxism influenced this and that" (or even worse, as is being done in this case: This and that ARE Cultural Marxism) - you have to also show evidence for the new meaning of the term, evidence for this connection, and as far as I can tell there is no such evidence. What you're being asked for is the source of your belief that the term is notable enough to warrant it's own page. The source of your belief to vote to keep the article intact rather than to merge it to a more appropriate location (as all the sources seem to suggest doing) such as happened with the Rothschild Conspiracy Theory (a much much much more famous Conspiracy Theory) when it was listed as a section of that page. The "extension" of the academic meaning - SHOWS NO EVIDENCE for it's CLAIMS. This is the problem. This is what makes the theory an unevidenced, and hence conspiratorial theory (not worth it's own page). So can you show sources or reason to justify your vote? Yes, it is an acknowledged rarefied academic term (bookended into a very specific time period) used to refer to the Frankfurt School (and hence that's the appropriate destination), and it is ALSO a conspiracy about the extension of Marxist influences (and their agenda) in society. The former of which should be merged because it's a rarefied and completely referential term (referential to existing pages). The other of which (the latter) should be merged because though widely believed (as with the Rothschild Conspiracy Theory) it is COMPLETELY unevidenced, unsubstantiated, and unverified. Where one stops the other starts - so there is no gap for arguing that the article should be kept. --Jobrot (talk) 02:23, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't trying to prove anything other than that this is a subject with a significant secondary literature, the scope of which goes beyond a specific set of allegations about the Frankfurt School. Whether that secondary literature does or does prove anything is irrelevant - for the purposes of an AfD on Wikipedia it just has to exist. As you observe, quite a few of the works I cited are actively critical of the term. However a subject with a significant secondary literature is notable, and a notable subject should have a Wikipedia article. It's no more complicated than that. JimmyGuano (talk) 08:30, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So how do you get around the fact that secondary "literature" or as policy has it secondary SOURCES are still subject to reliability criteria? Why do you think there's no article for The Rothschild Conspiracy Theory? There's plenty of "secondary literature" for that too - but none of it is reliable enough to base a Wikipedia article on... and unless you can prove otherwise, then this article is no different. But besides that (and more importantly), this article hasn't been nominated on the grounds of WP:NN (non notability)! It's been nominated on the grounds that it has irreconcilable WP:V, WP:FRINGE issues (see the above links to previous discussions or the current talk section on Current Editorial Issues for details). So again, you are given the space in between the academic term (which should obviously be merged elsewhere) and the conspiracy/pundit term. So the options are: Argue against it being merged with a page more in line with the (internally consistent albeit rarefied) academic usage (which uses PRIMARY sources) - or find some verifiable sources to substantiate the conspiracy (WP:V, WP:FRINGE) claims (ie explain what you mean by "the scope of the subject [cultural marxism]... ...goes beyond a specific set of allegations about the Frankfurt School", for as mentioned the deletion proposal is NOT based on any WP:NN issues. Notability doesn't equate to having an article all of it's own, the subject can be just as notable in a CONSPIRACY section on the Frankfurt School page (just as the Rothschild Conspiracy is on its relevant page) - unless you can state a reason otherwise - then I cannot understand WHY you've voted the way you have. Please take the time to explain it to me in good faith, and Thank you in advance for your patience in doing so. --Jobrot (talk) 09:40, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK, I appreciate this is a highly-charged subject. WP:FRINGE is not itself a reason for deleting an article - notable fringe theories should have articles, non-notable ones shouldn't. As per WP:NFRINGE: "A fringe subject (a fringe theory, organization or aspect of a fringe theory) is considered notable enough for a dedicated article if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious and reliable manner, by major publications that are independent of their promulgators and popularizers. References that debunk or disparage the fringe view can be adequate, as they establish the notability of the theory outside of its group of adherents. References that are employed because of the notability of a related subject – such as the creator of a theory – should be given far less weight when deciding on notability." I agree that the article as it currently stands has some severe verifiability issues, and these certainly need to be addressed. JimmyGuano (talk) 09:59, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's also going to need longer-term protection if it stays where it is (due to the edit warring which looks to increase). It's going to require protection and attention that it may better receive if couched as a section of the less controversial pages from which the theory extends. I understand that WP:Fringe is not necessarily an argument for deletion on it's own (assuming enough non-pro-generative and suitable sources can be found [which would mean not using Lind nor Berivik as they seem to be the primary originators of the theory]), but that assumption against the argument for deletion made still doesn't explain why you're against a merger? I understand that the conspiracy claims start Cultural Marxism off in the Frankfurt School and extend from there (the extent of Marxist influence as explicitly Marxist being the fiction the conspiracy rides on) - so I'm just not sure why you believe that extension is worthy of anything else other than merging (grounding) with reality. --Jobrot (talk) 10:30, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merging a wider subject into an article that covers a narrower one looks like deletion by stealth. To take an analogy from a subject whose existential status is a bit less contentious - it would be like merging the World War I article into the Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria - you'd effectively be removing (or at least hiding) any coverage of all of the subject apart from one specific aspect. The argument against merging the narrower topic into the wider one is not quite as strong, I grant you, but this isn't an AfD for the Frankfurt School conspiracy theory article. JimmyGuano (talk) 13:10, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with your analogy if WW1 were a conspiracy theory with no evidence to back it up. But it's not. So this is not a case of merging a "wider" article into a "narrower" one. This is a case of merging a conspiracy theory into the an article representative of the terms that conspiracy theory is borrowing. So unless you can justify your claims with evidence then your comparison (and hence your vote) is bunk. --Jobrot (talk) 13:39, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Frankfurt School conspiracy theory, or merge that article back here. Either one is acceptable. Both articles are essentially on the same topic, and I don't feel that having two articles on essentially the same thing assists our readers at all. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 22:44, 28 December 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Arbitrary break I[edit]

Delete or Merge with Cultural studies or Critical Theory. Merging this article with Frankfurt School conspiracy theory was already tried and was met with immediate backlash. I believe there would be more consensus if it was moved to one of the aforementioned articles instead. HessmixD (talk) 23:12, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article is currently not in good shape, partly as a result of recent content disputes, though there are better versions in its history that can be used in the process of improvement. It's under discussion on its talk page, with wider community involvement than before, thanks to intervention by Jimbo a few weeks ago. There are various suggestions for improvement or for possible renaming or merging elsewhere. It may ultimately be merged into a new article on Marxist cultural theory (or something similar)... or perhaps, though I wouldn't currently support this, into the existing article called Cultural materialism (cultural studies) or one of the other articles on related topics such as Critical theory or Cultural hegemony. But the options should be sorted out on its talk page by people who are now reading the relevant scholarly books, peer-reviewed articles, etc. An AfD discussion is not the best way to choose between options, but it would be good if the AfD brought some more community involvement to the talk page. Meanwhile, cultural Marxism as understood by intellectual historians, etc., is a real and important phenomenon that has attracted reputable academic research. Cultural Marxism is wider than just Antonio Gramsci (probably its main inspiration), the Frankfurt School, critical theory, or any of the other existing articles that cover related areas. Vesa Oittinen, a professor of intellectual history at the University of Helsinki, defines it succinctly as: "an attempt to apply basic ideas of historical materialism on the analyses of culture". That's a legitimate and important topic, and there are good sources. The main question IMHO is whether it should be dealt with under some other broad heading, such as "Marxist cultural theory", but again that needs to be worked out on the talk page by people who are reading the scholarly literature. Meanwhile the article should be improved, not deleted. Metamagician3000 (talk) 00:18, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear what's being discussed on the talkpage is a proposal to create an article titled something like "Marxist theory of culture" with entirely different content to this one. Don't get me wrong, that may be a great idea. But if you are proposing different content and a different title, how does that equate to "keep"? You might just as well vote keep on the basis that all that's wrong with the article article should be about Mount Kilimanjaro and titled "Mount Kilimanjaro". No need to delete it, just change the content and title instead! No, what you're talking about is clicking here and starting to type. This doesn't amount to any sort of valid keep rationale. Formerip (talk) 00:46, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many subjects "attracted reputable academic research" - that's the basis for the Ig Nobel Prize, but this particular subject isn't covered or defined in any sense other than as directly synonymous and interchangeable with the views of The Frankfurt School and Antonio Gramsci. So I think your vote is poorly explained. Can you expand on what you mean by cultural Marxism beyond those, the associated pages in order to establish it as a separate phenomena independent of them? --Jobrot (talk) 06:08, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how much I can say beyond my earlier comment. There was a widely acknolwedged "cultural turn" in Western Marxism in the 1920s toward analysis and critique of cultural media and products - and it's continued, though more strongly in some times and places than others. This is what scholars mean by "cultural Marxism". It was taken up in a big way in the UK in the 1950s, but there is no scholarly dispute that it exists and that it goes well beyond the UK. Gramsci was a seminal figure for cultural Marxists, but it is not just Gramsci - and nor was it just the UK. It's also simply not true that Dworkin's book is fringe scholarship (akin to Holocaust denial) or that he coined the term, as I've seen claimed on this page. I've read the entirety of Dworkin's book; Dworkin is a reputable intellectual historian; and intellectual historians have been using this term since at least the 1980s with no great controversy. It's only become controversial more recently because some right-wing commentators have claimed that cultural Marxism has caused so many evils, etc., and they tell their own dubious version of the intellectual history (in some cases their claims may amount to a conspiracy theory, though Paul Gottfried denies putting it on that basis, and having read his relevant book I can confirm that he doesn't put it as a conspiracy but what he claims is an open practice). Again, I'm not opposed to renaming the article something like "Marxist cultural theory" if that helps, but I see absolutely no reason not to have an article on this phenomenon - it's wider than critical theory, the Frankfurt school, Raymond Williams and "cultural materialism", or whatever. It spun off cultural materialism in the UK, but it is wider than that (and that term has not stuck). I just don't see the problem with having an article on this, just because some right-wing commentators use the term pejoratively and have dubious theories about the relevant intellectual history. There is no reason why the article would have to accept their viewpoint (some of their specific viewpoints probably are fringe, but if so the article can handle this, as we always do). Metamagician3000 (talk) 05:41, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What "scholars"? Sources? I can't find any. "Gramsci" was a "seminal figure for cultural Marxists". Please find a scholar that identifies as "cultural Marxist". Who are these "cultural Marxists" that find Gramsci a "seminal figure"? Dworkin said that he was the first to conceive of the idea of an academic discipline called "cultural Marxism". There is no "phenomenon", unless sources can be found for it. I've not found any, and you've not presented any. Dworkin focuses exclusively on British theorists, i.e. cultural studies, and certainly that book cannot be used as a source for the idea of a "phenomenon" called "cultural Marxism" that exists as anything other than a fringe term for cultural studies that he created for his own purposes. Where are your sources? RGloucester — ☎ 05:53, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

-

I find your comments questionable to say the least. You claim there is no scholarly dispute that it exists and yet your two main sources (Dworkin and Keller) both say it NO LONGER EXISTS - they AT BEST stretch its INFLUENCES [note; not Cultural Marxism as the historically positioned euphemism for The Frankfurt School's impact on the development of Cultural Studies et al.] but AT BEST its INFLUENCES stretch to 1979 and 1980 respectively. So au contraire, there is no scholarly consensus that it still EXISTS! - and why would you throw holocaust denial into the discussion like that! You're the only one whose brought it up, and it DOES NOT help your case to do so. Now I can't confirm that Dworkin coined the term, but he certainly does SEEM to believe that he's the first to assemble the newly proposed meaning, stating in his own words no less: "My account is the first intellectual history to study British cultural Marxism conceived as a coherent intellectual tradition, not limited to one discipline or one figure within it." [16], oh - and Paul (oh gott!) Gottfried (who counts "Political Correctness is intellectual AIDS" [17] Gays control my television![18] William S. Lind as a "friend of many years" [19] claiming that the conspiracy theory is not a conspiracy but is an open reality - simply DOES NOT MAKE IT SO! As a wikipedian that should be OBVIOUS to you! Of course believers of the conspiracy theory aren't going to see it as a conspiracy theory! EVIDENCE EVIDENCE EVIDENCE - and you know what - MORE EVIDENCE PLEASE. To say it's wider than Cultural Studies when it refers to a specific period in that discourse's development is just so - well to put it mildly;- incorrect to the point of sounding disingenuous. If you're going to make that claim - POINT TO SOME EVIDENCE! Show us examples of the terminology being used in that way - show what you mean when you're claiming "it's wider than cultural studies" (starting with defining an "it's" - as in, what is it?).

I just don't see the problem with having an article on this, just because some right-wing commentators use the term pejoratively and have dubious theories about the relevant intellectual history - the reason why it's a problem, is the same reason it would be a problem if we had a page on The Rothschild Family Conspiracy Theory, or on the Area 51 Conspiracy Theory (and yet we have a stand alone page for Big Foot). The problem is that this is meant to be AN ENCYCLOPEDIA OF FACT. NOT AN ENCYCLOPEDIA OF CONSPIRACY THEORIES. Hence where ever we ARE afforded the opportunity, the onus is on us to couch conspiracy theories in FACT and the FACTUAL terms they stem from. This is why we have an article on Big Foot as bigfoot is cut from whole cloth as an entirely fictional/mythological character (there's no liable, no one to insult or contradict); where as Area 51 and The Rothschild Family CONSPIRACIES are restricted to being sections of the pages about THOSE REAL FACTUAL EXISTENT PEOPLE AND PLACES. That is the line! The line between FACTS/REALITY and Gossip about a Cabal of Marxists controlling Multiculturalism and political correctness. We deal in fact backed by evidence. Not heresay. Not the reporting of opinions as fact. NOT CONSPIRACY. BUT FACT. --Jobrot (talk) 06:45, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since atleast in the previous discussion on the article's talk page some editors proposed merging the two articles, which way they should be merged if they should be? The article 'Cultural Marxism' has existed since 1 June 2006, whereas Frankfurt School conspiracy theory was created by Fuzzy mongoose (talk · contribs) in May 2013 as a split from Cultural Marxism. At that time, no one suggested deleting Cultural Marxism. It is important to consider because merging all contents to either article could partly be a WP:COATRACK. --Pudeo ' 03:03, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The quite limited and extremely historically bookended academic use of the term cultural Marxism invariably refers to the early philosophies of Gramsci and The Frankfurt School which influenced discourses like Cultural Studies and Critical Theory. The academic consensus is that these influences ended in the late 70s and early 80s (when Post-Modern thought took over).

Right-wing pundits however build on this now rarefied academic use to claim that Feminism, Gay Rights, Multiculturalism, Atheism, and Political Correctness are all stalwart Marxist attempts to weaken western Christian society and replace it with Marxism. This is undeniably a conspiracy theory. So I believe good Wikipedia policy would be to do something akin to what's been done with the Rothschild conspiracy theory - incorporate the conspiracy theory as a section of one of the legitimate articles to which the academic term refers. I'd suggest the Frankfurt School is the most appropriate target destination for this merger as it contains both Gramsci and Lukàcs who are often referred to by name in the conspiracy (as is the Frankfurt School in general) and the pages on Cultural Studies and Critical Theory both directly link to the Frankfurt School. Allowing people to still find the material in question, and more importantly allowing Wikipedia to be used properly for it's intended purpose - as an Encyclopedia (some digging required). If the merger doesn't occur, Cultural Marxism will need semi-permanent protection due to the this theory garnering the support/attentions of both StormFront and GamerGate. --Jobrot (talk) 05:55, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge The academic use refers to Gramsci and The Frankfurt School. The unevidenced conspiratorial claims about modern cultural phenomena (Multiculturalism/Athesism/Political Correctness) suffer from extreme WP:V, WP:OR and WP:NPOV issues - which are unsurmountable due to the nature of the claims as invalid. As stated above, the Rothschild family approach is most appropriate for such a niche (non-notable) conspiracy theory. --Jobrot (talk) 05:55, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to anything that's not "conspiracy theory" It is probably too much work for some editor to have to merge this mess. Let the SPAs try their luck with a more well-written article like cultural studies, which is acknowledged in its article to have a Marxist core. Just don't redirect it to a conspiracy theory page; this is an insult to readers. Shii (tock) 07:39, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The fact that this article has received so many views prior to all these attempts to delete is reason enough to leave it. It's alright to define communism and any number of other concepts on Wikipedia, what's your real problem with this: you don't want to give legitimacy to the term? Many people use the term, lets define it and stop beating a dead horse. Raquel Baranow (talk) 17:39, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - 'So many views' has to be one of the silliest keep rationales I've heard this year. অমিত talk 19:51, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Go on, define it as something separate from the academic meaning, ie. the early stages of Critical Theory Cultural Studies The Frankfurt School or the views of Antonio Gramsci (of which all of those pages already acknowledge their Marxist influences) - define it as something separate from THAT and yet have it STILL NOT BE just a minor level conspiracy theory that would be more suitably merged as a section of one of those pages (most probably the Frankfurt School). I don't believe you can, so I don't believe your vote to keep the article is reasonable. But feel free to prove me wrong by providing such a definition (seeing as you clearly believe there is a legitimate one, I assume in good faith that you have reason for your vote, all I'm asking is for you to show it). --Jobrot (talk) 21:54, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Cultural Marxists are politically correct people who believe in multiculturalism, feminism, gay rights, they're ultra liberal, hence the epithet "Marxist." Raquel Baranow (talk) 02:02, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. Your definition is rather quickly made null and void by pointing out the multitude of CONSERVATIVE and/or RIGHT LEANING believers in feminism [20], gay rights[21], advocates for multiculturalism [22] and right-wing institutions that practice Political Correctness in their policy guidelines [23] who EXIST and yet, are not ultra liberal nor Marxist. These counter-examples to your definition are numerous and endless. So currently you've failed to justify your vote to keep the article (as your definition for the term has been demonstrably shown to be incoherent).--Jobrot (talk) 03:28, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Cultural Marxists are ultra liberal, didn't you read my entire definition? Raquel Baranow (talk) 17:19, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but definitions are ESSENTIALIST in nature (they mean something). You can't just grab two words or two categories and just simply say they're a third thing (if that were the case "green cars" would hold a different place in the dictionary than "red cars"). You have to be able to extract the essence of the combination in order to convert it into something definitive (it is after all a definition you're trying to come up with). Which is why I went to the bother of showing you counter examples, of conservatives who push for the same strains of thought and do so CULTURALLY utilizing cultural elements such as videos [24], articles [25] and having whole organizations [26][27] dedicated to pushing those same political and philosophical positions using our CULTURE. So I'm asking for the essence of the combination - why when conservatives push those ideas is it NOT Cultural Marxism? Yet when someone from the left pushes the same ideas using the exact same means, why is that any different? What MAKES that become Cultural Marxism? What is the essence of the combination (and hence the definition)? What is your definition beyond the mere combination of two categories? Show me that it is MEANINGFUL. Show me that it is MEANINGFULLY pointing somewhere and that it's NOT reducible to just being the latest tribalist political slur. --Jobrot (talk) 03:55, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, ha, so I googled "John McCain" and "Cultural Marxism" and came up with a few links like this one: "McCain, the Republican cultural Marxist, who is only too anxious to sell the US out." (I'm from Arizona so it didn't surprise me.) It's more than a tribalist political slur. The term is very popular and deserves to be defined here. Raquel Baranow (talk) 16:33, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it's a very popular tribalist political slur? At any rate you'll need a reasonable definition if you are to convince people of your position on the matter. Good luck. --Jobrot (talk) 02:33, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(ec, reply to Raquel). But don't you see, that undermines your argument. If the label can be applied to just about anyone by their opponents, it means nothing. So we have an article about a label, with no real substance to it. I have heard Marxists - actual Marxists, who apply that word to themselves - do something similar. Some of them call everybody to the right of them a "fascist." The difference, as far as I know, is that Wikipedia does not have articles using that label in that way. Which is good, but the same should apply here. Neutron (talk) 02:45, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*There are many political neologisms this is another.Raquel Baranow (talk) 15:13, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

that doesnt really mean anything here WP:OTHERCRAP-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:27, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Per Saucy--TMD Talk Page. 23:00, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd like it if people on the Keep side of things could give reasons please, as I don't understand their position on this matter. --Jobrot (talk) 01:12, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm honestly trying to think up what to put in the summary when this inevitably grows into the months and years. So far I've got 'we should make an entirely new article to substitute this but keep this one', 'it's worth covering as a term', 'I don't like you' and 'it's got tons of views'. I can understand the second, but so far it just seems like Frankfurt School conspiracy theory covers most of it - and honestly, it's just an oddly condensed slur. We don't have an article titled Things I Don't Quite Like, Such as Jews, Communists and Jewish Communists. অমিত talk 03:46, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then we should delete the Frankfurt article instead. This article is much older. I would suspect that the Frankfurt article was an attempt to POV fork the issues surrounding Cultural Marxism, so that Cultural Marxism could be re-labeled a conspiracy theory by right-wing cranks.--TMD Talk Page. 01:53, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's indeed a POV fork, but unlike Cultural Marxism it's an article written using "reliable sources," under Wikipedia's surprising but understandable decision that humanity's consensus reality is partially defined by the Southern Poverty Law Center. Shii (tock) 03:21, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the age of an article is a point for or against that article. Personally I'd be fine if both the page on Cultural Marxism, and the one on The Frankfurt School conspiracy theory were merged with the general page for The Frankfurt School. Which would seems logical to me. --Jobrot (talk) 04:37, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This term is so silly and awkward that it does not even deserve a redirect. People who really want to learn about "cultural Marxism" can read about it at Metapedia, which is the appropriate Mediawiki-based site for treatment of this subject. – Herzen (talk) 00:50, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A term being "silly" or "awkward" in your opinion is not ground for deletion, and please don't call everyone defending this a right-wing nutjob, even if it were a term for right-wing fanatics, that's not ground for thinking it should be gone from Wikipedia. Loganmac (talk) 01:00, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:NEO; this is a neologism which has all relevant content related to it covered more than adequately elsewhere. --Aquillion (talk) 06:14, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article tries to argue that modern U.S. liberalism is controlled by Marxist ideology. There already is an article about that conspiracy theory. TFD (talk) 07:48, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - The term "cultural Marxism" has significant historical cachet; for example, Here's an academic work from 1997 with the phrase right in its title.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 07:13, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The book to which you refer states in it's own pages that it is "the FIRST intellectual history to study 'BRITISH cultural Marxism' conceived as a coherent intellectual tradition" and hence is a poorly chosen source if you're trying to prove significant historical cachet. Issues with this source are also discussed at the top of the deletion discussion (as quoted from the talk page). Not only is it the first book of it's kind (noting it's own attempt to present something coherent, with the obvious implication being that this perception of a coherent movement is an uncommon stance to take), but it's also singularly limited to Post War Britain. Further more this self-confessed attempt at presenting something as coherent only ever uses the phrase British Cultural Marxism (never using the term Cultural Marxism as a stand alone concept of common language). More importantly it uses this string to refer to British cultural Studies and the term should hence be merged with the appropriately relevant page Cultural Studies or to initiate a new page British Cultural Studies. I say this because British Cultural Studies (to which the author refers) is the common name for the subject and has a far wider usage with a far greater weighting both in the public [28] and academic sphere [29] out numbering the alternate British Cultural Marxism by a complete order of magnitude. One authors use of a POV term, should not warrant a WP:CFORK. Ergo I do not understand your vote, given how the author is using the term. --Jobrot (talk) 09:31, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Given that the title of the 1997 work was Cultural Marxism in Postwar Britain, I would hardly consider it surprising that its author dwelt upon British instance.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 16:28, 25 December 2014 (UTC) The same title also occurs in a 1991 book (in Chinese, no less), so now we're looking at a quarter-century of phrase use. Going back even farther, here's a 1981 title, for a third-century of phrase usage.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 16:40, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So what you're telling us is that we should keep a totally unrelated article referring to something else entirely because some people referred to it by the same name a handful of times in the last century? I somehow doubt your good faith here. অমিত talk 21:16, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another book with Cultural Marxism in the title (namely; Jameson on Jameson: Conversations on Cultural Marxism), the problem being that it doesn't contain the words Cultural Marxism anywhere within its 296 pages. I mention this as I like to think Wikipedia is about more than just judging books by their covers. I like to think we go a bit deeper than that. Your linked synopsis does mention that in this case it's a book about Political Sociology, and I assume if there was a significant movement within that discourse (a discourse thus far not been mentioned on the proposed page for Cultural Marxism), it would best appear on the relevant Wikipedia page Political sociology. Instead on that page Marxism is mentioned only as a subset of class analysis (one of Political sociology's 3 major categories of analysis) - and of course class analysis isn't innately Marxist in nature (see the Caste system in India for instance). Further more the link cites a number of Critical Theorists (that's more like it) yet states that they are specifically NOT Marxists - which goes against the idea of Cultural Marxism as holding the (conspiratorial) opinion that to be a practitioner in either Cultural Studies, or Critical Theory, you must therefore be Marxist (with a devious Marxist plan). However, I can understand that you yourself, may not be arguing for having a page on the conspiracy theory causing all the edit warring - in which case, you're free to change your vote to a vote to Merge with the page for Political sociology in line with the reference material you have provided (the stuff that's not in Chinese)... and I must now ask why that isn't your vote? Surely if it's a legitimate and significant movement in that area of discourse those monitoring the Political sociology page will whole heartedly agree with your addition?

P.S Do you speak Chinese? --Jobrot (talk) 02:24, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Chinese book is just a translation of Dworkin 1997 :I Shii (tock) 02:56, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep I don't see how anyone with an objective view can seriously consider this article for deletion. It may have some issues that need to be addressed, but the subject/term itself is legitimate without question. Google indisputably confirms this, with academic articles on the first page of results. I'm a centrist myself, but there is no question in my mind that this is an overt attempt at censorship, especially considering the shady recent merge attempt that Wales himself had to step in and put a stop to. LokiiT (talk) 22:07, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you might want to actually read what you're citing, before you cite it. That's not an "academic article", but a personal essay written by Kellner and released by him. It is the equivalent of a blog post, not reviewed by anyone else or published anywhere. It is not RS. What's more, it does not define "cultural Marxism" as a subject, anyway. Please see what a quote of my writing at the top of this request says. No censorship is involved. Perhaps you ought read WP:V? RGloucester — ☎ 22:18, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do consider a well sourced essay written by a prominent academic figure to give academic legitimacy to the topic (and so does google). It is in no way shape or form equivalent to a blog post. Considering that you took only 10 minutes to reply, you're either an extreme speed-reader, or you should perhaps take your own advice and read it before dismissing it. LokiiT (talk) 22:35, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources he cites, nor his own work, supports the idea of "cultural Marxism". The essay is equivalent to a blog post, because it is not peer-reviewed, it was not published, it did not appear anywhere than on his own personal website. It is merely his own personal work, and no publication found it fit to publish. That makes it not a WP:RS. Please see WP:SELFSOURCED. Otherwise, every university student's term paper could be considered "RS". Again, the principle of WP:V means that citations must support the text. A few scattered uses of the phrase "cultural Marxism" in a Google Scholar search does not mean there is a school of thought called "Cultural Marxism", nor does the term's appearance in a personal essay that has not been fact-checked by anyone. You'll note that that search is full of false hits. Anyone can throw the words "cultural" and "Marxism" together in the same work. Merely because two separate words appears does not support your position. RGloucester — ☎ 22:43, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're arguing a strawman. I never said that his article was peer reviewed. However, note that Douglas Kellner is a prominent expert in the topic and has numerous related published books. That makes him a little more of an authority than some unknown university student. Have you considered that your own understanding of Cultural Marxism is incomplete? LokiiT (talk) 22:53, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the Kellner essay, and it does not support the idea of a school of thought called "cultural Marxism", for one thing, and for another, who is calling him "prominent"? Regardless, it doesn't matter if he has "published books". This is not an RS. It is an essay. It is WP:SELFSOURCED. It has no fact-checking. No credibility. No nothing. It is a blog post, unless someone publishes it. Please find one of these "numerous related books", and then show me where it says that there is a school of thought called "cultural Marxism". RGloucester — ☎ 22:55, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge – For all of the reasons I've previously stated, namely that no reliable sources posit the existence of a school of thought called "cultural Marxism", and that the conspiracy theory already has an article. The term itself fails WP:NEO. RGloucester — ☎ 22:21, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why it fails WP:NEO, there are many political neologisms recognized on WP. Raquel Baranow (talk) 23:31, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:NEO: "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. An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs, books, and articles that use the term rather than are about the term) are insufficient to support articles on neologisms because this may require analysis and synthesis of primary source material to advance a position, which is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy". In other words, peoples' exercises in finding random WP:SELFSOURCED essays that use this phrase are both futile and useless, as they don't demonstrate anything. RGloucester — ☎ 00:00, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep There are academic articles written discussing "Cultural Marxism" dating way back into the 1990's http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/20007001?sid=21104938871221&uid=70&uid=4&uid=3739536&uid=3739256&uid=2129&uid=2, tracking a social political trend back to the 1950's. I've already posted links and excerpts for review on the 'talk' page, as have others. The content is not all "blogs" and political labeling, as is asserted here and the talk page. Read the referenced articles, especially concerning Cultural Marxism in Britain post-WW2. Certainly strip the article of all political content, or fork the article into two, one for a partisan political slur and another for academic study, but this is definitely an article that Wikipedia should keep, one way or another. Voodooengineer (talk) 23:06, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We are already have an article on cultural studies. RGloucester — ☎ 23:10, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, RGloucester, an article that references two sources using the term "Cultural Marxism" yet conspicuously neglecting to include the term "Cultural Marxism" within the text of the Wikipedia article. Just so we're clear about what's being omitted, here's more sources: http://www.jstor.org/discover/466452?sid=21104938899371&uid=3&uid=4580551827&uid=3739536&uid=3739256&uid=60&uid=4580551837&uid=70&uid=2&uid=2134&uid=2129 and http://www.jstor.org/discover/466449?sid=21104938899371&uid=4580551837&uid=2&uid=3&uid=3739256&uid=4580551827&uid=3739536&uid=60&uid=70&uid=2134&uid=2129 and http://www.jstor.org/discover/464942?sid=21104938899371&uid=4580551837&uid=70&uid=2129&uid=3739536&uid=2&uid=3&uid=3739256&uid=60&uid=2134&uid=4580551827.

The term is out there; I've now found it dating back to at least the 1980's. Cut the article to ribbons, fine, I can support that, but the notion that deletion is justified just doesn't pass any test of cursory research. Strip it down to bare bones, call it a stub, and monitor its editing, but Cultural Marxism is a thing with decades of academic discussion.

Finally, playing devil's advocate, it may be plausible to merge into cultural studies, but that merge would require, for clarity, a redirect from Cultural Marxism and explanations within the cultural studies article explaining that the two terms are synonymous.

Also, calling a term dating to the 1980's a neologism doesn't seem applicable. Voodooengineer (talk) 23:40, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. One source above is a duplicate. Apologies. Voodooengineer (talk) 23:45, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it has been made clear that anyone can put together the word "cultural" with "Marxism" in a descriptive sense to refer to cultural applications of Marxism. To be clear, we already have articles on these things. "Cultural Marxism" is a fringe term that is not the common way to refer to these things. None of these usages posit the existence of a school of thought called "cultural Marxism". To be clear, only one of the sources you've provided uses the phrase "cultural Marxism". That's "Theses on Cultural Marxism", by John Brenkman. If you actually pay for the article, or if you have an academic subscription, and see what's inside, you'll note that it does not use the word "Cultural Marxism" other than in the title, as a way to draw the reader in. Once again, no definition exists outside of the purely descriptive sense, and that cannot be the basis for an article, nor does it mean that there is a school of thought called "Cultural Marxism". Anyone can put together the words "culture" and "Marxism", just as was done with Jews and Communism, but that doesn't mean that we can have an article on the subject. You might want to read WP:AND. Even though this title doesn't contain "and", it does the same thing. It is a coatrack with no basis in WP:RS. I'd also direct you to WP:NEO above. RGloucester — ☎ 23:58, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break II[edit]

Delete - or keep, if one wants Wikipedia to exist at the level of stuff like this - urbandicionaryculturalmarxism Sayerslle (talk) 13:10, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What does the Oxford English Dictionary say about i Raquel Baranow (talk) 15:10, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

the OED is payment required and I'm not subscribing to search this term but I should think it says what oxforddictionaries.com says when you search this term - 'no exact match' -[30] Sayerslle (talk) 15:18, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Has an important historical, academic and cultural presence, and several academic works mention it, either to discredit it, or to confirm it. As such it seems foolish to delete this article. Wikipedia strives to show a complete picture, and as such this article, which indeed have issues, shouldn't be deleted but modified. --Nod'Vos 17:45, 27 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nod'Vos (talk • contribs)

The academic articles I've seen don't "discredit it" (after all, no one in academia uses Cultural Marxism in the conspiratorial sense) they instead use it for the very specific, very temporarily located influences of The Frankfurt School on the development of Cultural Studies. If you can find an academic article that discredits or contravenes that academic usage, feel free to show us (although the academic consensus seems pretty strong on this one). But currently they are the two usages (the academic usage, which already has a place on wikipedia as sections within the articles to which it refers [ie. merger]) and the conspiracy usage, which has NO PLACE on wikipedia. Non-notable conspiracy theories (of which this one is a recent fad) should be couched within the factual terms from which they extend, as to keep wikipedia based in FACT and keep it from becoming an encyclopedia of conspiracies and kooks. --Jobrot (talk) 14:53, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge - Nothing in the article seems notable enough for this to warrant a page of its own.--SakuraNoSeirei (talk) 17:59, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If it's good enough to be mentioned in the peer-reviewed Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/critical-theory/, it's good enough to be mentioned on Wikipedia. If a merge take place anyway, the conspiracy theory should be merged into the article about the concept, not the other way around.PirkeiAvot (talk) 20:23, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lord, save us all. I'll note that the link this fellow has provided links to an article on critical theory that does not once mention "Cultural Marxism". RGloucester — ☎ 20:48, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I move that PirkeiAvot's vote not be counted as they clearly have the wrong topic, and wikipedia already has a page on Critical theory --60.241.86.130 (talk) 20:56, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would you care to quote the context in which the term 'Cultural Marxism' is explicitly mentioned? অমিত talk 02:35, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Its a common term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShotmanMaslo (talk • contribs)
Strong Keep Wikipedia not having an article on a common term like this would be pathetic. And it would be best if this wasn't a matter of the term being used by far right nut jobs or not like people are suggesting going to Metapedia, even if it were, a term being offensive to you it's not ground for deletion. I'm as leftist as it gets but I can be unbiased. Please, be neutral. Also I hope Rgloucester doesn't judge all Keeps as not valid like last time.

"Cultural Marxism and Political Sociology" by Richard Weiner, 1981 [31]

"Conversations on Cultural Marxism" by Fredric Jameson, 2007 [32]

"Cultural Marxism in Postwar Britain" by Dennis Dworkin, Professor of History at the University of Nevada [33]

"Cultural Marxism" by Frederic Miller and Agnes F. Vandome [34]

"Cultural Marxism and Cultural Studies" by UCLA Professor Douglas Kellner [35]

"Cultural Marxism: Media, Culture and Society" on the Critical sociology Transforming sociology series of the Institute for Advanced Studies in Soc:iology [36]

It's infamous for being used by Anders Behring Breivik, and of course, there are other authors bashing the term, but even saying, to their opinion that it's non-sense, it isn't ground for deletion, it wouldn't be the first term that is open for debate. [37] [38]

It' also a term that has appeared on multiple news outlets [39] [40] [41] [42] So we can assume the term is used by scholars, politicians and media, on multiple books TITLED with the term, and other books and papers discussing the term. Loganmac (talk) 22:23, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Common where, exactly? RGloucester — ☎ 21:51, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Each of those sources is either describing Cultural studies in the UK, or the Frankfurt School conspiracy theory. So no, we cannot "assume the term is used by scholars, politicians and media, on multiple books TITLED with the term" or in other words, not legitimize a conspiracy theory that has been promoted by fringe organizations such as Stormfront, Metapedia, Neo-Nazis and other White Power groups. 76.248.201.50 (talk) 22:58, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, my GOD!!!!!! How many times must I refute the same damn sources? NO ONE READS WHAT THEY CITED. First of all, to make it very clear to you, gathering miscellaneous "sources" that use the words "cultural" and "Marxism" together does not necessitate an article, per WP:NEO. You must find articles the provide a definition of the term, or analyse its existence as a term. Again, read WP:NEO. Regardless, as I've said thousands of times, the Dworkin book does not use "cultural Marxism" as a term to mean anything other than "cultural studies", which we have an article on. He says himself that this is his own invented usage, and not common anywhere. The "Salon" piece is a WP:SOAP commentator piece, and not an RS, the same with The Daily Telegraph piece. Regardless, both of those refer to the conspiracy, not to anything else. We have an article on that. The Kellner piece is a personal essay that is not RS, and anyway, doesn't posit the idea of a school of thought called "Cultural Marxism". The Miller piece provides this summary "Cultural Marxism is a generic term referring to a loosely associated group of critical theorists who have been influenced by Marxist thought and who share an interest in analyzing the role of the media, art, theatre, film and other cultural institutions in a society. The phrase refers to any critique of culture that has been informed by Marxist thought". Again, this is not something we can have an article on, per WP:AND. Anything a Marxist has every said about culture does not make an article. That's the same as Jews and Communism. We have existing articles on all the various strains of thought that involved Marxism and culture. That's a coatrack recipe, right there. It is a purely descriptive usage that is rare, and that cannot be the basis for an article. RGloucester — ☎ 23:48, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please Rgloucester maintain decorum, you were told this before, I don't know why you have such a personal problem with this article. And it's not the best idea for you to participate in a debate over criticism of Marxism when you've admitted in the past being a Marxist. Please be civil. Loganmac (talk) 00:39, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How about you don't misuse sources? How about you read what people write, and the sources you cite? The reason you don't is because you haven't got any sources, and you're only here to make an ideological point. I never "admitted" to being a Marxist. Being a Marxist is not a crime. I shan't be civil with the lowest-of-the-low type of person who doesn't even read the policies before him, or the sources he cites. Now, until you are ready to address the complete attempts at deception on your part, I suggest you refrain from commenting. RGloucester — ☎ 01:19, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith, I'm not here to make an ideological point. I never said being a Marxist is a crime, I just simply referred to your user page that states "This user identifies as a Marxist." WP:CIVIL is one of the five pillars of this project, if you say you won't be civil with people simply because they disagree with you it's pretty paradogical it is you who is telling me to leave.

I'm not assuming good faith with someone who engages in intellectual dishonesty by misusing sources, and violating Wikipedia policies. Please, until you can participate honestly in this discussion, don't comment. RGloucester — ☎ 01:37, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These titles have already been covered on the talk page (hence the frustrations) but I'll cover them again here:

"Cultural Marxism and Political Sociology" by Richard Weiner, 1981

[43] Described as A thorough examination and analysis of the tensions between political sociology and the culturally oriented Marxism that emerged in the 60s and 70s - Note, not the same thing as 'Cultural Marxism'; an organized political movement that's taken over (or aims to take over) our culture. In fact Richard Weiner doesn't even seem to think that all Critical theorists are innately dirty stinking commies as the description of the book makes clear that many Critical Theorists; "fall ideologically outside the cultural Marxism movement". A title alone can't be referenced, and my money is on this instance not being an exception to the standard meaning (ie. The Frankfurt School).

"Conversations on Cultural Marxism" by Fredric Jameson, 2007 [44]

Oh come on! The words 'Cultural Marxism' don't even appear within the text of this book! [45]

"Cultural Marxism in Postwar Britain" by Dennis Dworkin [46]

Dworkin's himself proclaims this to be "the first intellectual history to study BRITISH cultural Marxism conceived as a coherent intellectual tradition" and notes that his doing so is contentious (this is evidence against your case).

"Cultural Marxism" by Frederic Miller and Agnes F. Vandome [47]

"Please note that the content of this book primarily consists of articles available from Wikipedia or other free sources online. Cultural Marxism is a generic term referring to a loosely associated group of critical theorists who have been [deemed to be] influenced by Marxist thought and who share an interest in analyzing the role of the media, art, theatre, film and other cultural institutions in a society [how dare they!]. The phrase refers to any critique of culture that has been [deemed to be] informed by Marxist thought. Although scholars around the globe have employed various types of Marxist critique to analyze cultural artifacts, the two most influential have been the Institute for Social Research at the University of Frankfurt am Main in Germany (the Frankfurt School) and the Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies in Birmingham, UK. The latter has been at the center of a resurgent interest in the broader category of Cultural Studies."

"Cultural Marxism and Cultural Studies" by UCLA Professor Douglas Kellner [48]

An essay Douglas Kellner uploaded himself to his own faculty directory (read: self-published, non-peer reviewed) in which he regularly references himself, and only contains 9 instances of the term Cultural Marxism (none of them being definitive or meaning anything other than the origins of Cultural Studies/The Frankfurt School), and he does so interchangeably with 'Cultural Studies' (literally switching from one to the other in adjacent sentences). In addition he uses the term Cultural Studies 90 times in the essay (making Cultural Studies a full 10 times more common in this work that users keep citing as legitimating the Cultural Marxism).

"Cultural Marxism: Media, Culture and Society" on the Critical sociology Transforming sociology series of the Institute for Advanced Studies in Sociiology [49]

Come on, what is this? a computer compiled subject reader? Look at the cover [50] it states "High Quality Content by WIKIPEDIA Articles" and the looking up links by googling the ISBN cites different authors depending on which pages you visit!

Stop giving out sausage and calling it ham. Your references clearly point toward the term 'Cultural Marxism' being a rarefied academic terminology for the early stages of development around Cultural Studies (ie. The Frankfurt School). To claim anything beyond that, or that it alone merits a wikipedia article - THAT is a bit too far and doesn't line up with your sources! There are OBVIOUS places for this academically uncommon term to be put on pre-existing wikipedia pages (if people are so inclined)... and the only other usage is as a fad conspiracy theory. Until some evidence is provided - the communists haven't taken over!--60.241.86.130 (talk) 04:30, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

-

You can present your arguments without being UNCIVIL, please stop associating me with thinking "communists are taking over", this is exactly what's wrong with arguers for deletion, no I'm not a neo-nazi simply for thinking this is a term used by people. For god's sake in my country everyone idolizes Che Guevara, I got a freaking poster somewhere in my home. I celebrated the end of the Cuban embargo. Some people can leave their personal opinions off Wikipedia. Loganmac (talk) 11:53, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I attack ONLY your arguments, and never ever mean to attack YOU (the person behind the computer) I trust the people of Wikipedia (yourself included) to be able to distinguish the logician from the argument. I've never performed any ad hominem (I do not wish to discuss your political affiliations or beliefs if you have any) and if you can substantiate your claims or provide a further argument against anything I've said - I'd be more than happy to hear it. I say this in good faith, and with respect to both yourself, and the process of debate/discussion. Yours sincerely

P.S I must point out my comments below preceded these above comments by several hours, and were made before Loganmac aired their grievance concerning their feelings of insult (although if any insult was taken, please tell me/point it out, and I shall correct myself or elucidate on my intended meanings further [I assure you I've not aimed to insult any one]). --60.241.86.130 (talk) 13:01, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Had to post again as I looked into some of the news coverage you cited as well, particularly this (clearly reporting a conspiracy theorists viewpoint): [51]

"In the post, Gen. Lee calls Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton "vermin." "Muslims are demanding and receiving far more special treatment than other minorities," he adds. "Broadly speaking there is very little difference between the ultimate goal of Cultural Marxism and Islam."

And this (Clearly mocking a conspiracy theorists book):

"Indeed, the book is an endless parade of classic far-right conspiracy theories and vicious, factually groundless fear mongering. From the idea that “cultural Marxism”is a force hellbent on ruining the world, to attacks on Obama as a “socialist”president, Savage covers the gamut of far-right conspiracy theories in fine fashion."

Did you not even read your own links to make sure they were coherent with your argument re: this page? Just to make it clear, this term is BOTH a) a rarefied academic term with limited use that commonly refers to (at times being used interchangeably with) The Frankfurt school to mean early Marxist influences on the development of Cultural Studies as a discourse (which it's since progressed from) in which case it should be merged with that as the meaning on the intended pages as that is the (albeit rarefied) academic usage - BUT IT ALSO REFERS TO - b) a POPULAR conspiracy theory used by the right as a pejorative for the left in regards to claiming Multiculturalism, Political Correctness, Feminism, Gay Rights and Atheism are not legitimate movements of their own accord, but are instead communist conspiracies to shatter the social order as we know it and install Marxism (ie. the William S. Lind usage) which obviously doesn't deserve a Wikipedia page of its own. Your OWN reference material substantiates THESE as the meanings for 'Cultural Marxism'. So unless you can find reliable evidence for the conspiracy, or evidence of a different academic use, then this discussion is over, and the current article has no place or future on Wikipedia. --60.241.86.130 (talk) 04:59, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a common term and omission would be odd. The article existing shouldn't even be a point of contention, only the contents. Thorrand (talk) 22:32, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is there some issue I'm not aware of that makes that an issue? If there are other articles for me to edit as well I will, and have before on my IP. Thorrand (talk) 13:37, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what's up with your IP, but the policy page for usage of that tag is here; WP:SPA, and states: "These tags are not an official Wikipedia policy, and may be heeded or not based upon your judgment and discretion" and that "New users acting in good faith often edit topics in which they have a general interest. Such accounts warrant particularly gentle scrutiny before accusing them of any breach of official policies and content guidelines" given that you've only made 4 edits [52] (none of which seem particularly offensive) - I don't really see how this tag could have been applied fairly or in good faith. So I'm going to remove it. --Jobrot (talk) 14:31, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As for the article, yes there is an issue, because the academic usage of the term (which tends to trumps other sources) uses it to refer mainly (if not completely) to the Frankfurt School's effects on the early stages of the development of Cultural Studies. So the term's meaning is covered and better housed elsewhere (as a subsection of the topics to which it refers) and it is Wikipedia's common name policy WP:CommonName that "Editors should also consider the criteria outlined above. Ambiguous[6] or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources. Neutrality is also considered; our policy on neutral titles, and what neutrality in titles is, follows in the next section. Article titles should be neither vulgar (unless unavoidable) nor pedantic. When there are multiple names for a subject, all of them fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others."

Also this is an encyclopedia based on facts and evidence - so where ever we ARE afforded the opportunity, the onus is on us to couch conspiracy theories in FACT and the FACTUAL terms they stem from. So the article's existence (not just its current dubious, confused and conflated contents) is absolutely in question. --Jobrot (talk) 14:30, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This article is about one of the major socio-political & intellectual currents of our day. Its deletion would be preposterous, irrespective of any individual problems the article may have; it can always be improved (and doubtless should be). KevinOKeeffe (talk) 00:25, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please cite sources that describe "Cultural Marxism" as a "major current" of anything? RGloucester — ☎ 01:19, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - and revert to an earlier version. Although it's clear that the current version of the article has some issues, the recent Slate article that mentioned this controversy links to an earlier version that is much better written and well sourced. It wouldn't be accurate to fold it into Frankfurt school, since the term also includes Birmingham School. This article has existed for years without issue until it was changed to frame the topic as some sort of conspiracy theory, and it will be perfectly fine if it is restored to that earlier state. --PiMaster3 ^talk 00:45, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, it would be just sad for the image of Wikipedia that an article linking to "the attempt to remove Cultural Marxism from Wikipedia" will be met with the actual deletion for an outside reader. It should be also reverted. Noone had a problem with this for almost 10 years until recently and it just makes us look extremely fishy Loganmac (talk) 00:53, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, it was not a "better state", as it was completely unsourced, and none of citations supported the text. This is easy to verify. Just click on the links, and read through. The first citation is to a book called Western Marxism by Merquior. That book does not contain the words "Cultural Marxism". Nowhere in the book does that phrase exist. This is easy to verify. That book is about Western Marxism, which we have an article on. RGloucester — ☎ 01:19, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have access to that particular book (which may use the term within the text itself), but you have three citations in that page that use the term Cultural Marxism in the title. One of them is available online, written by Douglas Kellner, who is a professor of critical theory at UCLA. He uses the term multiple times throughout the text, and not in a pejorative manner. --PiMaster3 ^talk 01:48, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again, perhaps you could read this discussion, where the Kellner bit has been addressed numerous times. That essay is not RS. It is a personal essay, never published in any publication, never peer-reviewed, never edited by anyone else. It is WP:SELFSOURCED, available only because he released it himself, equivalent to a blog post, and hence not WP:RS. Regardless, he does not use the term in any way other than a descriptive sense to refer to things we already have articles on, so even if it was RS, it would not justify the existence of this article. And no, the Merquior book does not use the term "Cultural Marxism", anywhere. I've read the full text, which is available online through academic databases. It is also available at any good research library. RGloucester — ☎ 01:51, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While I disagree with your assessment of Kellner's article (per LokiiT's argument above), even if you ignore that article for the moment, that still leaves us with the 1991 journal article "British Cultural Marxism" published in the International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society and the 1997 book Cultural Marxism in Post War Britain: History, the New Left and the Origins of Cultural Studies. --PiMaster3 ^talk 02:08, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can't disagree. There is nothing to disagree about. Blog posts are not admissible, and neither are the essays of university students. Want to know the reason why? They've never been reviewed by anyone else, to see if they are worth publishing. Unless a third party decides to publish it, it is just WP:SOAP with nothing to back it up. Regardless, as I said, the essay itself uses the phrase in a purely descriptive sense that does not support the idea of the existence of a school of thought called "Cultural Marxism". It simply uses it to mean anything vaguely Marxist that has to do with culture, and that cannot be the basis for an article per WP:AND. There is nothing to argue about. It is a useless essay. It is not an "article". Being an "article" requires it to be published somewhere. I've already explained about the Dworkin book above. Dworkin himself says that he invented the term for his own purposes, and was using it to refer to what is called Cultural studies in the mainstream. We have an article on cultural studies. The "British Cultural Marxism" article uses the term to refer to a uniquely British movement, which in the more mainstream is called Cultural studies. We have an article on that, like with Dworkin. This does not include the Frankfurt School, or anyone that is not British. RGloucester — ☎ 02:12, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources presented by Loganmac above and per the argument put forth by Pimaster. -- Calidum 01:29, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He didn't present any sources. He presented none that supported his god-damned argument, and plenty that are not RS. READ THE DAMN SOURCES. IT IS PLAIN TO SEE. PiMaster has no argument either, as he favours a version of this article that was COMPLETELY UNSOURCED. RGloucester — ☎ 01:32, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The very fact that it is pissing a few people off by its mere existing speaks to its relevance. Of course it can be improved, as can anything. If those who oppose it spent half the time editing the article that they are spending denouncing every "keep" vote they read, It would be the best article on Wikipedia. ScrapIronIV (talk) 01:51, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. I hope the triumvate of closers consider the validity of policy-based arguments above those that scream loudest. Igor the facetious xmas bunny (talk) 01:54, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect or Merge selectively (probably to Frankfurt School) - The subject of this AfD is a pejorative term, not a field of study, philosophical discipline, or the application of Marxist methodologies or ideologies to culture, but I see several !votes operating under the assumption that we're talking about the latter. We already have separate articles for the application of Marxist methodologies or ideologies to culture (Frankfurt School, critical theory, Cultural materialism (anthropology), Cultural materialism (cultural studies), etc.). The term was hijacked to be used as a pejorative, and it's that use alone that we're talking about. I think there's room for a section at the main article(s) on how "cultural Marxism" has been appropriated (and I think Frankfurt School conspiracy theory should be sent down the same road -- perhaps later spinning off to something like Criticism of critical theory), but I haven't seen enough coverage of this term as a pejorative (as opposed to use of this term as a pejorative or coverage of this term in its original non-pejorative meaning, whether or not it accompanies positive or negative opinions) to justify a stand-alone article even under a different name, at this point. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:44, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Being pejorative isn't ground for deletion, we have tons of articles that are used just to insult people, see Feminazi. We all know we wouldn't redirect nigger to Black people, since the Nigger article is to explain why is it used prejoratively, etc, same as Feminazi doesn't redirect to Feminism, or Kike to Jews. The term Cultural Marxism is used; for what, it should be dealt with on the talk page. If its definition is often blurry, say it so on the article, and let's detail every sense of the term. But I see a lot of people saying "well this is far-right so it doesn't belong", which is crazy, if a a term made up by The KKK had books published by authors, it would also be on Wikipedia, the term would probably be bashed everywhere, but that's not grounds to remove it because it's offensive or was made by "bad people." Previous discussions were closed per No consensus and I'm not seeing anything different, and this was like a week ago. Per the nominator's wording "Before Jimbo’s peace offering to the participants in the Gamergate controversy, the article had been deleted after a discussion ranging a month, far more than befits a fairly obscure term in right-wing circles" he's letting his personal belief blur his vision, in that he uses "right-wing" as if it was something bad, and seems to be against "GamersGate", or angry at Jimbo for throwing them a bone or something. Loganmac (talk) 02:56, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Nobody said being pejorative is grounds for deletion. It being a term without a subject is grounds for deletion -- unless the particular usage of the term is the subject, in which case it requires substantial coverage of the term (not use of the term, which is completely and totally irrelevant to AfD, but coverage of the term as a pejorative independent of the kind of "cultural marxism" already covered in other Wikipedia articles). Most of those you reference have very long histories and are subject to extensive linguistic, cultural, political, etc. analysis and discussion in a number of fields. That's simply not the case here, at least as far as I can tell. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:28, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It fails WP:NEO. Wikipedia is not a dictionary for every term in the world. RGloucester — ☎ 03:22, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Loganmac, it should be noted that while Cultural Marxism is often used as a pejorative term, it is not exclusively used as a pejorative term like the other articles that you mention.

Rhododendrites, that seems like it might be a viable option. One concern I have about doing that was that the term also includes the Birmingham School, but that is effectively just an offshoot of the Frankfurt School. Somewhere in the Frankfurt School article it can say "sometimes referred to as Cultural Marxism" or "sometimes pejoratively referred to as Cultural Marxism". My main concern was RGloucester's attempts to frame any usage of the term as promoting a conspiracy theory, which in and of itself is a conspiracy theory. Folding the Frankfurt School conspiracy theory article into Criticism of critical theory is a good suggestion and once that article is created there should be another AFD debate on the Frankfurt School conspiracy theory article. --PiMaster3 ^talk 03:33, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for a school of thought called "Cultural Marxism" that includes the "Birmingham School" or the "Frankfurt School"? I haven't seen any. Dworkin says that his version of the term does not include the Frankfurt School, and that it only includes British 50s-60s stuff. He says that he's invented it, and that it is his proposed alternative to the term Cultural studies. That's WP:FRINGE, and not supported by anyone else in academia. He admits as much at the start of the book. Again, the usage of "cultural" with "Marxism" may exist, but that's a purely descriptive usage that cannot be the basis for an article. per WP:AND. It is not a "coherent entity", merely a descriptive phrase, used very rarely, if at all, and not accepted by mainstream academia. RGloucester — ☎ 03:49, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then it should just redirect to the Frankfurt School article. But redirecting it to the Frankfurt School conspiracy theory article just isn't accurate. It may not be a widely used term in academic circles, but it is a widely used term in other media (and not just fringe conspiracy sites) often mentioned alongside critical theory. --PiMaster3 ^talk 04:07, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for its use in "other media"? Remember, per WP:NEO, you cannot just provide sources that use the term. You need to provide ones that discuss its use. RGloucester — ☎ 04:09, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

American Thinker, [http://www.wnd.com/2007/05/41737/ WorldNetDaily], and CNS News all have articles discussing the concept as the main focus of the article. --PiMaster3 ^talk 04:21, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

at least 2 of those three are most decidedly NOT reliable sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:25, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

None of them are, because they are all commentary pieces, which cannot be used as sources per WP:SOAP. Find a reliable source. Commentary or opinion pieces are not acceptable. RGloucester — ☎ 04:50, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any reliable sources to back up the claim that it is only used in reference to a conspiracy theory? I wasn't necessarily advocating citing the sources sources I listed in an article; they were just to establish that it should redirect Frankfurt School rather than Frankfurt School conspiracy theory. The entire Frankfurt School conspiracy theory article is a WP:POVFORK and much of its content should be folded into a more neutrally titled article like Criticism of critical theory like Rhododendrites suggested. --PiMaster3 ^talk 13:52, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The unreliable WP:SOAP sources you were just citing as validating the term: "American Thinker, [http://www.wnd.com/2007/05/41737/ WorldNetDaily], and CNS News all have articles discussing the concept as the main focus of the article" - all use the term in the conspiratorial sense:

"revolutionaries reorganized themselves into a multitude of single issue groups. Thus we now have for example, radical feminists, black extremists, anti-war ‘peace' activists, animal rights groups, radical environmentalists, and ‘gay' rights groups... ...all together, this is Cultural Marxism disguised as multiculturalism" -American Thinker [emphasis added]

"Sometime during the last half-century, someone stole our culture... our Western, Judeo-Christian roots, was swept aside by an ideology. We know that ideology best as “political correctness” or “multi-culturalism.” It really is cultural Marxism." -WorldNetDaily [emphasis added]

"It [Cultural Marxism] has succeeded in effecting a transvaluation of ALL values in society" -CNS News [emphasis added]

yet now you've turned around and are demanding that usage be proven? --Jobrot (talk) 23:25, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

merge as a pejorative, there is precious little to be said about it, and it can be covered in the other articles. as a non-pejorative, it doesnt exist and so the option would be delete. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:20, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. It is a term that is widely used by the political right. It may be an idiotic perjorative term, but we keep articles on idiotic perjoratives and call them out as such. I honestly can't comprehend why people want to delete it. The deletion arguments basically boil down to "I don't like it." Don't like the phrase? Fine. The best antidote for bad speech is good speech. Rewrite the article, and make the people who use the term sound as ignorant as you please. Cite all the academic works that show how the phrase is really ignorant, if you wish. But we absolutely need to keep an article on a concept that is so popular with the Christian right. Jsharpminor (talk) 04:54, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"we keep articles on idiotic perjoratives " only if they meet WP:GNG and are appropriately sourced per WP:NEO and there is no evidence that that can be done for this particular pejorative in a manner where a stand alone article is the most appropriate application. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:07, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention the problem of Wikipedia:Content forking. We have various articles on various subjects, such as Critical theory, Frankfurt School conspiracy theory, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 05:18, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice the sudden string of keeps and "strong keeps"? Thread jacked! The ideologues have shown up to spread their conspiracy theory! COMMUNISTS RUN THE MODERN MEDIA (video games included)!!!! http://www.reddit.com/r/WikiInAction/comments/2qjalc/cultural_marxism_is_nominated_for_deletion_again/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.86.130 (talk) 05:00, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you accusing some editor of brigading? If so, please point them out, and report them if it need be. If you don't have any evidence, please remove your accusation and also stick to the formatting and composure Loganmac (talk) 05:50, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We just do what we always do - ignore the canvassed SPAs that dont have any coherent policy based position.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:57, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well Loganmac, whilst I can see that there is a user with a very similar name to yours on the above linked reddit, and that your wikipedia account and their reddit account both express a keen interest in GamerGate related articles (the reddit account even going as far as to make posts accusing wikipedia of bias and specific editors of sock puppetry) - it's not exactly brigading just yet (not there anyways). --60.241.86.130 (talk) 03:06, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OUTING, the only one being disruptive here is you. Loganmac (talk) 04:05, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I never outed you, merely pointed out the similarity in your user name and interests/contributions and the reddit user's name and interests (and contributions to reddit). These are statements of fact, I draw no conclusions. Facts are what wikipedia is made of. There is no harassment here, and our interactions have been limited to today and to this page (and will hopefully remain that way) --60.241.86.130 (talk) 05:11, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This should be a merge discussion, not a deletion discussion.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:28, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

deleting a WP:NEO is a perfectly acceptable practice. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 06:07, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even if that did apply here (it doesn't) it would still be a question for a merge discussion to address.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 06:57, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The term is in common use within many different fields, the concept is current, the article is in a good state, and having a separate article would stop others being bloated, overlong, or unfocused (all three of which are issues Wikipedia has policies on avoiding). With some love and tender care, I think this article could be in a very good state if allowed to be kept. doktorb _words^deeds 09:13, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What fields are those? An article that is largely unsourced is in a "good state"? 16:23, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Strong Keep This AfD is the second for the same article in mere weeks, when it had been around for years before, and no new reason has been introduced for deletion. I don't see why User:Amitabho gets to decide whether the discussion is "based in the facts" or not. Also, if we're name-dropping the Gamergate thing, User:Black Kite is a named party to the current Arbcom case, so I don't think that admin can be fairly considered "uninvolved". 69.159.80.46 (talk) 09:54, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, I don't think it's the best idea to "choose" the admins beforehand, and Black Kite has been participating on the GamerGate workshop {https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate/Workshop&diff=prev&oldid=639462293] [53] so his decision as an admin might get blurred Loganmac (talk) 10:29, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm confused - what on earth has this article got to do with Gamergate? (Not that I consider myself involved in that dispute, as I said in evidence at ArbCom). Black Kite (talk) 11:52, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that a significant number of gamergate supporters believe the gaming media is rigged by Cultural Marxists in order to push for feminism (as to fragment the social order and install Marxism during the unrest). Hence they're attempting to direct their fan base here in order to defend the legitimacy of the conspiracy theory (as they believe it's in their favor to force/legitimize the concept/article):

http://www.reddit.com/r/WikiInAction/comments/2qjalc/cultural_marxism_is_nominated_for_deletion_again/

http://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/2occ7m/wikipedias_cultural_marxism_article_now_redirects

http://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/2ohsed/cultural_marxism_page_restored_by_none_other_than

http://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/2ofpxu/why_cultural_marxism_isnt_a_thing_xpost_ranarcho/

http://www.reddit.com/r/WikiInAction/comments/2qjalc/cultural_marxism_is_nominated_for_deletion_again/

http://www.reddit.com/r/WikiInAction/comments/2ojo4a/jimmy_wales_steps_up_and_restores_the_cultural

Otherwise the sheeple will never wake up and the Jewish commie feminazi gay marriage endorsing Islamics will take over (although I think GG are mostly focused on the feminism element). --60.241.86.130 (talk) 12:31, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. Well, on a personal level I don't think that's a problem (after all we're simply deciding the policy-based consensus on notability or otherwise of the subject) but given the previous issues on the subject, the last thing we want is for any close to leave any idea of bias, so I'll recuse from closing this. I'll post on AN now. Black Kite (talk) 12:47, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary Break 3[edit]

Comment My understanding of the facts so far is that the academic consensus (as has been panned out on the talk page by those actually looking into the references) - is that the limited amount of academics who do use the term "Cultural Marxism" use it to refer specifically to the Gramsci/Frankfurt origins of Critical Theory and Cultural Studies, and in no way make the claim that Critical theory or Cultural Studies is innately Marxist, nor that there's a concerted effort in the western media to push Marxism, or to fragment "western Christian" society so that Marxism can be pushed. So the issue with the article's existence (and whether this means deleting it, or merging it) is that the small sliver of truth to which the article refers should obviously be (and is) covered in other places on Wikipedia (leaving only the addition of the newly popularized term to be added/merged to take some place in those pages). Beyond that is conspiracy theories about people and schools of thought that already have adequate and well referenced pages. So unless someone can point at an academic consensus that supports there being a media conspiracy (ie. Cultural Marxism being an extended school of thought with Cultural Marxists having taken over much of modern media for their own agenda) - then merging this "article" or rather the addition of the conspiracy terminology to other pages; seems to be the logical path forwards based on the facts and academic consensus (as opposed to the claims and pejorative gossip). As I've said through out this "debate", this is no different from the Rothschild family conspiracy theory (complete with similar levels of anti-semitism) - until the claims can be proven, the theory shouldn't be substantiated by having it's own (trouble proned) wikipedia article. WP:CFORK WP:V WP:OR WP:FRINGE --Jobrot (talk) 11:14, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bold Delete and perform the inevitable fate this article will face once the canvassing and off-site collaboration from WP:SPAs has settled down. Many commenters here and editors of the article are misunderstanding the process of fitting into WP:GNG and more specifically WP:NOPAGE/. As for the article itself, many sources listed here fall under the eyes of WP:ONUS beneath WP:V. Merely because a term exists a few times in articles from B-tier sources does not imply any means of verifying some kind of notability. Merely because it is in the title (but not contents of) of essays or academic papers (see WP:SPS and WP:REDFLAG for fringe material) does not imply notability and have no place here, similar to the old climate change wars and other controversial topics. Hell, a graph from Google Trends Australia has been in the article near the top since 8 December[54] as an incredibly desperate attempt to provide WP:N. Worse, it was added under a stealth edit summary to hide its inclusion. It's so well-guarded and generally low-priority in trying to clear up that the essay-style wording of its entire paragraph has been left there to rot.

Since the previous attempt at a re-direct was personally reverted by User:Jimmy Wales some 3 weeks ago the overall quality has only gotten worse. In the prior AfD I suggested a merge but it's become progressively move evident that we as an encyclopedia, despite the extremely fervent effort of many passionate volunteers, are unable polish this WP:NEO and derogatory, partisan phrase enough to justify its own existence. If only a panel of uninvolved editors could actually work on the article without interference as they will be reviewing this discussion we might have a shot at a "clean" AfD. I implore the closing admins to weigh this as a "big picture" debate and look beyond the wealth of !votes relying on recentism to justify a WP:CFORK enjoying its WP:15MOF behind a WP:WG and beyond the abilities of all editors who have attempted improvements.

I've been deliberately staying away from this and related articles but we have to draw the line somewhere. The incredibly divisive nature faced in the same handful or articles the past few months cannot be allowed to remain indefinitely under the guise of "no consensus" from heavy participation and risk of retaliation against admins. ~~Were I an admin I'd gladly do it myself to take the heat off others.~~ That was some grandstanding, I apologize, so I'm striking it. ♪ Tstorm (talk) 14:22, 28 December 2014 (UTC) EDIT: ♪ Tstorm (talk) 14:24, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I find the keep reasons to be stronger than the delete ones. — Ched : ? 16:20, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or, as a second choice, Redirect. Fails WP:NEO: Neologisms … for which there are no treatments in secondary sources are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia. It has been shown that sources purporting to reference this topic either do not, in fact, do so or are not WP:RS. As stated earlier, "We just can't have article on Wikipedia about things for which we have no specific sourcing.” JoeSperrazza (talk) 17:09, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you support a redirect? Shii (tock) 18:53, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I would. I updated my comments accordingly. Thanks! JoeSperrazza (talk) 22:52, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the users arguing for deletion seems to be politically motivated, maybe merge with Cultural Bolshevism Stiapel (talk) 22:25, 28 December 2014 (UTC)— Stiapel (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Do you have an actual policy based reason or just your aspersions against other editors? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:49, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge Frankfurt School conspiracy theory to Cultural Marxism~~ and modify content (both articles are horrible). It appears "Frankfurt School conspiracy theory" has 0 Google Scholar hits and 1 Google Books hit (the only hit, Catastrophism: The Apocalyptic Politics of Collapse and Rebirth, is being used as a source despite the fact it's a book by a radio journalist). The term "Cultural Marxism" on the other hand has plenty of usage in Google Scholar (1760 hits, regardless whether it's with a lower-case "C" or not - and indeed not all usage refers to what we're discussing about at all - but that just means a redirect is inappropriate). So why would "Frankfurt School conspiracy theory" somehow be a better title when it has very little actual usage outside of a 2003 SPLC intelligence report? Sourcing is difficult on both articles, and both articles currently are inappropriate per WP:SYNTH. If a merge is done, Frankfurt School conspiracy theory should be merged back into Cultural Marxism because the latter has far more usage. People have rightly criticized Cultural Marxism article's poor condition, but at the same time they have ignored the fact that the other article is just as poor. Or should both be deleted, then? --Pudeo ' 23:38, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was able to access Chip Berlet's Collectivists, Communists, LaborBosses, and Treason: The Tea Parties as Right-Wing Populist Counter-Subversion Panic and it does not mention "Frankfurt School" at all except in one source name which is also mentioned in the Wikipedia article. So, the only sources which use the Frankfurt School conspiracy theory are the 2003 SPLC report and "Dialectic of Counter-Enlightenment: The Frankfurt School as Scapegoat of the Lunatic Fring" by Martin Jay. I don't think that's much stronger than what Cultural Marxism now has. So redirecting this to that one isn't really an improvement. I'm leaning into deleting both Cultural Marxism and Frankfurt School conspiracy theory. --Pudeo ' 23:56, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, Pudeo. RGloucester — ☎ 23:58, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with deleting both articles, but would also be fine with a merger into the Frankfurt school as - regardless of their being no reliable sources for the claims being made - the [WP:SOAP] conspiratorial "sources" do mention The Frankfurt School often enough (although obviously I'd never suggest a stand alone article for such claims).

My personal feeling is that conspiracy theory pages based on real people, places or things (Area 51 and the Rothschild Family are good examples) should be merged as sections of the legitimate articles they conceptually extend from. I believe Cultural Marxism extending beyond the Frankfurt School is just that (a conspiracy theory) and I'm yet to see any evidence that suggests otherwise. --Jobrot (talk) 00:31, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

did you search for "Frankfurt School" AND "Conspiracy Theory"? because "They developed a conspiracy theory which involves the FS ..." or "The FS later became subject of a conspiracy theory" etc would be equally valid phrasings even if the specific term "FSCT" wasnt used. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:45, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The work; Collectivists, Communists, LaborBosses, and Treason: The Tea Parties as Right-Wing Populist Counter-Subversion Panic (available here [55]) doesn't mention the word "Frankfurt" at all (as far as I can tell), but it's only being used in Frankfurt School conspiracy theory article as a limited example of the "fertile ground" used to develop the conspiracy. --Jobrot (talk) 02:34, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TRPoD, my message only had results from "Frankfurt School conspiracy theory" with quotation marks around it. Here are the results for AND "conspiracy theory". Not easy to find relevant pieces because many of them seem to just mention conspiracy theories about something else. Frankly I'm surprised there really aren't academic texts about it because Breivik's attack in 2011 resulted in a lot of new research about the far-right. We might be in a sort of an Internet echo chamber where little culture wars like the Gamergate controversy make things like "Cultural Marxism" or its proponents seem very relevant when they might not be in the real world. The problem with the Frankfurt School conspiracy theory article is that it combines primary sources like William S. Lind, the two sources which actually mention the FSCT and then third kind of sources which just mention "Cultural Marxism" without mentioning the Frankfurt school. It results in a synthesis. --Pudeo ' 02:49, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect - Other articles cover the same subject matter, and they do it better. As the article's edit history shows, this article is a magnet for those trying to promote the idea that "Cultural Marxism" is to blame for whatever they think is wrong with society. Neutron (talk) 23:49, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and have no more merge/deletion discussions for 3 months. There was a discussion whether to merge the article with "Frankfurt School Conspiracy Theory" that was closed on 22 December 2014. To open a new deletion discussion on the same day was evading the spirit of community consensus.-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:32, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely agree, it seems like the results are reaching no consensus again and it's of no surprise seeing as that was the result a week ago, it seems nitpicky and dishonest to keep trying to delete the page with such a recent decision. Loganmac (talk) 11:44, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Between your prior involvement on 8chan, the gamergate wiki, your attempt at harassing Anita's twitch chat and your consistent inability to present a counter-argument other than 'u mad bro?', I highly, highly doubt your good faith in the matter and I'm beginning to suspect that you've been WP:CANVASSED. অমিত talk 18:48, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

-

evading the spirit of community consensus - ya can't really make that accusation when the closers declared that there was no consensus formed in that previous discussion (probably why we're still here chatting about it). But SINCE then, the discussion has evolved, and it has been noted BY MANY on this page, that there IS an academic consensus (one of if not THE highest form of evidence given on wikipedia) that reveals the term Cultural Marxism refers (academically speaking) to The Frankfurt School's early impact on the development of Cultural Studies. And that to prove otherwise (ie. go against the academic usage), either requires more evidence towards some other meaning of the term (one that wouldn't so obviously fit into either The Frankfurt School page, or the Cultural Studies page [both of which acknowledge their Marxist influences already] - OR find some evidence backing the conspiracy. There is no in between. Several threads on this AfD are currently sitting at that stage of the debate, in the same position. So it seems there is QUITE THE consensus drawn from these parallel lines of debates - and that the challenge to the ongoing existence of the article is FIRMLY ON THE TABLE: to merge/delete (given that what's presented on [Cultural Marxism] offers little new to the existing articles to which the ACADEMIC CONSENSUS usage of the term refers), or have NEW EVIDENCE presented (feel free to find academic references of counter-usage [ones that haven't already been demolished please]). Seeing as THAT challenge is currently NOT being met in those (the above) threads; I'd say that's a pretty strong logical consensus against the Keep argument. Those saying KEEP, have no gap in wikipedia where the article fits as a stand alone page ANY MORE! The academic consensus is on the table my friend - and it is YET TO BE REFUTED. If it's not, the merger/deletion is the only apparent and logical path for this discussion. Unless you can show otherwise! The delete/merge argument case has been made and backed by academic consensus! And the onus of evidence is now on the KEEP side, to present equal or greater refutations to the academic usage if they can! --Jobrot (talk) 12:43, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 lone weak deletion cited concerns of sourcing, however, the article has been significantly updated since nomination. (non-admin closure) Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 06:23, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Humanfolk[edit]

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

Not quite sufficient evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:13, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 14:49, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 14:50, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - poorly sourced, but I've seen much worse. Bearian (talk) 14:54, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Humanfolk is a well known Manila based jazz band that has been covered in the following major publications: Rogue, a literary luxury magazine [56]; Status, a monthly Asian youth culture magazine [57]; and FHM [58]. The fact that the article is poorly sourced does not mean reliable sources do not exist, in fact WP:NRV states that "Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. 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." The notability of Humanfolk is clearly established by the above features from reliable sources. ɳorɑfʈ^Talk! 15:18, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:MUSICBIO#C8, though I will be adding maintenance templates shortly.--Laun chba ller 23:30, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for adding the templates. I already improved the article and removed some of the tags because of some of my revisions. Could you please state in the talk page of the article the other things need to be improved? --Jojit (talk) 02:45, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I already improved the article by adding and fixing references and I think it already established notability. It also passed WP:MUSICBIO#C6. --Jojit (talk) 02:45, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Article is fair enough to hold as notable article. AFD post by an anon who had no guts to defend it. Clearly a cheapshot. --Exec8 (talk) 02:54, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RHaworth has been editing for ten years. He is not an anon by any standards.--Laun chba ller 20:14, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RHaworth wasn't the original nominator. He's talking about the anon that added the speedy deletion tag. This person nominated three different articles associated with Johnny Alegre for speedy deletion, and applied various tags to each of them, even though they didn't require most of them. ɳorɑfʈ^Talk! 02:08, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Referring to 121.54.32.162, 121.54.32.161 and 121.54.32.163. --Exec8 (talk) 11:52, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, in which case please be a bit clearer next time. The anon did not AfD it...--Laun chba ller 15:03, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am wondering what "not sufficient evidence" is being talked here about. What level of notability must be obtained, does it mean it must be well known at least to the "masa" (the common people) before being marked as notable? Humanfolk has been featured in several well-known publications (they are not just blogs but reputable media publications) dating back 2011, or might be, even earlier. That means it has already established notability, at least to the music industry. Chitetskoy (talk) 03:39, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No consensus on Minnesota Mr. Hockey. postdlf (talk) 18:01, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michigan Mr. Hockey[edit]

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

Non-notable high school sports award that fails WP:GNG. Tchaliburton (talk) 05:28, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because it's essentially the same thing in another state:

Tchaliburton (talk) 05:30, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 20:10, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 20:11, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Only sources listed are primary, and I couldn't find any secondary sources that didn't run afoul of SIGCOV or ROUTINE; they were just one-sentence "Soandso won the award" mentions. Ravenswing 16:25, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Michigan Keep Minnesota The Minnesota award is pretty well known in the hockey world. I didn't even know the Michigan one existed. -DJSasso (talk) 17:49, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Similar to awards in football and basketball that exist for states. Michigan is a fairly major ice hockey state for high schools, so I think it should be kept. RonSigPi (talk) 23:04, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Minnesota Mr. Hockey high school hockey in Minnesota is very high level (to the degree that some players stay there to play, rather than going to USHL or NTDP). IMO, that award should receive similar standing to the CHL/OHL, etc awards that have their own pages. I have no opinion on the Michigan award just b/c i don't know as much about hockey in that state. GLG GLG (talk) 05:19, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:05, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Michigan I don't see the coverage required to meet WP:GNG. I won't comment on Minnesota, except to say I've heard of that award even though I've never lived there. Astudent0 (talk) 20:06, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Better developed arguments and weight of consensus is to keep. Mojo Hand (talk) 03:44, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Georgios Papagiannis[edit]

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

This person is not notable outside of West Chester PA Rehsjntdz (talk) 06:20, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 December 14. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 06:38, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 20:04, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 20:04, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 20:04, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Currently doesn't meet WP:NHOOPS. Has played for a national junior team but that doesn't prove notability. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 17:09, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has played with Panathinaikos of the first-division Greek League this season - that clearly qualifies as a "similar league" to the Australian, Spanish and Italian Leagues listed under WP:NBASKETBALL. And in fact he played in this league at 14 and is the youngest player ever in this prestigious league. Rikster2 (talk) 22:33, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The first division Greek league is definitely a mark of notability. I think that alone says he is notable outside of West Chester, Pa. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 01:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:02, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He has played in top professional league in Greece, this season with Panathinaikos BC and previously with Peristeri BC - Greek League profile 2014-15 season [59] and 2012-13 season [60] - Greek League, which is much more significant league currently and all time than league in Australia, and which is one of three biggest national leagues of all time in Europe, along with ones in Spain and Italy - Historical European national basketball league rankings. Also, is currently most significant national league in Europe after only the one in Spain - European national basketball league rankings.Bluesangrel (talk) 00:09, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, WP:NHOOPS should be altered to include the Greek League, since it is both all time and currently more significant than the league in Australia, and is all time one of three most important leagues nationally in Europe along with Spain and Italy, and is most important, in current time and for last several years more important and significant than the league in Italy.Bluesangrel (talk) 00:09, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable. --66.55.12.3 (talk) 01:26, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you a user who forgot to sign in? It seems odd to me that an IP would have one edit and it is to weigh in on this AfD. Rikster2 (talk) 17:03, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Unlike his teammate Michalis Lountzis, he has played in an official match for one of Europe's major clubs. However, it should also be noted that there is a sharp contrast between the "big two" and the other teams in Greece (concerning level of performance, financial situation, attendance figures etc.). Currently, only one additional team from Greece takes part in a pan-European competition (PAOK Thessaloniki). So I'm skeptical if playing for any team of this league should be taken as an automatic pass to notability. --Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 14:01, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:27, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Collins & Milazzo Exhibitions[edit]

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

Wikipedia:Listcruft. A general article on the subject would be better. PROD removed as the article was a "valuable historic record", however the article sourcing seems a bit off too. --Mdann52talk to me! 13:25, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK to delete Valueyou (talk) 13:56, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Important series of art exhibitions. Bus stop (talk) 16:10, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I'm willing to take Bus stop's and Valueyou's word for it that this was an important series of exhibitions, as Valueyou was the creator of the Tricia Collins and Richard Milazzo articles and both of them know a lot more about contemporary art than I do. This list was originally added to the Milazzo article in (this edit), by Sansimeon, an SPA who has contributed a lot of material to that article. It was deleted from the article in (this edit). In the meantime, it had been copied to the Collins article, from where it was moved to this article. And now it has been copied back to both the Collins and Milazzo articles. Basically, I think it was a good idea to move it from the Collins article. This is the good kind of move explained in WP:Listcruft, where the length and detail of the list justify breaking it out from the main article. But we need to indicate the history: Milazzo > Collins > this article, say by using the {{Copied}} template. And we need to indicate a source. The first thing to try would probably be to ask Sansimeon where this information came from. And then, once we get a proper source for this article, delete the list again from the Collins and Milazzo articles. – Margin1522 (talk) 05:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments: This is an important list. It should not be gutted. Many names of artists internally link to articles hosted on Wikipedia. Many of those internally linked names appear more than once but of course are not highlighted, and so this might not be obvious. Unless an argument can be made that there is falsity in this list, I think it serves a good purpose. I think it probably documents the taste of Tricia Collins and Richard Milazzo in art concerning this particular stretch of time of merely ten years.

WP:LISTCRUFT reads "Listcruft is a term some editors use to refer to indiscriminate or trivial lists."

But this is hardly trivial. These are artists in exhibitions by curators. Even the un-notable artists—those without articles on Wikipedia—provide insight into the artistic tastes of Collins and Milazzo. The un-notable artists were chosen with the same eye to quality as those artists with articles on Wikipedia. The sort of artwork they presented in these shows is not necessarily easily known to a reader of the Collins & Milazzo Exhibitions article but to me it seems wasteful to discard this potentially useful and relevant information. Bus stop (talk) 12:26, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:59, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep or merge I am not sure exactly how we should cover the topics of Tricia Collins , Richard Milazzo as individuals and their co-work together in Collins & Milazzo Exhibitions and their other projects, but this is more of a clean up project than deletion. (although a lot of the list content in all of the articles will probably need to be deleted) "In the past 4 years, curators Tricia Colins and Richard Milazzo have put together 21 art shows ... They've made a name by helping turn slick, conceptual "neo-geo" art into the season's dominant form" " Tricia Collins and Richard Milazzo, the quintessential '80s curatorial team," -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:19, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 SK1. Nominator proposed merging, a non-deletion action, and there have been no delete !votes. The next step should be a merger proposal. (non-admin closure) –Chase (talk / contribs) 03:25, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Addicted[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONGS and WP:GNG. The song has not received independent third party notability in any way and is merely mentioned as part of album reviews. In terms of commercial acceptance, it had a low charting in a pretty small music market, South Korea, and has passing mentions for its live performance. We can easily merge its contents to the parent album, MDNA. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 12:15, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per lack of sufficient coverage. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:38, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:39, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kalayaan Broadcasting System[edit]

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

I cannot find reliable sources establishing the subject's notability even this article can't cite them, therefore non-notable.

~~I am also nominating the following page for the same reason:~~

Theenjay36 (talk) 04:48, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:46, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. The subject does not have enough coverage in reliable sources. The only reliable source that I got is that the Philippine Congress grants them with a franchise, but that's not enough. 112.198.83.188 (talk) 03:12, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lenticel, any thoughts about this? Sorry for pinging you here. —theenjay36 03:47, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have the same findings as 112--Lenticel ^(talk) 10:07, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:37, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Abhorrent Decimation[edit]

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

Fails to meet WP:BAND. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 17:43, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 17:43, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 02:45, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:25, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:42, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:BAND. Also no third party coverage provided. LibStar (talk) 13:55, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. sufficient consensus DGG ( talk ) 20:17, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kibbleton[edit]

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

Fails WP:NF, WP:TOOSOON. PROD tag was removed. No RS were found. Fauzan^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 08:33, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete per being far TOO SOON and failing WP:NFF. Recreation might be considered if this ever begins filming and only if it then gains the needed coverage. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:27, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -Shooting will be started soon and released in 2015 or 2016??? fails WP:NF Anupmehra -Let's talk! 18:47, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:02, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Thompson - Broadcaster/Writer/Producer/Director[edit]

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

I came across this as a speedy deletion but there's just enough of an assertion of notability to where he barely squeaks by A7 criteria that I decided that AfD would likely be the only other option. However despite the assertions of having worked for various places and winning awards, I can't find anything to show that Thompson is particularly noteworthy enough to pass notability criteria as a whole. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:39, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's inclusion rules do not confer an automatic presumption of notability on a broadcaster just because he exists, or because he worked for multiple broadcast outlets over the course of his career — what gets a broadcaster into Wikipedia is coverage in reliable sources. One example of the problem in this case is that the article says he's won over 150 awards — but fails to mention or source what awards. (An Emmy Award or a Gemini Award, for example, would qualify him for an article if it could be properly sourced — but a local distinction, such as a "Radio Personality of the Year" award conferred by a local chamber of commerce or a local ACTRA chapter, would not.) In addition, with the article having been created by User:Dougtaurora, there's an evident conflict of interest here — which, as always, isn't a deletion rationale in and of itself but doesn't do the article any favours if there are other problems. Delete; technically qualifies for WP:BLPPROD as a completely unsourced biography of a living person, but that process takes as long as this one does anyway. Bearcat (talk) 18:28, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per Bearcat but also with its absence of sources dooming it from the start. Probably would've been better to have made a PROD for the article. But hey, now is now. GamerPro64 05:46, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Discussion regarding a potential page move to change the article's title can continue on the article's talk page or at WP:RM. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:05, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pro-Life (politician)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The vast majority of this coverage is local news coverage for an extremely minor, and always trounced, candidate. There is a little coverage of him more broadly just for the bizarreness of his actions, but nothing appraoching indepth or substantial. He fails all guidelines for notability of politicians. Beyond this, the article was deleted before with nothing of significance having happened since. He has run a few times, with even less impact than earlier.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:54, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Daily Beast provided a very in-depth profile. The Idaho Press-Tribune also did several stories on him. He seems to be notable as an activist and protester, although as the nominator mentioned it is not likely that he will ever win an election. Borock (talk) 13:56, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There seemed to be a certain flavor of Wikipedia:I just don't like it in the previous AfD discussion, back in 2008.Borock (talk) 14:11, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Borderline NPOL but definite WP:GNG. At the first AfD in 2008, they complained that he "received temporary attention". Six years later, it's still coming. --BDD (talk) 16:19, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. BDD (talk) 16:20, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. BDD (talk) 16:20, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable, though the title should include his real name, rather just his changed name. Dinkytown talk 16:26, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You could start an WP:RM for that, though I think his WP:COMMONNAME is "Pro-Life". (And I rather doubt he would have such notability without the name change.) --BDD (talk) 16:29, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - ever since I was doxed, I've been accused of being some liberal censor. Well, to continue to put the record straight (ahem), this woman-hating whack-job is a notable loony-bin. Bah humbug! Bearian (talk) 14:59, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to his birth-name. If he's ever successful (e.g., Prince the musician becoming a mega-star under that moniker), then we can entertain it, but until then it's merely a repeatedly-failed publicity stunt.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 07:26, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. sufficient consensus DGG ( talk ) 20:18, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cranmore chase[edit]

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

I did a web search on Yahoo and it only had results on homes on a street in Georgia with the same name on websites having houses for sale (e.g., Zillow), and it also lacks references to prove if the event ever happened. Therefore, this article is most likely a hoax. Snowager (talk) 06:23, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's survived on Wikipedia for 4+ years now, but this is a hoax. There are no references to this supposedly famous event in any form. Moreover, there are no indications that either of the landowners or the runners (no Google hits at all for the name Radforyde outside mirrors of this article) ever existed. There's apparently one Google reference to the name Everard Creech in a totally unrelated novel, but that's all. To top it off, the India Mutiny had already occurred prior to the supposed events in the article. 66.177.64.39 (talk) 13:37, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Regardless of whether it's a hoax, it fails WP:V and WP:GNG. Bearian (talk) 15:01, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 discussion has not yielded a consensus for a particular action regarding the article. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:33, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mizpah Creek Incidents[edit]

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

The Mizpah Creek Incidents is a very minor incident which has not received the attention necessary to support a Wikipedia article. There are no Ghits for "Mizpah Creek Incidents" outside Wikipedia[61], no Book hits[62].

Considering that this article was created after a series of similar articles on Powder River County history by the same editor had been deleted through AfD (Powder River Telegraph Station, Leopold Hohman, Homan's Rock, Battle of Crazy Woman's Fork, Battle of Alkali Creek (1865)); with one other redirected (Battle of the Little Powder River), it may be time to restrict this editor against creating further such articles, but that is not something that an AfD discussion alone can decide... Fram (talk) 12:13, 10 December 2014 (UTC) Fram (talk) 12:13, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:24, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:25, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:25, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:25, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a skirmish (even one with fatal results) between about 15 men on each side hardly merits an article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterkingiron (talk • contribs)

See further comment below. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:20, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there are books that mention a minor skirmish; see here. Bearian (talk) 21:53, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The only result I see when I follow your link is for "MIZPAH® Relationship Ring‎" :-) Regionalised Google results are a pest, one aspect of Net Neutrality that clearly doesn't exist. Fram (talk) 06:07, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—(bolded keep added by Spinningspark for clarity). The Mizpah Creek Incidents resulted in the first Montana Territorial Court case east of Bozeman, with a reporter present from the New York Times. That alone should be important enough to not delete the page. I don't know why all some Wikipedia Users seems to want to do is to delete others pages. All I am trying to do is to improve Wikipedia, and make more people aware of certain historical events, and I don't intend to offend anyone. I believe that the article should be left alone. Sincerely Powder River 1876 (talk) 04:14, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 15:22, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. So, according to user:Peterkingiron this does not deserve an article because only 15 men took part in the incident? Really? That's not how we judge the importance of a military action (or anything) on Wikipedia as far as deserving an article goes. User:Bearian says that there are mentions in books and then votes delete. How is that a rationale for deletion? Besides the historic notability of the court case mentioned above, it seems to have escaped everybodies notice that Glover was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor for his part. That alone speaks for notability. The nominator claims there are no ghits, but I am seeing numerous books covering the events. The Life of Yellowstone Kelly and The Plainsmen of the Yellowstone: A History of the Yellowstone Basin both devote a page or two to the events. Deeds of Valor appears to devote several pages, although only snippet view is available. Many other books cleary have coverage, but it is hard to tell how much from snippet view. There is also this from the Second Cavalry Association Regimental History Center. SpinningSpark 20:01, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've just realised that the Yellowstone Kelly book I linked above is discussing the Battle of Pumpkin Creek in which the same Sgt Glover is involved at almost the same location and, even more confusingly, his Congressional Medal of Honor is for both actions. However, I also found this newspaper coverage (fourth column, second story under "Military matters") and I would be amazed if there is not a lot more contemporary newspaper coverage to find. SpinningSpark 20:26, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 05:59, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The claim of the nomination that there are no book hits for this topic is false. This seems to be due to poor search technique as it only took a few seconds of searching to find Forgotten Fights: Little-known Raids and Skirmishes on the Frontier, 1823 to 1890 and Deeds of Valor: how America's Heroes Won the Medal of Honor. Andrew D. (talk) 13:48, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I wouldn't call "using the exact article title" a "poor search technique". There seem to be no sources that call these events the "Mizpah Creek Incidents" or that group them together as one notable series of incidents. Fram (talk) 14:18, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh come on Fram, the series of incidents are

Indians kill and wound soldiers
Soldiers hunt down those indians
Indians taken prisoner after a fight
Indians handed over for trial
Indians hang themselves

How are those events not grouped together? The Plainsmen of the Yellowstone certainly covers this as one continuous narrative. Deeds of Valor appears to do so too. The fact that you can't find the exact title in a search is not grounds for deletion. It might be grounds for renaming, but it's not grounds for deletion. And yes, you do have a poor search technique. I would say the title is descriptive rather than an actual proper name and there is a case to be made for lower-casing the word incidents. With descriptive titles one should not expect to get a lot of hits with the search term in quotation marks. It took me just seconds to think up more productive search terms. SpinningSpark 15:25, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There seem to be two distinct styles in the critiques. One appears to have an interest in making Wiki better, adding sources, helping substantiate facts and making suggestions to the builder who appears to have a lot of interest in these subjects. The other is perhaps a self appointed expert who has been undone with a few seconds of research by the advocates. Fram seems to take pride in listing articles of Powder River 1876 which he has gotten deleted. It appears Fram is aggressively stalking the contributor for some reason. As Andrew D. and Spinningspark make clear, Fram's reasons are spurious. (Spinningspark, do you ride stop and turn around palominos?) Simply by the arguments presented here, I might suggest a look at the articles of Powder River 1876 which Fram has gotten deleted and see if they might also be made worthy, if indeed they are not now. One suggestion of Fram's, with a minor alteration, may be worth taking. Prohibiting Fram from nominating, not worthy of Wikipedia.

LnBkNRd72.36.56.193 (talk) 01:59, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- "Agressively stalking the contributor for some reason"? If you see many articles created by the same author on non-notable topics, then it is only logical and expected that you keep an eye on further creations. Feel free to revisit the other AfD's, that is your right. I brought all these to AfD for community discussion, so it's not as if I was the only one advocating for deletion or as if I was doing it secretly. But if you think bringing Leopold Hohman and the like to DRV is worthwhile, be my guest... Fram (talk) 07:39, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I think one has to draw the line somewhere. We have recently had nominations for an incident in Scottish clan warfare and now for one from the Wild West (I watch history AFDs). I think we need a discussion as to how small a battle needs to be to be WP-notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:20, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If it's discussed in reliable sources, then it's notable. By definition. There can be no argument about that, that's the way Wikipedia policy works. Whether that should be the criterion is another question altogether. If this were my personal encyclopaedia, I would set some very different criteria. But it's not, and if you wish to change the basic policy that needs a much bigger discussion, and it would go way beyond military matters. In the meantime, this AFD should be settled on the basis of existing policy. Notability is not affected by the size of the engagement. SpinningSpark 16:29, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (NPASR) (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (sing) @ 14:09, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rodleen Getsic[edit]

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

I began cleaning up this article of blogspot.com sources, but as I culled through the sources, I found that all of them were blogs, broken links, and primary sources. The credible newspaper sources only briefly quote or mention Getsic. CorporateM (Talk) 04:22, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I'm surprised that with the wealth of poor sources in the article, this New York Times article wasn't cited. Her starring role in The Bunny Game (which she also apparently co-wrote) received plenty of coverage from mainstream (see this for example) and horror-genre sources. --Michig (talk) 08:36, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:26, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:35, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:07, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Toni[edit]

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

Unable to find reliable references to support claims of notability; claims "award winning" but no specific awards mentioned. Three references are to IMDb, a source considered unreliable. Multiple Google News hits for "Tim Toni" as a writer for The Sydney Morning Herald, but none on Toni himself, or any indication that they are the same person. Fails WP:CREATIVE. Seattle (talk) 14:54, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The reasons given for deletion don’t make sense:

the first sentence of the article cites a specific award: the AACTA Award for Best Reality Television Series
the AACTA Award for Best Reality Television Series has a wikipedia page which states that Tim Toni won the award for Masterchef Australia (series 4) in 2012
the Tim Toni article doesn’t state that he’s a journalist with the ‘The Sydney Morning Herald’ so why is that relevant?
google ‘Tim Toni Masterchef Australia’ or ‘Tim Toni Big Brother’ and you get a significant number of hits

Sara Dundas (talk) 10:00, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

— Sara Dundas (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I've found one reference on him: [63], excluding The Sydney Morning Herald author pages. Your last point echos WP:GOOGLEHITS. Can you explain how Toni meets WP:CREATIVE? Seattle (talk) 15:13, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The aim of the award he won is to 'identify, award, promote and celebrate Australia's greatest achievements in film and television'. I take that as being indicative of a creative personSara Dundas (talk) 08:21, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:21, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the award in question was shared with several others and does not appear to impart instant notability on its own. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:07, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The above comment is incorrect. The 2012 award was for Tim Toni only. The 2013 award was for the team behind Masterchef Professionals. The award does impart notability in that it celebrates Australia's greatest achievements in film and television' - a media industry does exist outside the USALiam Pearson (talk) 08:57, 11 December 2014 (UTC) — Liam Pearson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- What on earth are you talking about? He didn't win in 2012, David Gardner and Matthew Kowald did, for The Amazing Race Australia, confirmed on the AACTA site. Making stuff up isn't helping your case one bit. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:07, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- He did win the award in 2012 - not sure why you think that isn't true as it is cited on notable awards that even appear on wikipedia? He won for MasterChef Australia (series 4) as can clearly be seen[64]Liam Pearson (talk) 18:39, 11 December 2014 (UTC) Here's a non wikipedia link [65] Liam Pearson (talk) 18:58, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Apologies. He was nominated in 2012, won in 2013. Doesn't detract from his achievements in televisionLiam Pearson (talk) 07:57, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, it does detract from them, as the primary claim of notability here and in the article has now been proved false. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:29, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:18, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 05:10, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:23, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nadeem Sarwar (Noha Khwan)[edit]

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

I came across this via a few different outlets, one of which was a request for the original format of the article to be restored at Nadeem Sarwar, which had been speedied so often that it was salted. I did try to find sources, but I just can't find anything out there to show that this guy passes notability guidelines as a whole. Since there is somewhat of an assertion of notability here, I'd prefer for this to run through AfD as opposed to another speedy just in case foreign language sources exist that could show notability. If this is ultimately deleted then this will need to be salted as well in order to prevent re-creation at this name. If notability is proven, then I'd recommend unsalting the old name and moving it there. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:43, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This man is a famous Noha reciter from Pakistan.
He us we'll known all over the world so deletion of this page should be stopped.
I've added some references from strong sources you can check it. You can search about this man yourself and if you want more changes I'm ready to edit it.
Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.126.107.178 (talk) 12:22, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately none of the newly added links really give notability and being known doesn't always equate to being notable per Wikipedia's guidelines. Here's a rundown of the sources as a whole:

Sources

[66] This is his official facebook page. At best this is a WP:PRIMARY source that can back up some small trivial data, but it cannot give notability.
[67] This is essentially a search engine where you typed in "biography of nadeem sarwar". Just typing in a search field and posting it to an article doesn't give notability and it's not even really usable as a reliable source because of how easily search engine hits can change over time. Plus it doesn't help that it comes up with a mirror of the Wikipedia article.
[68] This is a routine blog entry for a non-notable blog. Blogs are almost never usable as a reliable source because the majority of them are self-published sources that undergo little to no editorial oversight that Wikipedia can verify.
[69] This looks to be a routine database listing on In.com. Given that this shares the same text as the blog source above, it's extremely likely that this was written by the subject himself or was posted on the site by whomever wrote the blog post. Either way, it's considered to be at best a primary source and cannot give notability.
[70] Another unusable blog source.
[71] This looks to be his official site, which would also be considered a primary source.
[72] This just links to a download site where you can play his music. This can't show notability and to be honest, the legality of this site is sort of in question since Wikipedia has no way of knowing if he uploaded the music, if he OK'd the uploads, or if it's one of many illegal listening/download sites out on the web. Either way, it's still unusable to show notability and shouldn't be posted on an article in general.
[73] This is the iTunes page for the artist. This shows that he did release music (ie, showing that he exists as a performer - WP:ITEXISTS) but existing as a performer does not automatically give notability. It's expected that a performer of any type would release his or her art in some form or fashion, be it for free or for pay. Plus since this is technically a merchant source, it also shouldn't be on Wikipedia since the primary function of iTunes is to sell you something.
[74] Another download/listen site that suffers from the same issues as the one above. Cannot show notability.
[75] This links to various videos that the artist uploaded to YouTube and doesn't really go into any detail about him. Even if it did, this doesn't seem like it'd pass muster at WP:RS/N since it's essentially a site where anyone can ask for stuff to be added and just reposts various videos, so it wouldn't count towards notability.
[76] THis is another Facebook post. It cannot show notability, but this is sort of why I brought this to AfD rather than just tag it as a speedy deletion. If he was in the news and was the focus of a news spot then the news spot could show notability if you provide the channel, segment, and so on. However if he was just someone invited to the show to give an opinion about something or if he was only briefly mentioned in relation to something else, then that wouldn't really be considered a notability giving source and would at best be considered a WP:TRIVIAL source.
[77] Seems to be a non-usable blog or SPS that cannot show notability.
[78] A non-usable source, this is essentially a download site of dubious legality.
[79] This isn't an article at all, just a list of various works people have created.
[80] Another Facebook account that cannot give notability.
[81] Same here.
[82] This is another search result, which cannot give notability.

Now I will say that if there is coverage in another language that would pass the reliable sources guidelines then those can be used to show notability. Sources do not have to be in English, but they do have to be in reliable sources and be verifiable. The thing is that at best the above sources show that Sarwar exists as a performer and he has put out work, but his existence is not in doubt here- what I'm concerned about is whether or not he passes Wikipedia's reliable sources guidelines, which I will openly admit are very, very strict. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:55, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These two sources are excellent and do help show notability, although the first one is sort of in passing. The second one goes into more detail and I'd say that this can count towards notability. If you can find more sources like that second one then that'll help show notability immensely. Remember, sources do not have to be in English! Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:00, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt again. Tokyogirl89's analysis of the sources above make it clear that the subject does not meet any notability criteria for inclusion here. The article's numerous sources seem to be an attempt to give the appearance of notability, but we need real, independent, reliable sources that provide significant coverage of the subject. Facebook pages, blogs, directory listings, search results, etc. don't count. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:49, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen the references has been added from thenews.com and tribune.com.pk which are the popular newspapers of Pakistan. So Please remove this page from deletion I request you to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.160.116.68 (talk) 10:16, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We'd still need some more sourcing- if you can add more along those lines then that'd help show notability immensely, but the two usable sources (the two Tribune sources) are not enough in and of themselves to show notability per Wikipedia guidelines. We cannot end this AfD before more reliable sources are provided. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:39, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now. Popular, albeit not notable (yet) in Pakistan. There might be some Urdu coverage but I don't think it will be indepth to cover WP:GNG. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:40, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Fails WP:GNG. Fai zan 14:52, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:17, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bianca Barnett[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that she meets WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 09:26, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 15:13, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 15:13, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:30, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 04:32, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete B-film actress with no demonstration of meeting any notability requirement for actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:13, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (NPASR) (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (yarn) @ 14:10, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Agosto[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Previous AfD ended in a no consensus four years ago. Article creation and previous AfD were concurrent with the unfolding of the event and there was likely some canvassing taking place with the first AfD. In any event, looks very much like a WP:BLP1E. While he is involved in activism, continuing coverage is either in student newspapers or other sources insufficient to confer continuing notability. While there is possibly a case for merging a blurb from this to a list article, this article should fall. Note that all but one of the references on the article are non-reliable sources. Safiel (talk) 06:04, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michig (talk) 08:46, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 04:31, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:14, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SynopsiTV[edit]

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

No apparent evidence for notability DGG ( talk ) 07:57, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 04:31, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The site is dead (or at least their security certificate is); reads like a poor SEO attempt for a film recommendation product that never got out of beta. Nate • (chatter) 09:55, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – The site seems to be live but I can't find any evidence that it has received any coverage in English. Just one article on startups in Slovakia. – Margin1522 (talk) 06:36, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (cackle) @ 14:12, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Optimal Payments[edit]

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

Article is a contested prod. The original concern, which I believe is valid, was that the coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. Mike V • Talk 23:29, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 00:01, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 00:01, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep -Subject appears to have received significant coverage in multiple secondary, independent and reliable sources that would help them to reach the WP:GNG and WP:NCORP standard such as, [83], [84], [85], [86], [87], [88], [89], [90], [91], [92], [93], [94], [95], (Highbeam -[96], [97], [98], [99], [100], [101]), etc. There are many more. I request nominator to withdraw as their concerns have been addressed. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 13:58, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:27, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 04:29, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:12, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RSS pracharaks in Prominent public positions[edit]

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

Unreferenced list; to adhere to BLP policy would have to substantiate the inclusion of every person listed. This would be hard to do in view of the broad definition "person dedicated to spreading the RSS ideology" - unless we include all office-holders who are BJP members. Many of the articles for the persons listed do not mention the RSS. : Noyster (talk), 17:08, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, see in their wikipedia pages, they ARE R.S.S members(many are just Swayamsevaks,not pracharaks. Hence page name is changed.). Only 5 C.Ms are there from B.J.P who are not from R.S.S. Teja srinivas (talk) 18:40, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"There are no sources" is almost always, at best, an incomplete deletion rationale. Presumably the association of notable people with a notable organization can be verified, if we are talking about something objective like "membership" at least. Looking at Category:Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, there are four separate categories for people associated with this group, such as one for "members" (obvious enough) and one for "karmayogis" (??). So if there is a problem with this content, the list is the least of it. "Prominent public position" is obviously a POV term, and I don't have a clue what "pracharak" or "swayamsevak" mean (neither does the parent organization article or the corresponding categories), so one possible solution would be to simply rename this to List of Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh members‎, complementary to Category:Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh members (if that category should even exist), and I'd expect Category:Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh pracharaks‎ and Category:Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh sanghchalaks to be nominated for merging to the members category as well. Even if these other terms are substantively meaningful in some way, the best way to address that still might be as subsections or annotations within a master list of all members. postdlf (talk) 22:25, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just became aware of this page and the AfD. The spread of the RSS (Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh) within the Indian society interests me greatly, and the categories cited above as well as their population with entries were mostly done by me. In all the cases that I did the categorisation, the corresponding pages mention the individual's association with the RSS along with reliable sources. So, there is no problem with sourcing. The present editor seems to have culled this data to create a list page. Off hand, I think it is valuable. But it may be hard to maintain it in the long run. It is worth a try. Kautilya3 (talk) 18:17, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pracharaks are full time officials who devote their entire lives to the RSS. They don't even have families or take jobs. Sanghchalaks are also officials (directors), but they work for the RSS part-time. So, these are senior functionaries, not merely members. But, I suppose that is moot now, because the editor has changed it to "Swayamsevaks" who include all members. Kautilya3 (talk) 18:45, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:18, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The content is not neutral. The part which does make some sense is already included in RSS article. The people mentioned in the list are apparently chosen based on article-creator's liking and the term "prominent" means this list is an abstract interpretation of creator's thinking. Renaming to List of Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh members is not viable since RSS has thousands or maybe millions of members across India. Harsh (talk) 14:52, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- We would limit any such list of members to only those who have or merit articles. Standard practice. postdlf (talk) 15:30, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - The current list mostly includes recent cabinet and central ministers of the BJP government who were RSS members during their early days. If the list is to be kept then List of BJP politicians with RSS background makes more sense. Harsh (talk) 15:59, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Or expand and retitle it to include every article in Category:Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh members, unless there's a particular reason to focus on politicians. The qualifier "with [organization] background" is meaninglessly vague in any event. postdlf (talk) 16:14, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - I fail to understand what is "non-neutral" about this page? And, why does it make more sense to list politicians than public officials? Also, why do you think they were RSS members in their "early days"? Did any of them declare that they ceased to be RSS members? Kautilya3 (talk)
        The problem is the qualifier "prominent", which is inherently subjective. "Public positions" is also too vague. But I think those are fixable issues, as I said above. postdlf (talk) 15:28, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 13:08, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 04:23, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Prominent public positions" is not/can't be a well defined criteria for inclusion as it depends heavily on POV of editors. Instead more well defined articles can be created such as RSS pracharak CM or MLA or MP etc. But given that RSS is a large organization, Categories (i.e. category space) are best way to deal with this, instead of making lists.--Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 07:01, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Deletion performed by WhisperToMe (non-admin closure) --ceradon (talk • contribs) 06:05, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lorenzo Belenguer[edit]

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

BLP sourcing issues. Lots of sources but dig deeper and most are routine exhibition announcements (PR), some passing mentions (e.g. The Independent). The award is unsourced. This is poor sourcing for a BLP - e.g. his birth ~~isn't~~ is sourced (update: just no inline citation). May be WP:TOOSOON.
doesn't see to pass any of 1-4 of WP:ARTIST Widefox; talk 13:26, 6 December 2014 (UTC) Widefox; talk 01:28, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(COI issue with undisclosed paid editing - see WP:COIN, and several SPAs either disclosed as COI or denying a COI) Widefox; talk 21:51, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the feedback. I removed the previous “for deletion in seven day” note, because I thought the issues were addressed and resolved. I don't know any of the other editors, including Belenguer, so there's no COI here. As I've never met Hirst or Emin. As I said in a previous statement, I'm not a paid editor. London is enjoying a Golden Age in the Arts and my contributions try to reflect that. I agree that the article needed serious resourcing and restructuring and just did that. All the 15 current references are secondary sources. If some of the secondary sources are not appropriate, then, it might be a good idea to look for a better one or to remove it, if the editor prefers. Secondary sources like: the University of the Arts London, Greater London Authority, The Independent, etc, are highly respected. RTVE/RNE Radio 3 is the equivalent of the Spanish BBC Radio, not sure that can be seen as unreliable. Belenguer was given an interview because of the Testimonies project for the Cultural Olympiad London 2012. I agree that the Absolute Arts article may look a bit unreliable and it might be best to remove it. I've repositioned references that were in the wrong place.

A previous, and highly experienced, editor removed parts of the article that could be seen as advertising and thought that issue were already settled by then. It doesn't look advertising to me. It directly deals with explaining his works, exhibitions and awards in a very straight forward manner. Other more experienced editors may disagree.

Belenguer's works are rather unique. I've never seen anybody applying oil paint directly onto metal in three-dimensions as a painting or the way he uses old masterpieces. He seems to be highly respected by his peers, because I keep seeing his works in very interesting exhibitions. This type of quite artworks never get picked up by the sensationalist media. His last show “We Could Not Agree” was selected by Artlyst as one of the top ten alternative shows during Frieze Week http://www.artlyst.com/articles/paul-carey-kent-reveals-his-ten-hot-allternatives-to-frieze He's been invited to exhibit in Madrid's Ateneo, the Spanish equivalent of the Royal Academy. http://www.ateneodemadrid.com/index.php/esl/Agenda/Exposiciones/Retorno-al-Paraiso and to India. I haven't found any secondary sources yet, but other editors might do a better search.

A google search provides with a very good secondary reference regarding Joshua Compton http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/01/17/joshua-compston-was-once-the-wunderkind-of-the-british-art-world-and-now-he-s-been-practically-forgotten.html

The citation needed for the Red Gallery exhibition was already in the following phrase. It's better located now.

The year of birth/age is referenced in the following 4 secondary references included in the article: http://www.getwestlondon.co.uk/news/local-news/artist-who-keeping-gallery-free-5972001 (N. 2), http://www.publico.es/deportes/440001/londres-1948-de-los-juegos-de-la-austeridad-a-los-de-la-crisis (N. 8), http://www.lasprovincias.es/culturas/201407/01/lorenzo-belenguer-conquista-londres-20140701211646.html (N. 10) and http://www.absolutearts.com/artsnews/2005/11/25/33490.html (N. 12).

No secondary reference has been found for the Florence Trust Residency Award. However a primary source from the Florence Trust has been provided under external links that might be considered to validate the entrance.

Apologies for the long discourse. I'm trying to address all the issues the best I can. --LondonArt2010 (talk) 17:49, 7 December 2014 (UTC) — LondonArt2010 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

WP:ILIKEIT and "This type of quite artworks never get picked up by the sensationalist media" aren't very strong arguments where we depend on WP:RS for WP:N. I know you've been trying to improve the sourcing, but

thedailybeast fails verification (there's no mention of Belenguer) so does not aid notability
The Independent is a passing mention so also doesn't.
Routine exhibition announcements also don't
There's just not much depth of coverage, indicating WP:TOOSOON. Widefox; talk 01:26, 9 December 2014 (UTC) Widefox; talk 11:57, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following 4 Notes to Editors has been removed and the sources to support it which were in the external links section too. Please let's try to respect each other's point of view.

NOTE TO EDITORS: The link in external links validates the mention of Tate Modern. http://musevery.com/exhibition1/exhibition2.html

NOTE TO EDITORS: The link in external links validates the mention of Serpentine Gallery. http://www.serpentinegalleries.org/exhibitions-events/saturdays-live-leah-capaldi

NOTE TO EDITORS: The link in external links validates the mention of Residency in the Florence Trust. http://www.florencetrust.org/artists/artist.php?id=1

NOTE TO EDITORS: The link in external links validates the mention of Tate Liverpool and INIVA. http://www.iniva.org/exhibitions_projects/2013/keywords_investigations/investigations_sublime --LondonArt2010 (talk) 18:17, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd think that an article published in the University of the Arts is reliable. (N.5)

The article published in the FAD website was published by the editor Mark Westall (N. 6)

Artist in Residency/Florence link was in external links because is a primary source. I don't know why it's been changed to References when it's obviously not a secondary source.

Please, let's play clean whatever your point of view.

--LondonArt2010 (talk) 18:26, 9 December 2014 (UTC) — LondonArt2010 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

References.

TATE MODERN

Primary reference: http://musevery.com/exhibition1/exhibition2.html

Secondary references: (N. 6) http://www.fadwebsite.com/2012/07/24/lorenzo-belenguer-art-opening-at-nellie-dean-tuesday-24th-july/ (N. 10) http://www.lasprovincias.es/culturas/201407/01/lorenzo-belenguer-conquista-londres-20140701211646.html

TATE LIVERPOOL

Secondary references: (N. 10) http://www.lasprovincias.es/culturas/201407/01/lorenzo-belenguer-conquista-londres-20140701211646

INIVA

Primary reference: http://www.iniva.org/exhibitions_projects/2013/keywords_investigations/investigations_sublime

SERPENTINE GALLERY

Primary reference: http://www.serpentinegalleries.org/exhibitions-events/saturdays-live-leah-capaldi

Secondary reference: (N. 10) http://www.lasprovincias.es/culturas/201407/01/lorenzo-belenguer-conquista-londres-20140701211646

LondonArt2010 (talk) 12:24, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:14, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a means of promotion. Belenguer lacks depth of coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:14, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It contains the basic information for any artist: biographical data, information about his works and exhibitions. He has exhibited or participated in performances at these prestigious places: Tate Modern, Tate Liverpool and Serpentine Gallery. 15 third-party references has been produced, of which 8 are solo features, from 3 different countries. LondonArt2010 (talk) 16:41, 15 December 2014 (UTC) — LondonArt2010 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

See the nom - adding lots of shallow depth sources in no way addresses the nom - the complete failure per WP:ARTIST 1-4. A couple of WP:RS establishing that is what is needed. Quality not quantity.

WP is WP:NOT a means of promotion, and the undisclosed paid editing on this article is against our Terms of Use. Widefox; talk 22:01, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 04:22, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No works in permanent collections of a major museum yet, and apparently no major individual shows either. DGG ( talk ) 19:57, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --ceradon (talk • contribs) 05:43, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (message) @ 14:12, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stop! Or My Dog Will Shoot[edit]

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

Substantial portions of this page have been copy-pasted from simpsonswiki.com[102]. That said, that wiki is shared under BY-SA 3.0, so its content may be reused. I'm a fairly new editor and I'm not clear if this is allowed. Wikipedia: Copy-paste seems to imply it may be allowed, so if so, please ignore this. DiscantX (talk) 23:41, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see what's going on here. The creator of this article copy-pasted Stop, or My Dog Will Shoot into this one and turned that one into a redirect. Presumably they didn't like the punctuation. I reversed this: restored the old page, and turned the current one into a redirect. The question is, what do we do with the "Stop!" article, leave it or delete the redirect? I'm in favor of keeping it as a redirect per WP:CHEAP but I don't really care either way. Would better be served at WP:RFD if anyone has a problem with the redirect, otherwise the nominator could withdraw the nom if they're happy. (Also, the Simpsons Wiki is a copy paste of this article, not the other way around.) Deadbeef 00:04, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - since general consensus is that individual Simpsons episodes are notable (for whatever reason), there's no reason to delete this one, especially if the copyright concerns are unfounded. Discussion of the redirect can go to WP:RfD, as stated before. ansh666 18:10, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have history-merged Stop, or My Dog Will Shoot into Stop! Or My Dog Will Shoot. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:21, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 04:20, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – It does appear I was mistaken in my original assessment. This revision from October 2007 [103] on Wikipedia predates this revision from November 2007 [104] on Wikisimpsons. DiscantX (talk) 08:12, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 14:36, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Outline of Narnia[edit]

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

Queried speedy delete. This article looks relevant for readers looking for information about the Narnia scenario. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:34, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I unbulleted your comment for format as you are the nominator, feel free to undo. Deadbeef

Weak Keep Probably needs a significant update to become encyclopaedic but there are many similar articles for other fantasy worlds. Rehnn83 ^Talk 11:51, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep The nomination does not specify a reason to delete. Andrew D. (talk) 13:08, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can see nothing to suggest that this article has anything to add to the existing article Narnia. "What sort of thing is Narnia" indeed. TheLongTone (talk) 14:38, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I was going to say that this article would be very well served as a navbox. Then I scrolled to the bottom of Narnia and saw a nice big navbox ({{narnia}}). What's in the outline that isn't covered in the navbox seems INDISCRIMINATEish. Deadbeef 17:08, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What people seem to need is an understanding of what sort of thing an outline is and for that please see WP:OUTLINE. By their nature, these are not articles - they are another type of navigational aid like lists, categories and templates. Per WP:CLN, we don't favour any particular way of doing this and should not delete one type because it duplicates another. Andrew D. (talk) 17:33, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

an "Outline of Narnia" is what is provided by the lead section of the existing article. This should have been speedied as an article duplicatg the content of an existinng article.TheLongTone (talk) 14:43, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I speedied it as a duplicate of Narnia (world) and The Chronicles of Narnia - my view still stands Gbawden (talk) 19:27, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - currently, this is nothing more than a bare list, and either a navigation box or a category would work better than this. Bearian (talk) 19:41, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - I just noticed this deletion discussion just now, and have not had time to work on this article to show those in the discussion what it can become. Please re-list this to give me a few days so I can work on it. Right now, this is a work-in-progress, and it is no where near complete. "Outline" is short for "hierarchical outline", and such outlines arrange topics in a tree structure. Some (but not all) of the best ones have annotations to assist with topic selection. The main difference between outlines and other page types is the way they are formatted -- they are a type of WP:LIST (structured topics list), more specifically a WP:STAND-alone-list. They are all part of the set at Portal:Contents/Outlines, one of Wikipedia's long established navigation systems. Note that Wikipedia has several somewhat redundant navigation systems, such as categories, navigation boxes, and lists (including outlines). Because each has the potential to leapfrog the others, and since each taps different strengths from various editors, the guideline WP:CLN (including WP:NOTDUP) was developed to keep the list system (which includes the outlines) from being hacked to pieces at deletion discussions, which has come to be seen as counter productive, since we have so many editors dedicated to working on lists. (And there are technologies on the horizon that may take list building and maintaining to the next level -- such as automatic taxonomy induction, a branch of natural language processing). With respect to what the navigation systems have to offer, different readers prefer different styles of browsing. The lists (and outlines) appeal to some users of Wikipedia, while the nav boxes and categories appeal to others. Well developed lists (including outlines) generally have more features than categories and nav boxes, and are much easier and faster to edit. But before you can have a great list, you must initially have a rudimentary list. Also keep in mind that some editors who are navigation system builders prefer to work almost entirely on the list navigation system (such as myself). For some examples among the best outlines, please take a look at Outline of chess, Outline of cell biology, Outline of Buddhism, Outline of Japan, Outline of Iceland, and Outline of motorcycles and motorcycling. For an example of an outline about a similar entertainment franchise, see Outline of Middle-earth. Many outlines serve as tables of contents for subjects that are made up of many articles across Wikipedia, while some outlines have evolved into classified glossaries (structured lists with annotations). Please allow Narnia to be added to this robust navigation system, as it falls within its scope and mission. Thank you. The Transhumanist 10:00, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 04:19, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's an WP:OUTLINE, an established type of article. Some people like them, others don't. It really would be best if those who don't approve of outlines stop looking at them but if they really pose some underlying problem the matter should be brought up at a policy level. Thincat (talk) 09:06, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:17, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Federated Suns[edit]

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

No evidence of out of the universe notability. From what I can tell, the references to FanPro are basically fanfiction, non-notable fanfiction in fact, so there's not much worth keeping. Ricky81682 (talk) 21:47, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if more sources can be found, otherwise merge to BattleTech#Universe. BOZ (talk) 23:16, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no evidence of notability, Fails GNG. –Davey2010 • (talk) 02:50, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - FanPro is also up for AfD for being possibly non-notable. — kikichugirl ^inquire 05:17, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I didn't think that was relevant to add. My comment was based on just reading the pages themselves (regarding of the FanPro), namely that it's not information from FASA itself. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:38, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 02:01, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article is based entirely on primary sources (self-published stuff from inside the fandom), with not a shred of reliable source coverage in sight. No prejudice against recreation in the future if a version can be written that actually cites properly reliable source coverage, but it's not entitled to keep a primary sourced advertisement. Bearcat (talk) 03:14, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deadbeef 04:03, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- overly long, in-universe plot summary. It is very poorly sourced, and there is no evidence of meeting any of our notability requirements. Reyk _YO! 09:18, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 BattleTech#Universe. MBisanz ^talk 04:27, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Capellan Confederation[edit]

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

No evidence of out of universe notability. All the sources are primary sources from in the universe. Ricky81682 (talk) 21:45, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if more sources can be found, otherwise merge to BattleTech#Universe. BOZ (talk) 23:16, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidence of notability, Fails GNG. –Davey2010 • (talk) 02:51, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 02:02, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deadbeef 04:02, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:00, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of suicides which have been attributed to bullying[edit]

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

I see no reason to think that this article is substantially different than the one that was deleted after discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bullycides. "Have been attributed to" is an even broader scope than the previous list. VQuakr (talk) 21:39, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. For every individual, news sources (WP:RS) are cited which indicate that bullying or cyber-bullying led to an individual attempting suicide. Yes there is a cautious tone in the title ("Have been attributed to"), because bullying may have been one of several factors (e.g., depression). There are different lists of suicide cases, the main one being List of suicides and then List of suicides in the 21st century. I think it is helpful to have a short list of all the cases where bullying played an important role in the suicide.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 21:48, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Undecided. I am kind of torn on this one. On one hand these are suicides that are commonly attributed to bullying, but then on the other hand I think that some of the opinions at the last AfD would still apply to this one. What kind of bugs me is the phrase "intentionally killed themselves due to bullying". The article's title implies that these are commonly attributed to bullying while this sentence draws a direct link between the two and as was brought up at the previous AfD, implies that one person or groups of persons (the bullies) were at fault for this and potentially not charged for their actions. It also kind of bothers me in a BLP way, since it also kind of implies that bullying was the main and almost sole reason for their suicides and that's not typically how this sort of thing works. Bullying can be a trigger, yes, but it is not the only trigger and there are usually a whole wealth of other reasons that also play into suicides. I can see the merit in having a list of bullying related deaths, but it needs to be very, very carefully phrased. 06:07, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I just changed the title in the article body so that it is the same as the official title: list of suicides which have been attributed to bullying OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 16:30, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing that! Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:59, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would see a BLP issue here if at the entry for a suicide, the article said "Jane Doe and John Doe allegedly bullied the suicide victim." But in the current article, the alleged bullies are not named.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 16:23, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have also deleted the 2014 and 2013 cases, because BLP applies for 2 years after a person's death.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 16:33, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with the argument that BLP applies to people who died more than two years ago, on the grounds that the bullied individual has family members. This would mean that the BLP rule that the BLP does not apply to dead people who have been dead more than 2 years would be rendered useless.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 18:29, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with the concern about BLP implications for the alleged bullies, because the WP article does not name any alleged bullies. If someone does their own research outside of WP to find out names of alleged bullies, that is outside of Wikipedia's control. There are existing lists like List of Unsolved Murders, where people don't raise the concern about BLP implications for alleged killers.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 00:44, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 02:09, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a list. Wiki has lots of lists. The topic for lists is pretty much irrelevant; someone will no doubt ultimately want to refer to it as a sourcing for some encyclopedic reason. Not liking the subject matter is no reason to be all on-the-fence about it. The why's and what's aren't in debate on some grand scale, it's that it happens at all that's the problem. Nikto wha? 03:17, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deadbeef 04:02, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 RA (album). NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:11, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Superhero (Simon Curtis song)[edit]

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

There is no explanation on why this particularity song so important to have it's own article. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:06, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy - The article was nominated for deletion the same day it was created. At best, the article should be improved, not deleted. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 21:48, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to RA (album). Album on which the song appears has an article. A redirect to it should suffice. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 23:54, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to RA (album). Individual songs aren't generally notable, even when by very famous artists, as I've seen. — kikichugirl ^inquire 05:11, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:30, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deadbeef 04:01, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to RA (album). There does not appear to be any significant coverage of the song. –Chase (talk / contribs) 03:03, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman 16:20, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Walker Buehler[edit]

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

College baseball player, that has not won any major college awards and the only ounce of notability at this point is that he is a top prospect for a Draft that is not until June. I don't like AFD'ing articles the day they are created, but i'm mot seeing at all how he passes GNG. Other than this article [105], everything else is about as routine as it gets. Yankees10 22:44, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.. I wish you guys would stop creating articles for college and high school players before they get drafted. This guy is not notable at this juncture. Spanneraol (talk) 23:18, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm obviously one who you are referring to and I agree 100%. I went well overboard prior to last years draft. While I believe most now pass GNG, some of them probably didn't come close at the time of creating.--Yankees10 23:23, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Obviously I don't agree, since I just created this an hour ago. I think the coverage combined is sufficient, and I will point out that this coverage should continue. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:20, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really confused on how you think the coverage is sufficient. One solid article is most certainly not enough. Also you can't just assume more coverage is coming. If that's the case, why didn't you just wait for more coverage to come? As of right now it was too soon to create this article.--Yankees10 23:33, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So how in the hell did Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Cilladi close as keep? I see you didn't comment there, but Spanneraol was one of the first keep votes. GNG is an art, not a science. I did a search for Buehler and I felt that it had enough to pass. It's a gut feeling, and maybe it's wrong, but maybe it's not. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:40, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hell if I know. I didn't want to get involved with those bullpen catchers, and whether they should have been automatic notables or whatever, but based on purely passing GNG it's bullshit that was considered enough to pass. Anyways referring to Buehler, based on the definition of GNG of having "Significant coverage" I just don't see how you could argue that he has that. I mean you just voted delete for Zach Collier and he has double this coverage.--Yankees10 23:50, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As for Cilladi, I wanted him kept because I believed that bullpen catchers are coaches. Spanneraol (talk) 05:17, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:33, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lots of top draft picks, which he isn't yet, have never made it to the majors. Potential does not guarantee notability and right now he doesn't meet any notability standards. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 16:45, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deadbeef 04:01, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He doesn't meet WP:NBASEBALL and I would also argue that he has only received routine sports coverage and doesn't meet WP:GNG. Astudent0 (talk) 20:14, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – does not meet the WP:GNG. C 679 08:02, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 10:25, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Bock[edit]

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

If you exclude the list of his investments, what does this article actually say? Nothing to demonstrate notability.Bikeroo (talk) 19:58, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 21:06, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:57, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – He's a notable venture capitalist and the founder of the USA Science and Engineering Festival, which has an article. I suppose we could omit the list of his investments, although that's kind of like saying about an architect, if you subtract the list of his buildings what did he do? The list would be better if we selected companies that have articles, like Illumina (company), and added a short description of each. That would address the {{Underlinked}} tag. The book references appear to be genuine but underdeveloped. What does it mean to call him a "keystone species"? That needs a paragraph of explanation. – Margin1522 (talk) 01:48, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I learned about Larry Bock from reading The Rainforest: The Secret to Building the Next Silicon Valley. In it it used Bock as a primary example of keystone species. He is also quoted or mentioned in several other books.Rexwevk (talk) 20:50, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to USA Science and Engineering Festival. Adding a sentence or two to that article (where he is not mentioned today) giving Bock as a force behind the festival should suffice. The article on Bock does not provide much information beyond a list of his investments, which do not make him notable. There isn't much use keeping a separate article that doesn't have much to say, and it appears that his claim to fame is the festival, so he should be given credit there. LaMona (talk) 21:53, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:39, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deadbeef 04:00, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I'd just like to say that I think we are underestimating him if we regard him only as an investor. He's also a scientist. For example, with Illumina (company), he recognized the commercial potential of technology that existed at Brown University, negotiated a license, organized the financing and founded the company. It's now a very significant company, with 70% market share in genome-sequencing machines. He's done this with many other companies, often serving as the initial CEO. I think that's notable, and there is no lack of sources about it, notably the book mentioned by Rexwevk. So I would say he qualifies under GNG. – Margin1522 (talk) 01:58, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think he is notable enough for inclusion into the encyclopedia. He's been covered in books, magazines and newspapers, many of which constitute reliable sources. --ceradon (talk • contribs) 05:47, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Marshall, Matt (2002-11-17). "Biotech Early Bird Flies Pharma Coop - Larry Bock Sees Promise in Small-Scale Nanotech". San Jose Mercury News. Archived from the original on 2014-12-30. Retrieved 2014-12-30.
  The article notes:
  Larry Bock is not a household name in Silicon Valley, but perhaps he should be.
  During the past 17 years, he has been one of the most prolific and successful entrepreneurs in biotechnology.
  An early bird in biotech, the 43-year-old Bock founded 12 biotech start-ups, eight of which trade on the Nasdaq, and has made good money on most of them. He has seeded several others that have gone public.
  Last year, though, Bock flew the biotech coop. A consolidation in the industry had made it too hard to sell products to the big pharmaceutical companies, he said. Instead, he has incubated a Palo Alto start-up, Nanosys, which plays in the emerging field of nanotechnology.
2. The San Jose Mercury News article also notes: "Red Herring magazine recently named Bock one of the top 10 innovators of 2000."
  The Red Herring magazine coverage is a second source about the subject.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Larry Bock to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 07:09, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (NPASR) (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (report) @ 14:13, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John Spoor Broome[edit]

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

article does not address anything that specifically makes him notable-like his father, it's mostly cullings from genealogy and obits Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 16:49, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:48, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:48, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:48, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – However, I think he's notable mainly for the gift related to the John Spoor Broome Library. This is a terrific building, by Norman Foster. The library article links to him and people will want to know who he was. I would stub the rest of the article. Namely, he was a rich man who inherited a very large ranch from his father, sold it, and gave away a lot of money, notably for the library. (We also have a long article on the ranch, which mentions him.) – Margin1522 (talk) 21:37, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:46, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deadbeef 03:59, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 04:25, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:NPASR (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 05:29, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thind[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. The only mention of Thind as a gotra in reliable sources appears to be in a volume of The People of India, where it appears as a single-word item in a list of gotras. I've hunted around for quite a few months, on and off, and am getting no further. I PROD'ed this but the PROD was removed without explanation. The only other source is an entry in a list of last names. Sitush (talk) 01:32, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:00, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:00, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability. Mark Marathon (talk) 08:49, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We commonly retain pages for surnames to list people of that name. I see no reason to differ in this case. Andrew D. (talk) 23:45, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that converting it to a list of notable people bearing the name would be ok if the cats etc were also adjusted to reflect that. I've done that several times in the past. As long as we get rid of any association with a non-notable clan, I'm happy. The difficulty is usually that members of clan xyz then try to convert it back into what is often a BLP-violating list. Offhand, I can see five or six entries that would be valid list entries as a surname. - Sitush (talk) 01:37, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:16, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deadbeef 03:59, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:08, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Year’s Work at the Zombie Research Center[edit]

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

This article does not appear to meet any of the notability guidelines at Wikipedia:Notability (books), being sourced only to self-published sources, an except, and book directories. Better sources would change my mind. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:00, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't really find anything to show that this book meets notability guidelines at this point in time, much to my dismay. I found a brief mention here, but nothing really that would prove notability per NBOOK. This just isn't notable at this point in time and it's just a little early for an entry, despite the book being released. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:29, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Book appears to be notable. Just give it some time for more places to review it. As it stands it seems to me it has the minimum references for it to be notable. Neptune's Trident (talk) 01:28, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find anything out there- all that we have on the page are three primary sources. The book was published through Indiana University Press and one of the authors is an employee of that university, so anything published by IU will be considered a primary source. It's in their best interests to promote something that represents themselves. The PopMatters article is something written by both of the authors, so it is also a primary source and cannot show notability. The book does seem to exist (WP:ITEXISTS), but existing is not notability and we cannot keep an article unless it shows notability in the here and now. It is entirely possible that the book may be reviewed by one of the various outlets, but it's also entirely possible that it won't receive coverage since it's been out for about 3-4 months and hasn't received any true notice from anyone that isn't involved with the work to some degree. I think that it's just too soon for this book to have an article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:40, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deadbeef 03:59, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- its existence can be verified, but that's about all. There are no sources, in the article or elsewhere that I can find, that would show that it meets our notability requirements. Reyk _YO! 16:30, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 King 810. MBisanz ^talk 04:24, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Demo '11[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUMS as a completely non-notable album. Demos without substantial coverage just shouldn't have articles. Ambiguous title doesn't warrant redirect to artist page. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 03:28, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, no indication of notability. --Fauzan^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 07:49, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Redirect to King 810 per WP:CHEAP. Unless there is an alternative use for Demo '11, there is no reason that it should not be kept as a plausible search term for those familiar with the band history. --Jax 0677 (talk) 08:01, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:22, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deadbeef 03:58, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 04:24, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Borges[edit]

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

Despite the appearance of being well-sourced to articles in The New York Times, sources used are actually just brief mentions, quotes, op-eds, or do not even mention Borges. Article reads like a vanity, author your own legacy page with link-bait to his social media profiles. CorporateM (Talk) 03:39, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I zoomed in on the poorly formatted New York Times references. Admittedly, all the references are poorly formatted. I found two references consisting of one sentence quotes as a spokesman for something, devoid of discussion of him as a person. One mentioned him in passing in a list of otherwise non-notable people. One didn't mention him at all. I used Google to search for significant coverage anywhere, and came up dry. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:54, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:29, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deadbeef 03:57, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (NPASR) (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (chew) @ 14:14, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Regan[edit]

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

No, not the First Lady. Poorly sourced WP:BLP, relying almost entirely on filmography databases like IMDb which don't count as reliable sourcing for an encyclopedia article, of a person notable primarily as a local television news anchor. The only source that passes muster here is covering her in the context of having taken an acting role in a play after her stint on the news show ended (and she isn't even that actual subject of that source, but is merely mentioned in an article whose main subject is the playwright). And notability is not inherited, so the fact that her father, sister and brother have encyclopedia articles isn't a notability freebie either. As written, this article fails to get her over either WP:JOURNALIST or WP:GNG — which means it's a delete. Bearcat (talk) 06:56, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 09:05, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 09:05, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 09:05, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: She's covered extensively in Steve Murphy's book Live At 5: The Story Behind Its Success (ISBN: 1551094126) and there are a number of articles about her in the Chronicle Herald archives. I also found this article in the King's Journalism Review. I suspect there may be more about her in offline sources likes newspapers from the '90s, if anyone feels like doing some digging. Tchaliburton (talk) 18:58, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michig (talk) 07:59, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deadbeef 03:57, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 04:24, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. czar ⨹ 18:36, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Hallowell (journalist)[edit]

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

Non-notable person; sources are by, not about him. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:07, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 22:55, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 22:55, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and agree per nom. Sources are by subject and do not mention him. BenLinus 1214^talk 01:23, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deadbeef 03:54, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of coverage outside of short bio blurds with publications. No indication that his publications are widely followed enough to give notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:15, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Becky Sayles (talk) 17:22, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:43, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RamRide[edit]

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

Bus services are not inherently notable and this one fails WP:GNG. WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a valid reason to keep an article. Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Tchaliburton (talk) 23:46, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as utterly non-notable. Fails WP:NOT.Charles (talk) 10:05, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deadbeef 03:53, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – If necessary, one sentence on bus service could be added to the Virginia_Commonwealth_University#MCV_Campus paragraph. Riders of the service will know where to find details about routes and schedules. – Margin1522 (talk) 06:44, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete by RHaworth per WP:G7. (non-admin closure) Anupmehra -Let's talk! 17:37, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List Of Andhra Contributions to Nizam-Telangana Region[edit]

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

per WP:SOAPBOX. Main purpose of this list is to make a political point. Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 03:47, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:05, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago (art magazine)[edit]

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

Non-notable art magazine Seattle (talk) 03:45, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a sporadically published magazine issued by a group of non-notable artists in editions of 300 copies. "Chicago" is not the name of the ongoing magazine project, but is rather the name of one issue of the magazine. That's part of the gimmick - each issue has a different name. If anyone can uncover significant coverage of the venture in reliable sources, I will reconsider. Otherwise, delete. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:53, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:07, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The more appropriate name for the article may be ztscrpt which seems to be the name for the overall venture ([106], [107]). Or perhaps theselection or simply zeitschrift. Regardless of the name problem though, while it sounds interesting, I am seeing no evidence that it is notable. In addition, the text as it exists is an extremely close paraphrase of this page, close enough to be a WP:COPYVIO. AllyD (talk) 08:24, 22 December 2014 (UTC) I've now changed this comment to a "delete" as I haven't found anything substantial and sourced which could replace the Copyvio text and demonstrate notability. AllyD (talk) 17:41, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Everymorning talk 16:02, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2014 NYPD officer killings[edit]

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

This is one of a myriad of responses to the Eric Garner and Michael Brown protests that have occurred in recent days. Also, thousands of police officers have been killed in the line of duty within the past 10 years, and several dozen NYPD casualties have occurred within that time, very few of them within articles. As all other NYPD casualties in the line of duty are as heavily covered by news sources, this barely meets WP:GNG and may be merged into the Garner or Brown articles' responses sections at best; additionally, this is a mere stub and there is a paragraph in the Garner article that contains as much content on the shootings than this entire article. Epicgenius (talk) 03:12, 22 December 2014 (UTC) Now there is strong consensus to keep, so I am withdrawing. Epicgenius (talk) 15:25, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - Clearly fulfills WP:GNG and other relevant WP:EVENTCRIT. Slayings have been directly addressed by President Barack Obama, Attorney General Eric Holder,[108], NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio, etc. Plot Spoiler (talk) 03:19, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's been addressed by the President and AG only because of its very close connection to the two deaths in the summer of 2014. 814 NYPD officers have died in the line of duty since it was founded. We don't have articles for most of them. Besides, the Mayor personally addresses all violent NYPD line-of-duty deaths, as well as violent acts against the NYPD. If this article is to be kept rather than redirected, it should have notability of its own rather than based solely off these two events. Epicgenius (talk) 03:22, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Considering the shooting was sparked by ongoing, widely-covered protests regarding the deaths of Eric Garner and Michael Brown, the fact that this was an actual fatal, retaliatory shooting, and the fact that the media was already on this from day one (not just because of the motivation, but because these were the first actual murders of NYPD police officers since 2011), already indicates a great amount of notability. The only thing that needs to be done with this article is a great amount of extension. Libertarian12111971 (talk) 03:26, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- As I said above, it is one of a myriad of responses to the court decisions; others include even more widely covered protests without articles. The only reason why this event is so widely covered is because it happened right in the middle of the protests. If it were outside the scope of the protests, this may not have been so widely reported. Epicgenius (talk) 03:32, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's not a policy-based argument. An article simply on these NYPD officer killings could be thousands and thousands of characters. It would not be appropriate in any manner to include wholly within the Garner or Brown articles. Plot Spoiler (talk) 03:34, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yeah, but WP:NOTNEWS is. Epicgenius (talk) 03:35, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - LOL, well it clearly is news. Plot Spoiler (talk) 03:37, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        And yet most of all we have is speculation. We do not have a clear motive. We have an article that says "2 officers were killed by person A because of B. Obama said C about this, and Esaw Garner said D." Maybe at this time tomorrow news coverage of this event would have gone viral. Epicgenius (talk) 03:44, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Isn't how most of these articles start out? Under speculation? And besides, there is now controversy being generated about how the protests and reactions to the Garner and Brown deaths have encouraged the shooting. Libertarian12111971 (talk) 04:04, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This has had extensive media coverage that passes notability. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:36, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - significant coverage by reliable sources to back it so passes WP:GNG, already is having an effect and will probably be lasting so passes WP:EVENT. Merging it into Garner is an option, but not one I would take considering the political implications of the event, which wouldn't mesh well in Garner's page. --RAN1 (talk) 03:41, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The basic concept of WP:EVENTCRIT seems to be: will people care about this event per se, not only as a passing tangent to some other, more significant event? The answer here seems to be "yes," as suggested by the closely analogous Murder of Lee Rigby. In that event, as in this one, an armed-forces officer was murdered in "revenge" for alleged wrongs committed by members of the organization represented by the victim. Rigby's murder became very notable as a stand-alone incident in the broader context of the war on terror; these murders will be similarly entered into international conversation.

That said, this article will probably be difficult to keep neutral, as #BlackLivesMatter people will try to refocus attention on the "original" outrage and their opponents will try to use this event to discredit the movement. FourViolas (talk) 04:54, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is easy enough to do with semi protection. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 06:04, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This event has had a lot of media coverage and is certainly notable among violence against police. It's been two days since this happened and it's still trending heavily. The article could use some restructuring though but otherwise very worth keeping. Benbuff91 01:25, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is relevant regardless of the larger situation, as shown by numerous other articles, including the previously mentioned Murder of Lee Rigby and the 2014 Queens hatchet attack. Bahb the Illuminated (talk) 11:36, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, sources indicate notability. Everyking (talk) 13:26, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Libertarian12111971, Plot Spoiler Dwscomet (talk) 14:02, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. To me, it's rather obvious. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:00, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:07, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Fox (motivation consultant)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Jason Fox (motivation consultant)

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

Subject has not received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Article is primarily based on works written by the subject. The only reference that covers the subject in-depth is a Wordpress blog. Fails WP:GNG and WP:Notability (people). Article was created by a blocked paid editor. Hirolovesswords (talk) 00:33, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article barely even makes an assertion of notability. Vectro (talk) 00:42, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see passing mentions in a few sources, but the bulk of the sources are social media or self-published. All motivational speakers think that they are notable, due to their personality type. But only a small percentage actually are. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:18, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Cullen328 stated above, the subject is covered several times, however his long term work isn't notable. Doing a web search, most results are just little motions of his work and the rest are unrelated content. ///EuroCarGT 01:44, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. WP:BIO isn't met, and the article is spammy. Nick-D (talk) 02:48, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Becky Sayles (talk) 14:06, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Deleted by WhisperToMe at my request on IRC (non-admin closure) --ceradon (talk • contribs) 06:16, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Exo from Exoplanet: The Lost Planet[edit]

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

This is at heart nothing but a calendar combined with a tour schedule. WP:NTOUR requires extensive, in-depth discussion of the tour as a whole. In short, the tour needs to be discussed, another way of saying "existence does not equate notability". Drmies (talk) 00:09, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, we've been here before. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exo: The Lost Planet, which for reasons I can't fathom (except for typically reliable editors having forgotten our notability guidelines) was closes as a keep. As it turns out, the article was moved, so this is the second AfD. Let there be no misunderstanding: NTOUR requires coverage of the tour, and we don't get any of it. Let's look at them, but don't click on all these links at the same time--there is so much video advertising on all of these supposably RS sites that my netbook is on the verge of crashing. Comments are based on this version of the article.

This from Yahoo Entertainment is nothing but an announcement of a show in China in the same language of a PR news release ("comeback", etc.). No serious Wikipedia editor could call this "discussion in a reliable source".
No doubt kpopstarz.com is a reliable source of factoids and gossip for K-pop fans, but it does not suffice for Wikipedia. Open this announcement of an additional show at your own risk, given the video spam. It's a reliable announcement, no doubt. But it is nothing in the grand scheme of things; one wonders if this is what voters in the first AfD called "significant coverage in reliable sources".
Nate is well-known as a reliable source for K-pop announcements. It has a paragraph or two to offer on...well, not that much.
This is a YouTube video of a show, apparently, and that is all it is.
This is a link to SM Entertainment. Whatever it has to offer has no bearing on notability.
Formerly a link to a page on MSN copying the usual PR talk, about invading Singapore and all that jazz
Our final source is SM Entertainment's Twitter feed. Someone please tell me this is reliable coverage, in-depth discussion, etc. Drmies (talk) 00:56, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the exhaustive analysis by Drmies, who actually understands reliable sources related to K-Pop. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:23, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --ceradon (talk • contribs) 01:52, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing new to add. All sources are SM-created PR, not real coverage. Shinyang-i (talk) 02:24, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I understand that the article may not have "reliable sources", but bear with us in EXO-L (the fanclub). This is actually an important to the band and us fans. Plus, the company just released the concert album, which I will add info about personally. RickMICROTECH (talk) 05:36, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per Drmies, This is Wikipedia, an encyclopedia; not a fanclub. Fylbecatulous talk 14:25, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Some of the contents in this article may be merged into the 2014 subsection of the history section in the article EXO (band). However, this article also talks about the live recorded album. Most albums with sufficient available information have their own articles anyway, so why not this one too? It's not about Wikipedia being an EXO fanclub or not. There are many articles about albums in Wikipedia, be it EXO or not. Busukxuan (talk) 16:15, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per Drmies, This is an encyclopedia; not a fanclub; being useful for the fans cannot be used as an excuse; fans can create a fanpage for that kind of things.--TerryAlex (talk) 21:56, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG.Becky Sayles (talk) 13:54, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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