The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. balanced-ish headcount, plausibly meets WP:N, has a lot of links for a stub/start article, but the article has been expanded and the inappropriate external links removed. WilyD 11:56, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Start Menu replacements for Windows 8[edit]

List of Start Menu replacements for Windows 8 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The article is primarily a directory of external links. A previous revision tried to remove the external links, at which point the article became primarily a list of redlinks. See the discussion on the article's talk page for a dispute about whether the external links are appropriate. In any case, neither possible version of the article seems to me to merit inclusion. Noiratsi (talk) 07:26, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - only one of them has an article. Also, I don't see much that can be discussed about such programs.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:29, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Normal content disputes are not a valid reason for deletion. There are lots of articles that contain links to official web sites, such as List of software for molecular mechanics modeling per WP:ELOFFICIAL. Yet for some strange reason, these other articles haven't been nominated for deletion. I asked Noiratsi to create an RfC to see if there's community support against official links, but they declined to do so. I really don't know what to do if editors refuse to seek consensus against WP:ELOFFICIAL, but I do know that normal content disputes are not a valid reason for deletion. The topic is obviously notable given the significant coverage of reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Indeed, Noiratsi's nomination doesn't even make the argument that the topic is not notable. What's more, Noiratsi even approved of the article when it was created (sorry, I don't have the diff- I'll try to dig it up later, I'm going back to sleep now.) Again, this is an content dispute masquerading as an AfD. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 08:09, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did mark the page as reviewed shortly after it was created, and at the same time I tagged it for external link issues. The resulting discussion about the external links was what led me to propose deletion, but I'm sorry if I made it sound like the external links were the primary reason for this nomination. I brought the article here for discussion because list articles like this are intended to summarize already existing content for navigation purposes. The other articles you mention certainly need discussion and improvement, as I said at Talk:List of Start Menu replacements for Windows 8, but that's no reason not to consider each in its own right. Since almost no content yet exists for this list to navigate, I stand by the nomination. --Noiratsi (talk) 08:44, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not every list article is a navigational aid. Some are a source of information in themselves, as WP:LISTPURP makes clear. The fact that this list isn't useful for navigation isn't a valid reason for deletion. You could, however, argue that the subject isn't notable. I can only find one halfway-reliable source that has compiled such a list (this one, upon which the article is based), so this article probably doesn't meet the notability guidelines for lists. I've only done cursory research into this, though, so I'll hold off on !voting for now. DoctorKubla (talk) 09:26, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments and particularly the link to WP:LISTN, which I wasn't aware of. (I'm still learning!) How about a merge of any useful content to Start menu#Evolution for now? That section already includes a brief mention (in the final paragraph) of some of the items on this list. --Noiratsi (talk) 09:35, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I note that Noiratsi has still not provided a single reason why this article fails to meet notability. Again, this is a content dispute masquerading as an AfD. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:02, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I realise the nomination was imprecise and I apologize. In the end though, deletion discussions aren't about whether people agree with the nominator; they're about what other people think should happen to the article. I may not have offered the best reasons, but that is why the discussion is taking place - to establish what definite grounds for deletion there may be, and to keep the article if there aren't any. As such whoever closes the discussion won't be 'counting votes' and I'm sure they'll take your defense of the article into account. --Noiratsi (talk) 13:16, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:LISTPURP - this list serves absolutely no purpose other than to show users which programmes offer a start menu. The article is encyclopaedic and given the nature of the content which it aims to cover, there is not much more that it can cover that wouldn't be able to be covered in the article on the list of features removed from Windows 8 or the Evolution section on the Start menu article. James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 8:42pm • 09:42, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as discussed on the article talk page this article seems to only have two possible modes: 1. a list of external links or 2. a list of predominantly redlinks, since only one of the subjects has a Wikipedia article. In the case of the first mode it clearly runs afoul of the policy WP:LINKFARM and probably WP:SPAM as well as it would merely exist to promote products for sale. In the second case it would be a list of non-notable subjects and therefore the list itself would be non-notable and should be deleted. In either case the article should be deleted. - Ahunt (talk) 11:34, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I just want to be clear that the article is a stub. Windows 8 is brand new and the article can be expanded and improved through normal editing process. Even if I'm wrong about WP:ELOFFICIAL, that's no reason to delete the article. The main issue here is whether this topic meets WP:GNG. I believe the article, although a stub, is well-sourced, and many more sources can be found. So, over the course of the next 10 days, I will be creating a list of secondary sources. This seems like a pointless exercise since anyone can do a Google News search, but if that's what I need to do to save the article, that's what I'll do.

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:10, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - If your argument is that the subject of the list itself is notable, even though we have no Wikipedia articles on the majority of the list items, then we get back to the result of a "keep" here being a list of redlinks. You can't have a list of external links as that votes the policy at WP:LINKFARM. - Ahunt (talk) 15:10, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Windows 8 was just released. Of course, we don't have articles yet on these programs. What did you expect? These articles don't create themselves. We have to write them ourselves. Hopefully, we'll get editors to create them, but this is all brand new. Fortunately, we don't have a WP:DEADLINE. And given that long list of reliable sources above, I'm fairly certain that we have enough sources to create stand-alone articles for many of these programs as well. But these things take time. At least I got the ball rolling. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:23, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Although most of the links provided above by A Quest For Knowledge are reviewing/promoting one particular Start Menu replacement app (whereas what we need here are sources that establish the notability of the list – i.e. sources that have compiled a similar list of Start Menu replacements), a few of the links are relevant. Specifically:

• IT World - 9 Windows Start menus for Windows 8
• Delaware Online - Windows 8 woes GetStart menu sub
• TechNewsDaily - 3 Ways to Bring Back the Start Menu in Windows 8
• PC World - Give Windows 8 the Start Menu It Deserves
• PC Magazine - Tip: How to Get the Start Menu Back in Windows 8
• USA Today - How to add a Start menu to Windows 8

Which is more than enough to establish notability, in my view, and I don't know how I missed these articles during my own search for sources. In response to Ahunt, and the other delete !voters, it doesn't matter that only one of these utilities has an article. From WP:LISTN: "Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable". DoctorKubla (talk) 15:30, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since DoctorKubla posted, I've found 3 4 5 6 7 more sources which discuss these items as group:

• ExtremeTech - How to bring back the Start menu and button to Windows 8
• Laptop Magazine - 6 Ways to Totally Avoid Metro and Use Only Desktop Mode in Windows 8
• Information Week - What Windows 8.1 Must Be
• CNET - Will 'normal' Windows users want a Start button for Win 8?
• CNET - How to get the Start menu back in Windows 8
• CNET - Pokki Windows 8 Start menu grabs half a million downloads
• PC World - Sorry, Microsoft: Users really want the Start menu back

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:05, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete lists of external links, especially for commercial products for sale, are generally not acceptable on Wikipedia. See WP:LINKFARM, criteria 2. The concept itself should be discussed in the Start menu article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:32, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I agree the external links aren't appropriate, so I've removed them. I may well be reverted, but my point is that the external links can be dealt with through ordinary editing, and aren't a valid reason for deletion. DoctorKubla (talk) 17:03, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's pointless to remove WP:ELOFFICIAL links since we're going to add them back after we create individual articles. But I won't revert you. But after the AfD is closed, I'll probably open an RfC. I really don't see a problem. We're here to serve our readers, after all. Removing official links just makes the article less useful to our readers. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:20, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The existence of a long list of external links is clearly a violation of WP:LINKFARM. Official links allow one official link on the subject of the article, not creating a list of external links. If the individual articles on each piece of software were created then each article could have an official link, but the article we are discussing here would only have wikilinks to the individual articles. - Ahunt (talk) 17:29, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but we haven't created those articles yet. So, it makes sense to temporarily have them until we create the articles. I don't know why you want to force the reader to Google for these programs' web sites. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:34, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because it clearly violates Wikipedia policy to have an article consisting of external links to products people can buy. That policy is not just bureaucratic, it was decided by community consensus long ago for a reason, to prevent exactly the sort of external link spamming you are proposing. If the choice comes down to a list of spam links or deletion, then this article should be deleted. - Ahunt (talk) 17:46, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a directory. Official links are there to supplement the encyclopedic content of an article and "to give the reader the opportunity to see what the subject says about itself." Wikipedia is not here to help people find a start menu for Windows 8; we should instead be documenting the fact that many people have chosen to do so. If people come here looking for a start menu replacement, they have come to the wrong place entirely and shouldn't be at all surprised when they don't find any links to sites containing such things. --Noiratsi (talk) 17:53, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:LINKFARM. The argument that we need to provide a list of X where none of X actually exist as articles is fallacious - lists in the encyclopedia are lists of articles, not lists of external links. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:22, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please check the article again. The external links have been removed. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:36, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All I see are external links - it doesn't matter that they are formatted as references and go to PC Magazine reviews. You really need to go read this. Really. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:41, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those aren't considered external links. Those are sources. BTW, I really don't understand this attitude that this article must be complete in order to be in article space. It's a stub. Windows 8 just came out for heaven's sake. It takes time to write these articles. I've proved that this topic is notable. Finishing the article is something that can be done through the normal editing process. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:48, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Windows 8#Reception. The various sources lead me to conclude that the general topic of Start menu replacements for Windows 8 has received sufficient media attention to be deemed notable by the GNG, but at this point the list of replacements seems pretty trivial. I'd suggest that the list is not sufficiently notable for a stand-alone list, but the rapid emergence of Start menu replacements (and the list thereof) is a valid topic for inclusion in Windows 8#Reception. --Orlady (talk) 21:49, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:45, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:45, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep, per usefulness and a strong need for this article. I just bought a new computer and was horrified by the windows 8 user interface, I couldn't even find out how to restart the computer. So I started searching for "start menu windows 8" and found that millions of other users were searching for the same thing. Among other search results I found this wp article, and noted it was threatened with deletion, and that's how I found this discussion. I don't care if you call it a linkfarm, the links in the article and this discussion have been very useful for me. The only thing I miss is a comparison between all these alternatives so I didn't have to compare them myself. Put the links in the article and this discussion together in an article called Comparison of start menus for windows 8 Roger491127 (talk) 11:23, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia is not a directory. It is not the job of this site to help you find a replacement for your start menu. If people think that should be part of Wikipedia's remit, this is (in my opinion) not the place to discuss it. In other news, I do feel that the addition of a lead paragraph to the article has improved its credibility. --Noiratsi (talk) 11:37, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep List topic meets the GNG, handily proven by A Quest For Knowledge. All objections so far, including the nom's, can be addressed by ordinary editing.  The Steve  22:59, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks to a lot of conversation with several kind editors in recent days I now agree that the issues should be addressed by future editing and that deletion isn't appropriate or justified. I apologise for some stubborn and short-sighted arguments. —Noiratsi (talk) 14:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 23:55, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Relisted? Every "delete" vote is based upon a misinterpretation of WP:LISTPURP and WP:LISTN, notability has been quite clearly demonstrated by A Quest for Knowledge's list of links, and the nominator has effectively withdrawn the nomination. Speedy close? DoctorKubla (talk) 08:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Well referenced; nominator has withdrawn. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:52, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. In addition, Wikipedia is not a technical manual. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 23:41, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The nom didn't have a valid reason for deletion and has subsequently withdrawn. Can you please indicate which part of the article is a technical manual and why that's a valid reason for deletion? Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:33, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Unencyclopedic, and not really a regular "list" because it's mostly of external links, with only one item on the list actually linking to an article. Zerbu 00:20, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First, WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions. Second, being well-referenced is actually a good thing as it proves that the topic is notable. Third, having only one WikiLink item on the list is not a valid reason for deletion. That's fine if you want to !no vote to delete it, but you have to come up with a valid reason first. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:33, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep And make into a suitable combination article with some text. It can't stay this way, with just links and references, but either tie present title, or Comparison on Start menu replacements ... or Start menu replacements ... it could be the basis of an article. The individual items on a list do not have to be notable, and I have never seen a guideline that says otherwise--just as DoctorKubla says. The confusion is because there are many lists, where, to prevent spam, we do make such a requirement--among these are such articles as "List of business in City X " or "Alumni of College Y" or lists of people generally, but there is also a place for combination articles. Agreed, we're not a web directory, but this can be satisfied by requiring some degree of documentation for the individual entires, as is present here. DGG ( talk ) 01:49, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a technicality that does not merit an article separate from Start menu. I don't see a substantive discussion of the replacements that goes above the technical stage for tips with computer usage. Hekerui (talk) 20:10, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is enough information to create a paragraph per item on the list. It's the holidays in the US and I just haven't had a chance to start adding it. Hopefully, this weekend I can get started on one of them. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:32, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would that be more technical information on the individual entries? I don't think that would improve the encyclopedic merit of this page. Hekerui (talk) 21:17, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would probably be a paragraph summarizing each item. I'm not sure what you consider technical but I'll try to avoid it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk)

• Strong keep Nominator has withdrawn, and the article can be expanded from its current stub status. —Darkwind (talk) 19:48, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Merge into the main Windows 8 article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.56.52 (talk) 05:48, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep This can become a useful summary article. Convert the deprecated inline exlinks to create "legitimate" redlinks where apropriate. Roger (talk) 07:33, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is that the current state of the article may be unsatisfactory - particularly in the color usage - but the content should be kept. Kubigula (talk) 16:38, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of online music lockers[edit]

Comparison of online music lockers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Wikipedia is not an internet shopping guide. This sort of thing belongs at Consumer Reports' website, not Wikipedia. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:21, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The companies and their services are certainly notable. This particular service is widely talked about in press articles. Comparisons of online services and software have a long history on Wikipedia. See all articles listed at Comparison of prefix search. Such as Comparison of webmail providers, Comparison of open source software hosting facilities, Comparison of Linux distributions, Comparison of file archivers, Comparison of shopping cart software. --Pmsyyz (talk) 23:27, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 08:20, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 08:20, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 08:35, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 08:35, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, notable and noteworthy companies, encyclopedic and certainly quite educational use of page. — Cirt (talk) 16:01, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok, that's two keep votes that open with remarks about notability, which is not mentioned in the nomination. I know it is normal to make notability based arguments at AFD, but this is the exception to that rule. Nobody is even remotely suggesting that the three services compared are not notable. They all have their own articles and I would not even think of nominating them for deletion. What is being suggested is that having a consumer-reports style side-by-side comparison, cmplete with red and green highlights to let you know who is good and who is bad, is a violation of the idea that Wikipedia is not a shopper's guide. We might as well change the name of this article to "according to Wikipedia Google Play is awesome". Beeblebrox (talk) 20:48, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, so it is the colors you object to? They are used this way on many other comparison articles to indicate feature support. I couldn't find anything in the MoS about this type of article. --Pmsyyz (talk) 05:09, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do object to the colors, but that is something that could be fixed by editing. Why I think it should just be deleted is explained fairly clearly, with links, in the nomination. Whether there are other similar articles or not I do not think this is appropriate. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:43, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 23:14, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep with changes - The article itself could de with being renamed to remove 'comparison' from the name. The comparison should feature as part of a greater article about the storage of music on-line. Or the article could be merged into Cloud_storage potentially with a section for types of storage (documents, files, music e.t.c) and then the comparison could remain there. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 20:36, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and discuss the title. This is a distinct category of products, and I don't think it should be merged into the very general article on cloud storage--that article would be unworkably large if it contained the details of everything that cloud storage can be used for. It might, however, be possible to combine with very closely related subjects and make it into a List of online media lockers" or some such title. Having list like this is not a violation of NOTDIRECTORY, because Consumer Reports is not a replacement, at present, since it's in large part a subscription service--and because it very unfortunately and for me infuriatingly does not cover computer technology with the same degree of detail and specificity that we do; and its purpose is different also--one of the key things it does is to make recommendations, which is of course totally outside our scope. And that's why this is not a shopping guide. FWIW, I too very much object to the use of colors, especially bright colors, on this list and all similar lists, and perhaps we should have an RfC about limiting their use when necessary for emphasis or differentiation & using some less obtrusive shading to provide navigation on long lists--but that's not the question here. DGG ( talk ) 01:59, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I have to side with the nominator here, the individual stores are notable but their comparison is not. Where are the sources that give substantive coverage of the comparison? There are none because all they would do is what this article does, list individual features. Wikipedia can't be everything, and it should not be a shopping guide, and that's policy. Nominate the rest of comparisons, too, their existence proves nothing. Hekerui (talk) 20:15, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's a good source: PC World, and a lesser source: Life Hacker. --Pmsyyz (talk) 02:03, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Editors are reminded that lists are not all objective, and that referenced entries (like what is there now) are acceptable. What is a valid entry can be discussed on the individual talk pages.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:40, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of cultural icons of England[edit]

List of cultural icons of England (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:OR TheOriginalSoni (talk) 21:16, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also nominate the folowing related articles for deletion under similar rationale -

• List of cultural icons of Wales
• List of cultural icons of France
• List of cultural icons of Germany
• List of cultural icons of Italy
• List of cultural icons of the Netherlands
• List of cultural icons of Russia
• List of cultural icons of Scotland

Can anyone please also nominate the other articles and link them all to the discussion here, so that a joint discussion may be able to decide on all of them? (I am not familiar with multiple nominations and so I am not sure how to do it) Thanks Done TheOriginalSoni (talk) 21:23, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Lists doomed to be inherently subjective: one person's "cultural icon" is another's embarassment (Baked Beans, Bernard Buffet).TheLongTone (talk) 21:59, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - By George, hold on old chap - this "subjective" list contains 50 references - yeah, I know, the person who put them in hadn't heard of cite tags - so there's certainly some objectivity in there. They refer to articles from the BBC, the Guardian ... cultural icons themselves. Can we find more and better citations? Sure we can. British Postal Museum & Archive "Icons of England" - includes Big Ben, Cup of Tea, Cricket ... the list should sound familiar, because it's culturally shared and richly documented. Or try Culture24: ICONS of England - the Spitfire, the Red Telephone Box... or BBC News: New Icons of Englishness unveiled - guess what: Stonehenge, Cricket, Cup of tea, Routemaster Bus ... room for one more here? try Historic UK: Icons of England - you know what's coming: Cup of Tea, Routemaster Bus, Spitfire, Jerusalem, Stonehenge ... Notable? Of course it is. Is the list inclusion criterion clear? Yes - an icon's in if we can find "multiple, reliable sources" for a thing's being an icon of England. Will it take a while to look through the mass of sources? Yes, but there's no hurry. Keep.Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:34, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The question here is not whether or not we have reliable sources for inclusion of an item in the list. It is whether or not the list requires Original Research on the part of the editor, or judgement whether or not to add it. [I dont see how you would need to judge whether Obama lies in List of US presidents, but here its another matter altogether; even if both lists have reliable sources]

That is, unless you choose to directly the entire list copy from one of the sources, which will then go against the WP copyright policyTheOriginalSoni (talk) 23:16, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per TheLongTone. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:46, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

per an editor's subjective assertion that something is subjective, when the sources say it isn't? Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:50, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are only giving their opinion. You may see Pussy Riot as a Russian icon, and I may not. These articles are not objective enough for an encyclopedia. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:00, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some things are pretty uncontroversial, like the Houses of Parliament or ghastly food (note that the snap of a roast dinner clearly features overdone meat, probably tougher than shoe leather) but others are more borderline: for instance, why The Haywain and not The Fighting Temeraire. Its the existence of a huge middle ground that make this article unworkable.TheLongTone (talk) 23:15, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note that all the articles admit to impossibility of the lists being definitive by stating that they are lists of potential cultural icons.TheLongTone (talk) 00:23, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These are not stupid objections. The plain solution is to require say 3 (or maybe 5) reliable sources for EACH icon, and thereby to exclude "potential" icons which I agree is unacceptable. The result would be to prune the list, drastically, which I suspect is what we all want. An icon is guaranteed to be found in multiple reliable sources. If not, it's not an icon. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:06, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At the point of almost repeating myself, Nobody here claims that we cannot find reliable sources to support the London Bridge's claims to be a cultural icon of England. What we do say is that synthesising such a list by ourselves (than basing it on another sourced list) will be a breach of Wikipedia policies which say that we CANNOT do so. If you really need to have such a list, why not convert the least contentious ones to prose and add to Culture of England?? Nothing stops a prose article from stating what has been said. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 11:00, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 08:12, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 08:12, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 08:12, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No breach of policy (such as WP:SYNTH) is involved. All list articles — indeed all articles, period — involve collecting materials from different places; there is no other way of building any article. What is at issue is whether there can be clear criteria to delimit this list, and sufficient reliable sources to identify items that meet those criteria. Since the answer is a definite "yes" to both questions, the list may stand. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:51, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually because there a seven billion people on Earth, the answer to your first question is a definite "no". - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 12:06, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between which sources can generally be relied upon to get facts right and which sources' opinions carry weight. These lists rely on opinions, which are per se subjective.TheLongTone (talk) 12:15, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are sufficient good, reliable sources in the case of England - I doubt that's true for the other nations. A single source may be an opinion, but firstly the opinion of the BBC or the Guardian (for example) is better than the opinion of a blogger, and secondly when 3 or 5 good, reliable sources agree then Wikipedia may reasonably assume that there is intersubjective agreement on the matter. Otherwise, every fact and theory no matter how well attested is just "subjective". WP:RS is our standard and we should stick to it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:30, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Although there may be clear criteria to delimit the lists, and sufficient RS, there's no clear criteria to delimit the list of lists. For example, are List of cultural icons of FYROM and List of cultural icons of North Korea valid articles? Ning-ning (talk) 13:02, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On this list: the reason given about other lists is nothing to do with this list at all, to keep or not.

On the other lists, the answer is that if there are sufficient sources on the FYR of Macedonia, as seems improbable, then there would be reason to keep. In the case of England, there are excellent sources, so the cases may well differ. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:26, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I note the list is for potential cultural icons; there's plenty on the list that I doubt will ever become actualised- Argos catalogues, Treasure Houses of Britain, Tiptree Jam. Maybe there's an excellent source for Argos catalogues being an icon; THB is a marketing organisation, Tiptree Jam? Are Duchy Originals on the list too? List of cultural icons found on a shelf in Waitrose. Ning-ning (talk) 15:51, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Argos catalogues have gone, along with Lunch (I ask you) and Andrex. Is Waitrose a cultural icon, btw?TheLongTone (talk) 16:34, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Rewritten) Rather than argue any more, I thought I'd try a better defined list. There are just 7 items that were quickly sourced; no doubt others can find a few more. Most of the sources in the old article failed to assert "cultural icon" status so they had to go, along with nearly all the unsourced entries, it was worse than it looked. See what you think.

(Closing Admin - please note that earlier !votes applied to the original listcruft article.) Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:49, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd certainly agree that this is a much more sensible list (& list length), but am not sure as to whether including strictures on criteria for inclusion will be effective in preventing the list bloating to the previous absurd level. Nice to see G.G. Scott's telephone boxes btw: I think they were absent from the old article.TheLongTone (talk) 17:29, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Much better. Restricting the list to objects should cut down on bloat, though using Attenborough for an example confuses the issue. Big Ben the bell, and Big Ben the cultural icon- isn't the bell just a part of the whole icon (tune, tower, striking the hour)? Also, relying on three sources to mention the magic words " cultural icon" is going to bias the list towards modern-day cultural references. For example Bellarmine jugs, the tomb of Edward the Confessor, Ned Ludd are some old cultural icons, which perhaps won't have the term applied to them. How should the list be expanded? Searching for the term "cultural icon" wherever it's used, or testing whether something has been defined as one thrice? Ning-ning (talk) 18:23, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou. It's only a start, and of course everybody is free to make improvements. I mentioned Attenborough as he was there before but it turned out that independent sources for his iconic status were hard to be sure of, a very specific point: if it's too picky, let's drop it. On bloat, we just watch and revert (and if need be discuss or warn), now we have sharp criteria. On growth, however works for you. On Big Ben, believe it's actually the bell tho' everyone thinks it's the whole thing. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:17, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have refrained from voting so far but I remain unconvinced. Yes, Attenborough could qualify; the Greek film Attenberg is actually named after him and takes for granted that the audience recognise his oeuvre. There will be many other sources out there though many will be equally difficult to pin down. But how can we really qualify a list which has to work for all recorded history? Are we talking of cultural influence, tourist sites, well known people? John Locke or Thomas Paine might be said to have had great cultural influence but are they cultural icons? If not, why not? Asking whether people have used that exact term seems pretty unsatisfactory to me. It probably is not a term previous generations would have used, but they would have described the same thing in different ways. And why should the sources be confined to English? Arguably wide recognition in non-English speaking countries ought to count for more, not less. --AJHingston (talk) 01:07, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - complete OR bogus POV nonsense, cannot be reliably sourced, inherently OR, bogus. JoshuSasori (talk) 13:29, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Question - Is it natural and/or acceptable for Wikipedia articles and list to contain the criterion (and a proper explanation and justification) for inclusion in the article space? I have seen them as comments, but are they acceptable in the articles themselves? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 15:57, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good question, and I was wondering about the right way to do it also. Articles are supposed, I believe, to indicate obliquely why they are notable, without using the word. To JoshuSasori, there are many published books with "Cultural Icon" in their title, so people out there certainly think the concept is notable. To AJHingston, whether the term could even have been explained to someone of Locke's generation I rather doubt - Locke would have thought the term irrational; and in the Middle Ages it would surely have been thought blasphemous. So I suspect it only makes sense to a more modern mind, say 20th century. Perhaps also each nation's icons are necessarily different, so separate lists may make more sense than attempting any more cosmic all-in-one definition. Just a thought. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:40, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of things tourists want to be photographed near when they visit England?TheLongTone (talk) 18:55, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Photogrpahing a cup of tea? Sorry but no. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 01:54, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 23:13, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all. I think that we can all agree that cultural icon is a valid and notable topic. In general, a list of elements that are part of a notable subject is valid if the individual entries can be shown to also be notable. Each of the lists in question consist of elements that have articles, so the individual elements are themselves notable. The point of contention in tne nomination is that putting together such a list is original research consisting of synthesis. As multiple reliable sources can (and should) be used to determine incluson i the list, to that extent this is not original research as it is the opinion of tertiary soruces that are used to make this determination. With respect to this being synthesis, there is not going to be 100% agreement from everybody in the world on whether an item is a cultiral icon. As such, any such list that would attempt to follow the nominator's reasoning would be doomed to be named like "List of cultural icons of France as determined by the BBC" or some such. It's not synthesis to list items together that are generally known as cultural icons by third party sources even if they aren't always tehexact same sources. -- Whpq (talk) 15:25, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the English list because it has a real criterion and real sources. Hold off on the others to see if they can be handled similarly. They should not have been nominated together, because they are of different natures. Basing a list like this on sources is the only possible way to do it. The qualification of the list is indeed subjective, which is why we cannot do it ourselves. ThWe could argue whether for the English list 3 sources or 2 are needed, and how specific they need to be, but that can be decided but the concept of cultural icon is more than notable, more even than famous--it's a combination of famous and of being famously distinctive and characteristic. I do not agree with Whpg--we cannot include everything notable in a country, or everything notable in a country that we here judge particularly important and characteristic. We have no business making such distinctions. We can appropriately however, decide on objective criteria for such distinctions. The non-English lists at present do not show that. DGG ( talk ) 02:11, 28 December 2012 (UTC) .[reply]
• Delete The attempt to establish objective criteria for the List of cultural icons of England fails spectacularly because it's made by a user. The cut-off is necessarily arbitrary and the sourcing of the other pages is terrible. Delete them all, the country articles are sufficient. Hekerui (talk) 20:23, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A search for ikoną kultury produces a number of hits for Barbie, Batman and Jesus Christ- the first a result of a Polish edition of "Barbie Culture" by Mary F. Rogers, which has been (mis)titled "Barbie as a Cultural Icon", the second from a review of a US book on Batman, the last a translated segment from the Catholic Encyclopedia. I think this shows the notion of cultural icon is somewhat Anglocentric. Another example is Norman Wisdom, claimed by some British writers to be an Albanian cultural icon- the only hit for ikonë kulturore is My Little Pony. The list I'm really looking forward to is Cultural icons of the Wahhabi. Ning-ning (talk) 22:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, defining a "cultural icon" is inherently subjective, and thus WP:OR. A list of cultural icons as designated by some external authority might be notable enough, but that is not what these lists appear to be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lankiveil (talk • contribs)
• Delete: An inherently subjective list, even if sources are found for it. A List of big trees or List of nice paintings will always be doomed for deletion, even if some published source has compiled such a source before—what is a "cultural icon" for one person will be a national disgrace or bore for another, and no "official list" can change that. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 03:16, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The subconscious mind... I used TheLongTone's words almost exactly... I must have read this before... הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 03:18, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I must agree with Hasirpad here now. There is no way we can remove the list of subjectiveness. Delete. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 05:30, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - well sourced, no original research. Everything is, of course, subjective, but the list(s) use unoriginal research; they merely repeated what other sources are telling us. The subjective judgements are not those of Wikipedia's editors, so it does not violate WP:OR. WilyD 11:58, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This argument becomes recursive. What are the critia for deciding which sourcs are reliable?TheLongTone (talk) 12:23, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a fair question, and one at the heart of Wikipedia. Ultimately we can only go by what exists out there in the world, and by noticing what seems to be agreed and respected out there. Beyond that you're into the philosophy of knowledge - how do we know anything at all, etc. The point here is that multiple sources agree that the concept "cultural icon" exists, and they also agree on what constitute major icons, just as people agree quite well on what is a "table" when it's wooden, waist height, and has 4 legs, but less well when it's of a quirky and ingenious design. There are many books with "cultural icon" in their title, by the way. Here are some:

• Brooker, Will (2001). Batman Unmasked: Analysing a Cultural Icon. Continuum.
• Edwards, Peter; Karl Enenkel, and Elspeth Graham (editors) (2011). The Horse as Cultural Icon: The Real and the Symbolic Horse in the Early Modern World. Brill. ((cite book)): |author= has generic name (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
• Foudy, Julie; Leslie Heywood; Shari L Dworkin (2003). Built to Win: The Female Athlete as Cultural Icon. University of Minnesota Press. ((cite book)): Unknown parameter |lastauthoramp= ignored (|name-list-style= suggested) (help)
• Nelkin, Dorothy; M Susan Lindee (2004). The DNA Mystique: The Gene as a Cultural Icon. University of Michigan Press. ((cite book)): Unknown parameter |lastauthoramp= ignored (|name-list-style= suggested) (help)
• Biedermann, Hans (1994). Dictionary of symbolism: cultural icons and the meanings behind them. Meridan.
• Heyer, Paul (2012). Titanic Century: Media, Myth, and the Making of a Cultural Icon. Praeger.
• Reydams-Schils, Gretchen J (2003). Plato's Timaeus as cultural icon. University of Notre Dame Press.
• Gilbert, Erik (2008). The Dhow as Cultural Icon. Boston University.

--- Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:36, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Headcount strongly favours keeping, New York City Subway is already 124k, so merger is impossible WilyD 12:00, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New York City Subway in popular culture[edit]

New York City Subway in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The whole article is WP:TRIVIA. Any notable popular culture references could easily be incorporated as a section in New York City Subway 1292simon (talk) 07:04, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Oppose. The article is too long to be incorporated as a section. There are several articles related to the NYC Subway existing as separate articles due to being too long. Vcohen (talk) 08:21, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AfD !votes usually take the form of keep/delete, rather than support/oppose, for the sake of clarity. DoctorKubla (talk) 09:51, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Vcohen (talk) 10:00, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This article was split from New York City Subway in January 2007, and has grown since then, so it wouldn't make sense to merge it back in. And this list isn't WP:TRIVIA; that guideline is about "trivia sections" full of unintegrated miscellaneous facts, whereas this is a perfectly legitimate "in popular culture" article. DoctorKubla (talk) 09:51, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please note, "in popular culture" is an essay. "Essays are not Wikipedia policies or guidelines." 1292simon (talk) 09:57, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I think a relevant essay trumps a completely irrelevant guideline. DoctorKubla (talk) 10:15, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep While comprehensive, it's not a good article in other ways: it's very badly sourced (of the 3 refs, one is a forum, one is a business website, and only one is a real published reliable source), and it's a list whereas Wikipedia style generally prefers paragraphs of prose. But even the proposer suggests a partial merge rather than outright deletion, and I think leaving it here is better than merging for reasons of length. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:27, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep The nomination misunderstands WP:TRIVIA which does not seem to have been read. The nomination seems to be suggesting merger into another article and that would not require deletion. Warden (talk) 13:11, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep per DoctorKubla and Warden, although the classifications should be changed from Start to List. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 13:59, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is a fine "in popular culture" article. No reason to delete. If you want to improve it, fine. But there are much more important things to do. Borock (talk) 17:59, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the policy, and too lazy to look up right now, but it seems to me that if the "popular culture" work is notable there does not really need to be a secondary source saying that the subway is featured in it. It can be the source itself. Borock (talk) 18:02, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The information is not trivial. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:50, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I'm not sure if WP:TRIVIA applies considering the organization and clear focus of the article as a 'popular culture' directly and not an indiscriminate list of facts. Mkdw^talk 23:38, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:48, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:48, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:48, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:48, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Violates WP:V, in that the article is not based on independent, third-party sources. Basing the article on independent, third-party sources is what helps ensure that we do not stray into WP:INDISCRIMINATE territory. If the article were indeed compliant with WP:V, we would be easily able to demonstrate that reliable sources had found at least the majority of these facts to be relevant and important when considering the portrayal of the New York City Subway in popular culture. Instead, the article is a simple laundry-list of facts. Each individual fact may be verifiable (as WP:V does permit verification of individual facts through primary sources), but the collection of those facts into a representation of "this is what it's important to know about the portrayal of the New York City Subway in popular culture" cannot be verified.—Kww(talk) 19:18, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An article topic only "violates" WP:V if the entire content is unverifiable, ie "Martian literature makes multiple references to the New York City Subway", not current unverified in the article. Primary sources are allowed in Wikipedia. If the article says "The Bee Gees recorded the song 'Subway' for their 1976 album Children of the World", the Bee Gees song "Subway" suffices as evidence. To demand the New York Times or something also state ""The Bee Gees recorded the song 'Subway' for their 1976 album Children of the World" is just silly game playing. --Oakshade (talk) 20:19, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please read my argument (and WP:V) again. I agree that individual facts can be verified to primary sources. No problem there. WP:V also states that articles need to be based on independent, third-party sources, though. An article which consists of nothing but facts verified by primary sources is not based on independent, third-party sources. There's a level of primary sourcing that's acceptable and even necessary. Entire articles that consist of a list of disjoint facts sourced to primary sources are way beyond that acceptable level.—Kww(talk) 20:40, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to New York City Subway. I agree with some editors above that this content is notable. However, it seems that in practice we add this sort of information as an "In Popular Culture" section to the main article. Now, Kww brings up some important concerns. There's very few references to most of the information in the existing article; I think that, should this information be kept in one form or another, it certainly needs to be worked on and improved. --Lord Roem (talk) 19:59, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to New York City Subway. Even though many of the entries here are true, they are unverifiable and pure WP:FANCRUFT. We can easily create a new section on the main article called "In Popular Culture" where we list only well-known featuring of the subway (i.e. the entire film, show, or song is centered around the system). This includes The Taking of Pelham 123, The French Connection, and Take the A Train. All the other entries referring to music videos, TV shows, and others that only show quick passing subway scenes should be removed (e.g. Macy Gray's I Try video, World Trade Center (film), Saving Face, and Futurama's The Luck of Fryrish) because the system is not the primary focus and thus, no one cares about them. Almost every movie, show, and video shot in NYC will feature the subway. Does that make them notable to mention here? No! The Legendary Ranger (talk) 01:08, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The existing article for the New York City Subway is far too large as it is. Only a separate "In popular culture list would suffice. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 05:31, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I think any article could withstand the impact of the sourced items. That a section became an overwhelmingly bloated list of trivial material sourced only to the material itself isn't an argument for splitting it out, it's an argument to start removing material.—Kww(talk) 16:59, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – Due to the premature closer & resulting reopening, this deletion discussion was archived by AnomieBOT, I've reverted those 8 edits restoring this deletion discussion to the relevant delsort pages & removed from archives. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:51, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Converted to prose this would make for a fairly comprehensive article, certainly containing too much information to live as a mere section on the main subway page. --Grahamdubya (talk) 04:39, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Though comment, I've noticed some "in popular culture" sections on individual service pages (e.g., the 6 train); perhaps standardizing those and extending the same to station pages makes more sense? --Grahamdubya (talk) 04:39, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 23:10, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The words of the prophets are written on the subway walls... now, which subway d'ya think??? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:12, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The topic is too substantial for a useful merge, and will be easier to develop separately. I think almost everyone here except possibly the nom is convinced that the material is appropriate. and kww's argument can be met by better sourcing.The content of an article does not have to meet the requirements fro mblp or WP:GNG; verifiability is sufficient. DGG ( talk ) 02:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• My concern can not be met by "better sourcing". It's been built on an improper foundation, in that the article is not based on material found in independent sources, it has been based on material found in primary sources. Even if someone managed to find a review of "American Dragon" that mentioned that "Jake" sometimes "rides in the subway to get around", that wouldn't be a source that indicated that Jake riding the subway is in any way relevant to the concept of the NYC subway's impact on popular culture. There's nothing here that is worth saving, much less "substantial". "Substantial" and "bloated" are distinct concepts, and this thing is just bloated.—Kww(talk) 04:22, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• DGG, I disagree that you have discounted GNG. For an article to exist, it needs to be notable, not just verifiable. Otherwise we would have articles like Wooden telegraph poles in popular culture, which would list every show ever made because they all feature telegraph poles at some stage. The Legendary Ranger's suggestion above seems like a sensible solution IMHO. 1292simon (talk) 08:21, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, legitimate as a breakout article. Frankly, I feel that "in popular culture" sections are the devil, and if a breakout is what it takes to keep such fluff out of the main article, that's good enough for me. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:53, 29 December 2012 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep. A legitimate split per WP:SUMMARY. oknazevad (talk) 02:08, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, unless better sources are added. Miniapolis (talk) 00:09, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per the G3 (hoax) criterion. Deleted by Delldot (talk · contribs). (non-admin closure) — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 03:49, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Batty ball[edit]

Batty ball (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable game. Fails WP:GNG with no significant and independent coverage from reliable sources (see Google News search and Google News Archive search). OlYeller21^Talktome 23:01, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. A fairly obvious hoax... I have a fairly strong suspicion that Aston Crawley is the same AstonM1997 who created this article. Clearly not "played in most countries," and the world rankings are the same three names over and over again. In my book it falls just shy of G3 (vandalism).

On an unrelated note, in the spirit of fairness, I've attempted to facilitate a page move that Aston had accomplished through copy-and-paste, by tagging Battyball for G6 (maintenance) deletion so that Batty ball can be moved there. This is simply because, inasmuch as this sport exists at all, it exists without a space. If the move is carried out before this AfD is concluded, I'll handle any necessary AfD-redirecting. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 23:14, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Whoops. I should have checked for it being a hoax. The article has been deleted so I'll close the AfD (unless the deleting admin closes it). OlYeller21^Talktome 03:14, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Theodor Herzl. The nominator having withdrawn, this can be closed. I rely on (Hasirpad) to carry out the merge, and agree with him that much or most of the content is usable. No prejudice to a future split, but this should be decided by consensus on the article talk page. DGG ( talk ) 03:01, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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)} 00:29, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scope of government[edit]

Scope of government (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article has WP:OR concerns, and consists of an image, a dicdef, and a collection of quotes. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:53, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - article is of no practical use and the topic could easily be summarised (if it already hasn't been) in Government. On top of that, the pasting of a 1200 word 'quote' seems excessive and a probable copyright issue! Sionk (talk) 21:01, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Given that you think it might be a copyright issue...clearly you have no idea who Herbert Spencer is. Given that you have no idea who Herbert Spencer is...clearly you are not qualified to vote on this issue. Huh. Obviously you think you're qualified enough to vote on this issue...when in reality you're really not. It seems like that anybody who would vote to delete an entry on the scope of government is really not qualified to vote on the issue.

So please folks...if you haven't read Herbert Spencer or John Stuart Mill then please remove your vote until you've actually made a reasonable effort to study and research the topic. --Xerographica (talk) 21:39, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Whether or not an entry should be kept or deleted depends on its notability. You don't delete an entry because it has problems. If you want to improve an entry then you discuss improvements on the entry's talk page. --Xerographica (talk) 21:12, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, notability is not the only reason to keep a page. If it violates policy such as WP:OR, it should also be deleted. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:09, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • So rather than trying to resolve the issue on the talk page...your solution is to delete the entire entry. If the useful diagram is removed then would there be any justification for this deletion proposal? --Xerographica (talk) 22:33, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes. It's WP:OR, a violation of policy. Thus, it cannot remain. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:37, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I removed it. Therefore, there's no justification for this proposed deletion. In the future, please show the common courtesy of first bringing up issues on an entry's talk page. --Xerographica (talk) 23:08, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, the entire article is OR. It must be removed as well. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 12:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Great, delete the entry and I'll simply recreate it using nothing but quotes. That way, it will be impossible for you to claim that it is OR...given that nothing in the entry will be original. --Xerographica (talk) 13:03, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • Actually, that's why there's Wikiquote. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:13, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • I replaced what I wrote with a quote so now nothing on the entry is "original". Wikiquote isn't organized by concepts. --Xerographica (talk) 13:19, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                  • You are correct, Wikiquote is not organized by topic, but it is a collection of quotes, versus Wikipedia, which is an encyclopedia. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:25, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                    • And you are correct that Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia. Except, the "minor" detail that you're obviously missing is that the very point of Wikipedia is for editors to work together to make improvements to entries. You've shown absolutely no interest in working together to make improvements to the entry on the scope of government. You didn't bother sharing your concerns on the talk page and instead proposed that the entry be deleted. --Xerographica (talk) 13:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• delete I have doubts that this is a distinct subject from government itself, but in any case the fact that 90% of the article is a quotation calls for WP:BLOWITUP as the only fate for it in its current state. If I deleted the quote, there would be nothing left of it. Mangoe (talk) 21:13, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I've removed the huge quote farm. Whether or not this thing is kept, that had to go. Mangoe (talk) 13:09, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Mangoe and WP:BLOWITUP. I think only the first sentence can be kept; not only are the "passages" inappropriate, but the second sentence is just conservative propaganda. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:55, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And the fourth sentence is libertarian propaganda, which I tend to agree with, but it needs a source. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:54, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• As is, delete (per the above) or redirect to Justification for the state. I would be willing to accept Mangoe's version. Location (talk) 14:56, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• redirect to Justification for the state. The article topic and title lacks precision and conciseness. (And as the article stands now, it is simply a re-cap of left-right politics categorization, without statist/anarchist extremes.) The quotes which Xerographica supplied, while inspiring and interesting, were not properly edited into a presentation that helped the reader. (Indeed, they lacked proper citation beyond the name of the author.) The See also section, as well, was a collection of loosely related articles. And now, post-paring of the quotes and SAs, the article is totally useless. I hazard that Xerographica wants to incorporate the quotes into WP so that readers will have access to the concepts and learn more about government. S/he can do so better by editing the articles related to those authors to give readers recaps of what authors X, Y and Z thought about what the proper scope of government should be. Justification for state and other existing articles are better vehicles.--S. Rich (talk) 15:39, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete - This is Wikipedia, not Bartlett's. The subject is definitely article-worthy, but the article itself is a mess. The article limits itself with its use of stock American political terms, with no clarifications or citations to back up the large assumptions it makes. I think the article has to be entirely re-written; I don't see anything worth keeping. Therefore, I concur with all previous WP:BLOWITUP-based arguments. Lord Bromblemore (talk) 03:33, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Before the removal of the quotes, this was POV; after it, there is an absence of substantial content. There are dozens of articles which contain the various aspects of this, I strongly discourage the prospect of incorporating quote farms into WP. Brief illustrative quotes, certainly, but where long arguments such as Spencer's are necessary to develop an idea, they belong elsewhere. We have a structure to articles, and it consists of description of reference, not assembling quotations. DGG ( talk ) 03:09, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Totally redundant to government. Hekerui (talk) 20:27, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Article clearly seems to be have been created in error (an error in the source material, perhaps?). Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:29, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

St. Mark's Church (Manhattan)[edit]

St. Mark's Church (Manhattan) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I believe the article was created in error:

• There is no "Stuyvesant Avenue" in Manhattan
• However, there is a "Stuyvesant Street", and at the intersection of Stuyvesant Street and Second Avenue is the Episcopal St. Mark's Church in-the-Bowery
• The article has no sources (and, technically, makes no claim of notability)
• A fairly extensive Google search brought up nothing on a Catholic St. Mark's Church in Manhattan
• The search included sources on Google Books often used by the editor who created the article

My conclusion is that this article was created in error. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:15, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:59, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete With regret, I must agree in seeing this as an error. It occurred to me that Stuyvesant Avenue is in Brooklyn, but I can find neither a numbered street or avenue intersecting with it nor traces of a St. Mark's church having been there. The St. Mark's Catholic church in Manhattan is of course St. Mark the Evangelist in Harlem, and on the West Side, too. However, we don't seem to have an article on St. Mark Roman Catholic Church, Brooklyn, which is in Sheepshead Bay: NYCAGO, The Catholic Church in the United States of America. Delete this and create that. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:37, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I checked for "Stuyvesant Avenue" in Brooklyn and the Bronx before I filed, and checked out the other Catholic St. Mark's Churches but none seemed to line up with this article's information. Unfortunately, the editor's creator doesn't seem to be editing anymore, but it occurs to me to send him an e-mail in case he has some more information which may help clear up the confusion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:41, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• No e-mail address. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:42, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by User:Tom harrison under criterion A7. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 23:06, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Flashymo[edit]

Flashymo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I'd CSD this, but I'm not sure any criteria for that fits here. Not seeing any evidence that this even existed. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 20:02, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I'd say somewhere between hoax and vandalism. Chris857 (talk) 20:47, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - doesn't this fall under G3 criteria for speedy deletion ? Ezhuks (talk) 21:16, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:25, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Winscombe Youth Theatre[edit]

Winscombe Youth Theatre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Previously speedy deleted under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion then recreated, still with no assertion of notability and no references. Clearly fails wp:gng Theroadislong (talk) 19:43, 21 December 2012 (UTC) Theroadislong (talk) 19:43, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it was not deleted under criterion A7. It was nominated under that criterion, but the nomination was declined, as it is in part an educational institution, which is exempt from A7. I deleted it under criterion G11, but then restored it, as I decided that, although the early versions of the article were somewhat promotional in tone, it was not such blatant advertising as to justify speedy deletion. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:20, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- Google News and Books provided nothing relevant and useful aside from this event listing. It also seems the website hasn't been updated since last year so they probably haven't been very active recently. A different search provided this and this which contain some useful information but it wouldn't be sufficient. Through that same search, I found this, a profile for one of their members, a few more news articles here and here (these two are both for Honk), here, here, here and here. They participated in a Winscombe festival here and performed West Side Story in 2003 here. I also found this which mentions a keyboardist who plays for them. Not only does their website mention the LAMDA exams, I found this newsletter that mentions it. A better article could be written with this but I think it wouldn't be enough and I can't find any evidence for the 1990s plays. SwisterTwister talk 20:53, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- Unfortunately, this is a classic example of a common situation. Someone thinks that an organisation is a good cause, and deserves to be better known, so they come to Wikipedia and write an article about it, without any awareness of Wikipedia's notability requirements. I do sympathise with such people, who sometimes put a significant amount of work in, only to see that work thrown away. However, the fact remains that this is a minor, local theatrical group, with no evidence anywhere that it satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:13, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep- The Article is notable as apparently Theresa Hemming's daughter is a west end actor as well as attending the youth theatre for 5 years also other students have been successful in the west end; I thought that people would be interested in the famous actors roots. Winscombe Youth Theatre is also still active as there has been adverting on the School website (that they use as there rehearsal and they use the stage to preform there shows), Spotlight and Wikipedia:Spotlight/Newsletter that they did a show back in June 2012 apparently a sequel to The Wizard of Oz and that there next show is about Cats and Dogs I guess that they are going to preform in June 2013. (Andwhy1 (talk) 11:37, 22 December 2012 (UTC))[reply]

• Delete as non-notable - even with the excellent research done by SisterTwister. --Bob Re-born (talk) 12:33, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No ref's to show that this youth thatre project is ingerently notable in itself. It's noble, but cannot inherit notability from 1 (perhaps) individual (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:02, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete - No sources in the article to substantiate notability, slim-pickings on the world wide web to do so either. Unless there's a book that lends significant coverage, I'm feeling a delete here. Go Phightins! 15:12, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- An amateur theatre company is almost certainly NN. My guess is that its continued existence depends largely on the enthuiasm of a few adult leaders. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:52, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) JayJay^{Talk to me} 21:27, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of journalists killed in the United States[edit]

List of journalists killed in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This is merely a list of victims of crimes (in some cases), or accidents, or unsolved deaths, many of the people on it being non-Notable. There is already some comment about this article on its talk page.GeorgeLouis (talk) 18:58, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:01, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: When you read the definition "discriminate" and "indiscriminate" information at Wikipedia:Discriminate vs indiscriminate information and examples are given, I doubt whether you can actually tie this list to indiscriminate class. The list has a focus and all the members of the list meet the requirements of that focus. The items are displayed in a thoughtful way with prepared categories and listed in chronological order with table sorting for preferred readability. Every item has been verified. The list is open as more cases are likely to occur in the future. Lastly, I would like to point you to :Uncle G's essay "On the discrimination of what is indiscriminate". If you wish to make this argument, please explain why it is indiscriminate.Crtew (talk) 22:52, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep. The article is encyclopedic, and I think it can mirror articles like List of journalists killed in the Mexican Drug War, which I believe is extremely useful. There are other articles like this one too. (See here, here, and here, to list a few). Perhaps more prose is needed, but that can be solved. ComputerJA (talk) 21:45, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence:

• List of arrested journalists in Turkey
• List of journalists killed under the Arroyo administration
• List of journalists killed in Assam
• List of journalists killed during the Balochistan conflict (1947-Present)
• List of journalists killed in Honduras
• List of journalists killed in the Mexican Drug War
• List of journalists killed in Russia
• List of journalists killed during the Somali civil war
• List of journalists killed during the Syrian civil war
• List of journalists killed in Tajikistan
• List of journalists killed in Turkey
• List of journalists killed in the United States

• Keep per Computer. Individual entries in the list do not have to be notable, only the subject of the list. There has been much written about journalists killed or detained in the US, hence this passes WP:LISTN — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:01, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. LISTPURP: This list and others meet all of the criteria set out by WP:LISTPURP, which spells out the proper reason for the creation of lists. Those reasons given on the policy page are: 1) Information, 2) Navigation, 3) Development, and 4) Beneficial List and Category redundancies. First, the list allows information to be displayed (time of death, medium and news outlet, place, short description and references. Secondly, navigation is enhanced as this list and the other serve as a "Table of Contents" for the topic of killing of journalists in the US. Third, in terms of development, the benefits of such lists are already apparent for those of us who are creating content about the journalists and related human rights/freedom of speech issues as we can see which articles need work or creation. Fourth, the list of this type does have redundant categories, such as Category:Journalists killed in the United States, and there are some lists for wars that even include templates. All of these allow different kinds of displays that enhance Wikipedia's use depending up the needs of the information seeker.Crtew (talk) 23:09, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A notable list of (mainly) notable individuals. Clear inclusion crieteria too. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:11, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep We've already had this debate for lists of journalists killed in other countries, so I think we need to stop trying to delete these lists. The individuals listed were killed because they were journalists, so this is not simply a list of murder victims with a common profession. Human rights NGOs publish lists/reports of murdered journalists and this subject is studied in academia. Seems to me the only way to vote on this is "keep."David Straub (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:18, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:18, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:18, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I do not find this to be an indiscriminate list. The focus and inclusion criteria are clear, and the individual entries are well-cited. Location (talk) 14:47, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. The deaths (or arrests) of working journalists are an important and notable topic. One indicator of the topic's importance is the existence of the Committee to Protect Journalists. --Orlady (talk) 14:48, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and probably SNOW per Orlady. Journalists killed simply because of their occupation is an encyclopedic topic with a wide variety of sourcing. The nominator hinted a list in which journalists were killed in accidents, or random crimes, etc but the list doesn't show it. I don't see any valid policy based delete reasoning in this debate. Secret ^account 18:15, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. G4 per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Disick (2nd nomination) SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:01, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Disick[edit]

Lord Disick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article is a recreation of the Scott Disick article which, by consensus, is now a redirect. Additionally, no explanation is given in this article for the "Lord" appellation which is probably a hoax or a joke. SQGibbon (talk) 18:49, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to School District 39 Vancouver. Non-admin closure. PKT(alk) 20:55, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. George M. Weir Elementary School[edit]

Dr. George M. Weir Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable school; elementary schools are generally considered to be non-notable per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. TBrandley 16:55, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to school district article. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:43, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect as above. While not notable on it's own the district is notable. Mike (talk) 18:26, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect as above. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:02, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to School District 39 Vancouver - standard practice. Nominator should have just gone ahead and done this - there's no need for an AfD. PKT(alk) 15:55, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since you all seem pretty unanimous, I'm going to be bold and redirect it myself. Since I posted this comment and am not an Admin, someone else who didn't post here will have to close this AfD. Please do. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 23:52, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update: It's now a Redirect. Someone please close this AfD. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 00:02, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it that School District 39 Vancouver makes no mention of Dr. George M. Wier Elementary School? Ryan Vesey 20:02, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know what you mean. The Wikipedia article has it listed as "Weir" in the template. The School District lists it on their School Directory as "Dr. George M. Weir". PKT(alk) 20:46, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:47, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Madeira Fortress[edit]

Madeira Fortress (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This is one of five articles created recently -Labyrinth City, Ixiamas Fortress, Ruins of Miraflores, Madeira Fortress, Trinchera Fortress and Petroglyphs of Quiaca- all sourced to or based on Yuri Leveratto and his personal website at [yurileveratto.com/]. I can't find reliable sources to show that it meets WP:GNG. I'm taking them to AfD individually as someone might possibly come up with sources even though I've failed. Dougweller (talk) 16:18, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 00:11, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for now. This sounds like an interim report on archaeological work. That is a variety of WP:OR. When the work is published properly, preferably in a peer-reviewed journal, it may be appropriate to reinstate the article. This also applies to 4 other AFD noms based on the same website. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:37, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: It is not an interim report, but was intended to make sure different users could get informations on this important arcjaeological site, almost unknown. Sources are reliable: Atoform is a Brazilian official photographic archive that recognized the archaelogical work. There are other reliable sources of Bolivian and Colombian origin..Franciscos58 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Franciscos58 (talk • contribs) 15:33, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentAll the sources are to articles written by Yuri Leveratto, who is a fringe author.[1].Dougweller (talk) 15:51, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Article is properly written and sources are reliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Archeologo40 (talk • contribs) 20:44, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • Note that Archeologo40 is a WP:SPA whose only edits have been to articles promoting Leveratto or to AfDs involving him. Dougweller (talk) 22:14, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: No evidence of notability, all sources are self published -- see WP:SPS. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:22, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: No evidence of notability and sources are not reliable.Nickm57 (talk) 11:20, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: This link can be added as a peer reviewed journal :
• [2]

ThanksCholo50 (talk) 15:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • CommentI don't see this as a peer reviewed journal, and I do see that the article is by our ex-tourist guide with no archaeological qualifications Yuri Leveratto, what a surprise! Why isn't there a real academic report on this? Why are all the sources to the same person? Dougweller (talk) 17:44, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: The following editors may be the same person (they all edit the same narrow range of articles and all the IPs geolocate to Bogota Colombia.)

Franciscos58 (talk · contribs)

Cholo50 (talk · contribs)

Archeologo40 (talk · contribs)

190.146.254.220 (talk · contribs)

190.147.16.36 (talk · contribs)

190.146.116.208 (talk · contribs)

190.65.163.106 (talk · contribs)

186.115.57.7 (talk · contribs)

--Guy Macon (talk) 20:29, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus was that available sources didn't reach WP:GNG j⚛e decker^talk 19:23, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Petroglyphs of Quiaca[edit]

Petroglyphs of Quiaca (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This is one of five articles created recently -Labyrinth City, Ixiamas Fortress, Ruins of Miraflores, Madeira Fortress, Trinchera Fortress and Petroglyphs of Quiaca- all sourced to or based on Yuri Leveratte and his personal website at [3]. I can't find reliable sources to show that it meets WP:GNG. I'm taking them to AfD individually as someone might possibly come up with sources even though I've failed. Dougweller (talk) 16:12, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, due to being at the twilight zone where notability problems and WP:FRINGE overlap. Even if we could find another (independent) source with substantial coverage, I doubt it would represent a mainstream view of this kind of topic so we may never be able to have neutral content on this topic. bobrayner (talk) 23:17, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: these petroglyphs are important. It is true that when I created the article, for lack of time, I added only the source of the Italian antropologist that described them, anyway other sources can be add.Franciscos58 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Franciscos58 (talk • contribs) 15:53, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentLeveratto is not an anthropologist but a fringe author.[4] Among other places, he publishes in Nexus magaxine, and their website sayd NEXUS is a bi-monthly alternative news magazine covering health breakthroughs, future science and technology, suppressed news, free energy, religious revisionism, conspiracy, the environment, history and ancient mysteries, the mind, UFOs, paranormal and the unexplained." He has no credentials in archaeology or anthropology and his work experience is as a guide and working for cruise lines. Dougweller (talk) 16:05, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No evidence of notability. Paul B (talk) 21:05, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: No evidence of notability, all sources are self published -- see WP:SPS. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:22, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: No evidence of notability and sources are not reliable. By the way-all these photos on the five pages - that are from Leveratto's website, were apparently uploaded to Wikimedia Commons by the author. Does that mean he also wrote these WP articles himself, citing himself as the source? I assume so.Nickm57 (talk) 11:41, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch! If he keeps it up I will open up a case at WP:COIN. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:02, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:47, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Trinchera Fortress[edit]

Trinchera Fortress (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This is one of five articles created recently -Labyrinth City, Ixiamas Fortress, Ruins of Miraflores, Madeira Fortress, Trinchera Fortress and Petroglyphs of Quiaca- all sourced to or based on Yuri Leveratto and his personal website at [5]. I can't find reliable sources to show that it meets WP:GNG. I'm taking them to AfD individually as someone might possibly come up with sources even though I've failed. Dougweller (talk) 16:11, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 00:11, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: the archaelogical site is very important. It is true that when I created the article, for lack of time, I added only the source of the Italian antropologist that described the ancient city, anyway other sources can be add, the fortress is known and was studied different times and is very important in order to understand the Andean pre-history.Franciscos58 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Franciscos58 (talk • contribs) 15:49, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Leveratto is not an anthropologist but a fringe author.[6] Among other places, he publishes in Nexus magaxine, and their website sayd NEXUS is a bi-monthly alternative news magazine covering health breakthroughs, future science and technology, suppressed news, free energy, religious revisionism, conspiracy, the environment, history and ancient mysteries, the mind, UFOs, paranormal and the unexplained." He has no credentials in archaeology or anthropology and his work experience is as a guide and working for cruise lines. Dougweller (talk) 16:08, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: No evidence of notability, all sources are self published -- see WP:SPS. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:21, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: No evidence of notability and source is not reliable.Nickm57 (talk) 11:30, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: The following editors may be the same person (they all edit the same narrow range of articles and all the IPs geolocate to Bogota Colombia.)

Franciscos58 (talk · contribs)

Cholo50 (talk · contribs)

Archeologo40 (talk · contribs)

190.146.254.220 (talk · contribs)

190.147.16.36 (talk · contribs)

190.146.116.208 (talk · contribs)

190.65.163.106 (talk · contribs)

186.115.57.7 (talk · contribs)

--Guy Macon (talk) 20:32, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:48, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ruins of Miraflores[edit]

Ruins of Miraflores (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This is one of five articles created recently -Labyrinth City, Ixiamas Fortress, Ruins of Miraflores, Madeira Fortress, Trinchera Fortress and Petroglyphs of Quiaca- all sourced to or based on Yuri Leveratto and his personal website at [yurileveratto.com/]. I can't find reliable sources to show that it meets WP:GNG. I'm taking them to AfD individually as someone might possibly come up with sources even though I've failed. Dougweller (talk) 15:57, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some IPs are editing these articles, and after I posted this AfD one added [7]. The website has a section on unsolved mysteries[8], mainly UFO related. Dougweller (talk) 21:48, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 00:10, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: the archaelogical site is very important, and in this article there are no connection with paleo-astronauts theories, but only archaelogical conclusions.

The sources are reliable (NEXUSMAGAZINE is worldwide recognized, and the fact that sometimes autors write UFO related articles has nothing to do with archaelogical research); Antika.it is a reliable archaeological site, well respected.Franciscos58

• • Comment "NEXUS is a bi-monthly alternative news magazine covering health breakthroughs, future science and technology, suppressed news, free energy, religious revisionism, conspiracy, the environment, history and ancient mysteries, the mind, UFOs, paranormal and the unexplained." It fails WP:RS as a source for archaeology. The Antikia article is by a fringe writer who believes the Sumerians came to America.[9]. Dougweller (talk) 15:36, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Article is properly written and sources are reliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Archeologo40 (talk • contribs) 20:45, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that Archeologo40 is a WP:SPA whose only edits have been to articles promoting Leveratto or to AfDs involving him. Dougweller (talk) 22:11, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: No evidence of notability, all sources are self published -- see WP:SPS. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:22, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: The following editors may be the same person (they all edit the same narrow range of articles and all the IPs geolocate to Bogota Colombia.)

Franciscos58 (talk · contribs)

Cholo50 (talk · contribs)

Archeologo40 (talk · contribs)

190.146.254.220 (talk · contribs)

190.147.16.36 (talk · contribs)

190.146.116.208 (talk · contribs)

190.65.163.106 (talk · contribs)

186.115.57.7 (talk · contribs)

--Guy Macon (talk) 20:31, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:24, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Labyrinth City[edit]

Labyrinth City (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This is one of five articles created recently -Labyrinth City, Ixiamas Fortress, Ruins of Miraflores, Madeira Fortress, Trinchera Fortress and Petroglyphs of Quiaca- all sourced to or based on Yuri Leveratto and his personal website at [10]. I can't find reliable sources to show that it meets WP:GNG. I'm taking them to AfD individually as someone might possibly come up with sources even though I've failed. Dougweller (talk) 15:19, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, due to being at the twilight zone where notability problems and WP:FRINGE overlap. Even if we could find another (independent) source with substantial coverage, I doubt it would represent a mainstream view of this kind of topic so we may never be able to have neutral content on this topic. bobrayner (talk) 23:18, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: the archaelogical site is very important. It is true that when I created the article, for lack of time, I added only the source of the Italian antropologist that described the ancient city, anyway other sources can be add, (especially from Brazilian magazine and even archaeological related magazine). The site is known and was studied different times and is very important in order to understand the contacts between Andean and Amazonian pre-history.Franciscos58 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Franciscos58 (talk • contribs) 15:58, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Leveratto is not an anthropologist but a fringe author.[11] Among other places, he publishes in Nexus magaxine, and their website sayd NEXUS is a bi-monthly alternative news magazine covering health breakthroughs, future science and technology, suppressed news, free energy, religious revisionism, conspiracy, the environment, history and ancient mysteries, the mind, UFOs, paranormal and the unexplained." He has no credentials in archaeology or anthropology and his work experience is as a guide and working for cruise lines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 16:06, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: No evidence of notability, all sources are self published -- see WP:SPS. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:21, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: No evidence of notability and the single source is not reliable.Nickm57 (talk) 11:25, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 22:10, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: This source can be add as peer reviewed journal
• [12]

ThanksCholo50 (talk) 15:30, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • CommentI don't see this as a peer reviewed journal, and I do see that the article is by our ex-tourist guide with no archaeological qualifications Yuri Leveratto, what a surprise! Why isn't there a real academic report on this? Dougweller (talk) 17:42, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: The following editors may be the same person (they all edit the same narrow range of articles and all the IPs geolocate to Bogota Colombia.)

Franciscos58 (talk · contribs)

Cholo50 (talk · contribs)

Archeologo40 (talk · contribs)

190.146.254.220 (talk · contribs)

190.147.16.36 (talk · contribs)

190.146.116.208 (talk · contribs)

190.65.163.106 (talk · contribs)

186.115.57.7 (talk · contribs)

--Guy Macon (talk) 20:30, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was SNOW keep. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 22:27, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moulton-Udell High School[edit]

Moulton-Udell High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

School without independent sources to prove notability. Fails WP:GNG The Banner _talk 15:06, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and improve, per norm that high schools are notable. AllyD (talk) 15:28, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's a high school, and it just needs to be improved a bit more, as it is already notable. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:24, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is it notable? And can you prove that with independent reliable sources? The Banner _talk 20:57, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and improve, high schools can be assumed to be notable. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:52, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:OUTCOMES. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:06, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • My dear Sue, you now quite well that WP:OUTCOMES is not an argument for keeping an article. The Banner _talk 20:57, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why, because you and the other minority deletionists say so? Don't be patronising. -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:23, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep High schools are considered notable. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:03, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy close This has a snow chance of resulting in a deletion as described in WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES and Wikipedia:Notability (high schools). Mkdw^talk 23:44, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep according to long established precedent for high schools. AfD is not the place for changing Wikipedia practice. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:15, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - looking at Google searches there are plenty enough sources that can be mined to establish compliance with WP:ORG. No evidence of WP:BEFORE due diligence.TerriersFan (talk) 01:17, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – Per Wikipedia:Notability (high schools) and WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:22, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Verified secondary school, which should be kept for all the usual reasons. -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:21, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: A brief search shows me this subject meets WP:GNG. Anyone with microfilm access to the Daily Iowegian should be able to find many additional sources. Please note that school name may have slightly varied over time. You can fine lists of graduates from the early 20th century as "Moulton High School." Likely the Udell was appended at a later time.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:00, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) JayJay^{Talk to me} 20:31, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moravia High School[edit]

Moravia High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

School without independent sources to prove notability. Fails WP:GNG. The Banner _talk 15:04, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and improve per norm on notability of high schools. AllyD (talk) 15:30, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's a high school, and it just needs to be improved a bit more, as it is already notable. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:23, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep high schools can be assumed to be notable. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:56, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP - per WP:OUTCOMES. It has news coverage. It's a high school.--Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:04, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep High schools are considered notable. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:03, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy close This has a snow chance of resulting in a deletion as described in WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES and Wikipedia:Notability (high schools). Mkdw^talk 23:44, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - looking at Google searches there are plenty enough sources that can be mined to establish compliance with WP:ORG. No evidence of WP:BEFORE due diligence. TerriersFan (talk) 01:24, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – Per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES and Wikipedia:Notability (high schools). Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:22, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Verified secondary school, which should be kept for all the usual reasons. -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:24, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There is consensus that it needs to be cleaned up, but notability is not in question. (non-admin closure) Go Phightins! 15:42, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jalalabad Cantonment Public School & College[edit]

Jalalabad Cantonment Public School & College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Before nominating, I tried my very best to find sources. However, a cursory search I performed yields nothing reliable... And thus I have to bring it here. It is supposedly one of the best schools in Bangladesh, at least per the page, but unreferenced peacock words do not establish notability. It fails the most basic standard... WP:GNG and also fails WP:ORG. I suppose the creator is a proud student of the school. Sorry, but I feel this should go. Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 12:14, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and clean up! You'll get almost nothing reliable about Bangladeshi (and Indian) schools and colleges in Google search. Same issues with researchers, scholars. Anyway, that is a educational institution of Bangladesh where the main language is Bengali and Bengali Google search shows the educational institution is notable. --Tito Dutta (talk) 12:24, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Understand, but regardless of its notability, this is still spam and spam should go. And possibly speedied. Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 12:26, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

i am the creator.why this page is spam for u?thanks for your comment — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aditi Choudhury (talk • contribs) 12:30, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The way you write this is a mild example of spam. As mentioned in the Teahouse, please read WP:Your first article. And brush up on your English language skills please Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 12:33, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not spam really, the article needs to be Wikified. There are thousands of more articles in Wikipedia in similar or worse condition. They are clearly WP:NEWCOMER and don't know how Wikipedia works (see they have added the official website in reference section and not external link section). I can do the Wikify work after seeing this AFD discussion! You can help too! -Tito Dutta (talk) 12:38, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not biting the newbies, I am addressing what should be deleted. It is more than a matter of Wikifying. This, in my view, is blatant promotion written in a non-neutral way. The creator most likely is somebody affiliated with the school, (see his/her Contribs) which is clear conflict of interest. Its better to start from scratch (if it was notable) than to keep. And by the way, I fixed your typo. :) Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 12:51, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

it is really not a spam.if you were a bangladeshi u would have heard the name of this institution.and when we write in wikipedia anyone can edit it.so i may have write it wrong.but others can write it well Aditi Choudhury (talk) 12:42, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The content might not be spam, but the style of writing definitely is. Also, having heard the name don't make it notable and you need multiple third party and reliable sources to establish notability. Understand the rules before playing the game, have you heard? (And how would you know whether I'm Bangladeshi or not?) Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 12:51, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Calm down! I have posted a message at your talk page (since that is not the topic of the discussion), where I have tried to mention my opinions on the article. --Tito Dutta (talk) 12:53, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

{ec)) :: Oh come one! Everyone in Wikipedia writes or edits articles on the place (street city, country) they live or the school, college, university they attended. They are not writing article on them or their relatives or friends. That shouldn't be an issue(specially if it is a notable institution with thousands of students). But, yes, the article is written like a promotional content, that is an issue. But, I think this was not deliberate and "wikify" should be the answer here! --Tito Dutta (talk) 13:06, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, now we are getting somewhere. All thy spam removed. Good. I might even consider a withdrawal... Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 13:19, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, all the Bengali newspaper articles, (reliable source) I have found they have just mentioned like the school has again topped in this board exam or three or four students of this school have won this national talent hunt. I have added a Bengali newspaper article, that's has dedicated one or paragraphs in the article. There are few more similar article. But, I have not got any article where the school (or college) is the primary or only topic of discussion! BTWY, Google Books does not have any information on this school (because the school was established in 1999?)! --Tito Dutta (talk) 13:27, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

i am a ex student of this institute.now i read in a university.all bangladeshi people know anything which has cantonmnent in it, that's why i said u r not a Bangladesh institutes are really notable in edcation of bangladesh. u have to say what is wrong.the help section is very clumsy to find any information.belive it or not it took me 3 hours to know how to upload picturesAditi Choudhury (talk) 13:04, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

tito datta , i think u sent me a message.if u can edit it do it please.i wont edit anything in your work.but i can add new things,cann't i?Aditi Choudhury (talk) 13:21, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

every newspaper in bangladesh,thats a tough thing.every newspaper mainly highlite the result of dhaka in hsc,ssc,jsc,psc examinations.and u will see minimum one institute in those results have cantonment in its name.my institute is in sylhet.so you have to read the paper thoroughly to find the institutes which did top result in sylhet divison.this year our institution was second in hsc exam in sylhet board.there are also adamji cantonment public school & college ,ishphani cantonment public school & college etc in other divisons.Aditi Choudhury (talk) 13:45, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: it has some basic references establishing some fundamental level of WP:Verifiability. Some of the spam has been trimmed, and I've trimmed out some more WP:cruft (an encyclopedia reader doesn't care if a place has its own cafeteria and dorms or no, how big their computer lab is etc). Recognised/registered educational institutes above the elementary school level are de facto Notable by policy, aren't they? We've established this place exists, so it meets WP:N and WP:V. Just needs some watchlisting to make sure it doesn't accumulate spam. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:59, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

can anyone tell me if this pagehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murari_Chand_College can use hostel ,library why cant i?Aditi Choudhury (talk) 19:18, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have added features & believe me the users who will read this article will only read that article to read those features.for u dorm,lad or other thing don't matter much but for those readers it matters.they visit the site to know about these features. this institute got a national award in 2004.problem is the verification.that time online service was not good but the institute got the prize for sure.every prospectus of jcpsc announce this.Aditi Choudhury (talk) 20:38, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - potential sources show compliance with WP:ORG. I have cleaned up the page so it is no longer promotional. TerriersFan (talk) 01:11, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's sad that an article needs to land on AFD for it to be brought up to halfway good quality, but anyway. As it stands now, the school seems to meet WP:GNG at least. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:41, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Verified secondary school, which should be kept for all the usual reasons. -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:20, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Per meeting WP:GNG. Sourcing ranking in top 5 schools (in country I believe) along with Sylhet Government Pilot High School along with others, is far more than enough.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:34, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Secondary schools and public colleges are generally regarded as notable if they can be verified through reliable sources. TBrandley 05:18, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator is biased against Bangladesh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.14.242.35 (talk) 11:56, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's bad faith, and FYI, I love Bangladesh. Not Cheers. Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 15:41, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) Go Phightins! 21:35, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rancheros visitadores[edit]

Rancheros visitadores (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Put up for PROD in 2008 unsuccessfully and since then there have been few if any content edits according to the page's history. The entire article's text is unsourced and there's no reason to believe that anytime in the future it will be expanded or built upon. Cat-fivetc ---- 10:45, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep seems theres quit a bit of coverage on these folks exhibited here and ^[1] but especially here. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 10:54, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per PortlandOregon97217. Lots of possible sources. Binksternet (talk) 14:39, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - seems to meet at least WP:GNG per PortlandOregon97217's findings.  Gong show 15:00, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per PDX. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:21, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Article is now fully sourced, subject meets WP:GNG and WP:ORG by far. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:15, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Hey Arnold! characters. Courcelles 02:40, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Helga Pataki[edit]

Helga Pataki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Of the five sources, one is a broken source in Google Books that only seems to verify the character's VA; the other two sources are primary. "External links" also has a primary source and a 404 that can't be wayback'd due to robots.txt, making any verification of its content impossible. I can't find any reputable sources on this character, nor is any out-of-universe notability established. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 10:28, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• very weak keep, leaning strongly towards merge to Hey, Arnold!, Antonio Football Head Martin(What u say?) 21:30, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep/Merge Notable TV show, but un-sourced article...perhaps merge with Hey_Arnold! and expand on the character descriptions in the main article? Also Wikipedia:Fancruft is not policy. Mike (talk) 23:33, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom or merge with List of Hey Arnold! characters or the main article. Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 00:01, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to the appropriate character list per WP:ATD. Jclemens (talk) 20:43, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge in the interest of building a consensus. There are no reliable third party sources with significant coverage to WP:verify notability, which would be a fair reason for deletion. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:47, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per Paper Luigi JayJay^{Talk to me} 20:35, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Hey Arnold! characters. Courcelles 02:41, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arnold (Hey Arnold!)[edit]

Arnold (Hey Arnold!) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unsourced since 2008. Nothing but OR. No sources, no out-of-universe notability. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 10:25, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep/Merge Notable TV show, but un-sourced article...perhaps merge with Hey_Arnold! and expand on the character descriptions in the main article? Also Wikipedia:Fancruft is not policy. Mike (talk) 23:33, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom or merge with List of Hey Arnold! characters or the main article. Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 00:02, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to the appropriate character list per WP:ATD. Jclemens (talk) 20:44, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per Paper Luigi JayJay^{Talk to me} 20:35, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 22:44, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hillsboro wireless tower[edit]

Hillsboro wireless tower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I would say this article pertains to WP:FAN's of Oregon. The article also provides a reference for its being torn down some 60 years ago. I don't beleive the sources would indicate that the unnamed tower is notable. Not sure where to catagorize this. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 09:31, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: It is unclear what basis there is for deleting the article. Notability is mentioned, but the cited claim it was the second tallest steel tower in the world easily passes WP:GNG and WP:NN. Also mentioned is that it was torn down a long time ago. That is not cause for deletion, otherwise articles about long dead people and, say, RMS Titanic should be deleted too. —EncMstr (talk) 09:56, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I agree. But don't exceptional claims require exceptional sources? We are taking the Hillsboro Argus' word on the matter? For all we know it is a hoax on their part. I'm also unsure as to how being the second number anything makes it automatically notable. If it were the second tallest building then I could agree. If it were the tallest tower I could agree. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 10:00, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A 60+ story tall tower seems reasonable for the intended purpose, and it also seems likely to really have been the second tallest in the world in 1921. The combined claim does not seem particularly exceptional. Even if it were, it is not a basis for deleting the article. —EncMstr (talk) 11:16, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per EncMstr - I've also found this: [13]. Lukeno94 (talk) 17:13, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I think that link is a WP mirror. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:35, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - height appears notable and properly sourced. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:34, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - passes the WP:GNG. Not to mention, did the nominator make a good faith effort to find sources prior to nomination? I just did and found plenty more, thus the public policy behind the rule. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:34, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, likely WP:SNOWBALL. Discussion of whether it's the second whatnot doesn't matter, it clearly passes WP:GNG. -Pete (talk) 16:41, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No evidence of notability under WP:GNG j⚛e decker^talk 19:20, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

VMproject[edit]

VMproject (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I previously placed a WP:PROD on this article with the rationale "No evidence that this software is notable.". The Prod was removed by an IP (along with all the maintenance tags) with the comment "This software is notable. The company has more than 1200 cutsomers now and it also has an article in French on wikipédia. I have quoted two sources that deal with this software" Having customers is the common factor to all businesses and their products (otherwise bankruptcy looms); the issue here is notability, which is not demonstrated by simple assertion. As for the two offered links, one is the firm's own site, the other is a business tool directory listing. I've interwikied to the French article, which is no better (and has the same original author, whose account name resembles that of the company). So I'm bringing the article to AfD on the same rationale as the earlier Prod. AllyD (talk) 09:02, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No significant coverage found. It may exist and have customers but that doesn't make an article appropriate. Neither does having an unsourced article on a non-English Wikipedia with apparently lower standards than this one. --Michig (talk) 17:27, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Software is non-notable as far as I can see (even when using google.fr), it merely seems to exist. Company doesn't fare well in the GNG department either. Creator seems to be an SPA with COI issues who has now been blocked. Purely promotional. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:21, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per above, as promo advert/spam with insufficient refs to establish notability. Dialectric (talk) 08:06, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Renaming can be done boldly through the usual channels. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:53, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

False document[edit]

False document (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Original research, and no relevant hits for "false document" on Google Books. I suggest a redirect to exposition. Spannerjam (talk) 06:37, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral. This article suffers from a severe lack of focus. Despite the assertion in the lead that "a false document should not be confused with a mockumentary", it then goes on to list scores of mockumentaries as examples. There's a few flat-out forgeries mixed in, and there's a lot of crossover with fictional book, epistolary novel and found footage (genre). As far as I can tell from the lead, I think this article's supposed to be about novels which cite, and quote from, non-existent documents, in order to create a sense of authenticity. While I did find a few sources that use the term "false document" to refer to some sort of literary device, none of them appear to define it in the same way as the article. For example, in this New York Times article, Eileen Pollack (who apparently taught a seminar on the subject) says that the intent of a false document isn't to fool anyone, but to "make them think about the nature of reality"; she gives Spinal Tap and the Blair Witch Project as examples. The book Twisted Society (p. 288, footnote 347) describes Robinson Crusoe as a false document because it is "an account of supposedly factual events that never occured". And then there's Fiction as False Document, which is about the work of E. L. Doctorow, who incorporates real historical figures into his novels to blur the line between fact and fiction. All of these sources seem to be using the term to loosely mean "fiction presented as fact", which is a bit too broad a subject for a Wikipedia article, encompassing pretty much any book, film, etc that claims to be based on a true story.

Nevertheless, I'm reluctant to !vote delete because I'm certain that false documents as defined by this article are a real phenomenon – I've come across them often enough – and I'm surprised that I can't find any sources discussing the concept. One book mentioned in the article, The Invention of False Medieval Authorities as a Literary Device in Popular Fiction, is more the kind of thing I was hoping to find, but it's only available in snippet view. Worth noting, however, that the term "false document" doesn't appear anywhere in the book, so there's probably a different name for this kind of thing. I'll keep looking. DoctorKubla (talk) 09:28, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just because the concept is real, does not mean the term is (a supposed literary technique). But perhaps I misunderstood you? Spannerjam (talk) 10:20, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the concept is real but the term isn't, the article should be renamed rather than deleted. Hence my !vote below. DoctorKubla (talk) 12:09, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and rename. I'm satisfied now that the concept of citing non-existent documents to lend credibility to a work of fiction is a real and notable literary technique, used by Steven King, Enchi Fumiko, Edmund Morris, Alan Moore, Chaucer (who cites Corynne and Lollius), and Isaac Asimov, among others. But the term "false document" is generally used to mean something different, so the article should be renamed to something more appropriate (I'd suggest Fictional document). And it goes without saying that the listcruft should be substantially cut back. DoctorKubla (talk) 12:09, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment WP has difficulty holding on to articles about concepts, even well-known ones, when the concept doesn't have a specific name. I wonder if that is the situation here. I find myself agreeing with what the good Doctor says and I'll have a further think. If it is relevant the article started out life in 2001 (!) and has had many editors. There is also Category:False documents. Thincat (talk) 14:33, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• This is absolutely a relevant and significant concept -- and you can find more sources that pre-date the article if you look for " fictional document". I say keep. DS (talk) 16:11, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, rename, refocus. See also Necronomicon. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:48, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (I commented above). By chance I have stumbled on a particularly interesting example, the claimed source of Historia Regum Britanniae. The concept is well documented and exemplified and not to be dismissed as OR or assessed by Ghits. The article as a whole needs a great deal of sorting out and pruning. Thincat (talk) 22:46, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn (non-admin closure) --LlamaAl (talk) 16:34, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fatih Kocamis[edit]

Fatih Kocamis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Reason Willdawg111 (talk) 05:47, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article does not meet notability guidlines established by WP:NMMA. Willdawg111 (talk) 05:47, 21 December 2012 (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/2012 December 21. Snotbot  t • c »  06:10, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Note This shouldn't have been nominated. I didn't realize Fighting Network Rings was on the list of defunct top tier. I didn't think anybody would consider them top tier, but since they are on the list, we would need a consensus to get them removed from that list before this would fail WP:NMMA. Please cancel this request if possible. Willdawg111 (talk) 16:31, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — The article meets WP:NMMA: 2 bouts for Fighting Network Rings and 1 bout for Pride FC. Poison Whiskey 15:13, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep — The article meets WP:NMMA also fighting for M-1 Global (second tier?) a former coach for Golden Glory, and fighting a slew of notable fighters. • Sepulwiki (talk) 02:19, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep - It do meets WP:NMMA. --LlamaAl (talk) 15:12, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. This nomination has been relisted for about a month and its clear there is non-consenus (non-admin closure) JayJay^{What did I do?} 02:53, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gyula J. Obádovics[edit]

Gyula J. Obádovics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The subject of the article seems clearly to fail WP:PROF. Few of his publications seem to be indexed by Google Scholar, and still fewer have received any citations. Only one of his publications seems to be indexed by MathSciNet, and only three by Zentralblatt. None of them jumps out as being especially notable or significant. Sławomir Biały (talk) 02:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Sławomir Biały (talk) 02:50, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Sławomir Biały (talk) 02:52, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I don't know how significant the awards listed in the article are but as a member of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences [14] he passes WP:PROF#C3. I suspect that the lack of coverage in Google scholar is more due to his work being pre-internet and not in English than in its significance. The lack of coverage in MathSciNet and Zentralblatt is more of a concern, but I think his evident local notability within the Hungarian mathematics community should be enough to make up for that. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:05, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I think you're mistaken. He's not a member of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences. Member profiles there all indicate what kind of membership they have (Regular/Corresponding/External/Honorary), as well as the year of their membership. None of this information appears on that profile that you linked to. Moreover, his name does not appear on a search of the mta.hu members, nor is it in any of the lists of members available from the mta.hu website. Apparently, he's not a regular member, a corresponding member, an external member, or an honorary member. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:48, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He is a member of the Köztestület of MTA. Any Hungarian citizen can be a member, who has a Ph.D. or equivalent degree. There are, I don't know, maybe 20000 members. Eppstein's above ref mixed up two search engines of mta.hu. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.181.202.103 (talk) 08:55, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I am striking my comment, since it seems to be based on a mistake. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:43, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• This article conspicuously makes one of the common newbie mistakes: Give biographical details in chronological order first; mention anything that could constitute notability later. It should be exactly the other way around. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:40, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:07, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep on the basis of national level awards. DGG ( talk ) 06:01, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are the awards listed even notable (an explicit requirement of WP:PROF#C2)? Google has never heard of any of these awards, as far as I can tell (at least, in English), which strongly suggests that these are not notable awards. Also, most academics have won some awards. How do these awards distinguish this particular academic? Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:39, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Obádovics is apparently a mathematician but has only two publications that reached Mathematical Reviews. Neither seems to have been cited. This is an obvious case. Tkuvho (talk) 20:37, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:06, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]