< 24 June	26 June >

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 with no one other than the nominator proposing deletion. Participants or other editors are free to initialise a discussion on a merger with an appropriate article if so desired. This has had only one proper relisting so might otherwise been relisted again. However, it has been up on AFD for over a month due to the error in transclusion so it's time to close this discussion. (non-admin closure) KTC (talk) 08:40, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perestroika Movement (political science)[edit]

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

Does not meet notability criteria. There is no such *defined* movement, just a general trend towards methodological pluralism, which is already covert in this article. This fork is nothing but trivia and the (self?)promotion of some selective publications. Mootros (talk) 06:57, 25 May 2012 (UTC) Mootros (talk) 06:57, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Perestroika, if there is anything worth saving. Else, Redirect to Perestroika. Agree that it's a fork, at best. Roodog2k (talk) 17:25, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, didn't you mean to say merge/redirect with methodological pluralism? Mootros (talk) 02:42, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →B music ian 02:03, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Merge fork. Target choice to closer, but merge/redirect with methodological pluralism seems reasonable. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 06:38, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted previous relisting placed transcluded discussion in the June 1 2011 deletion log, procedural relisting to current year.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Monty ₈₄₅ 21:36, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This has got nothing to do whatsoever with perestroika. Sources showing in the footnotes are sufficient for this topic to pass GNG. I have tried to render the lead into English, so y'all might want to take a look at it again. Severe problems remain with the body of the piece, but that is an editing matter, not a notability matter. Carrite (talk) 03:59, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I'm the furthest thing from an expert in the field, but I do see reliable sources. It does appear to be notable within the scope of Political Science, just not sure how notable... Roodog2k (talk) 15:12, 26 June 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. Sandstein 05:56, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Levana Layendecker[edit]

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

This article is about a person who lacks the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources to establish notability. The references in the article at the the time of nomination exists to substantiate facts, but do not establish notability, with many of them not even mentioning Layendecker. My own search turns up results where she is being quoted as the director of communications for Democracy for america, but that is not coverage about her. This article is probably the best source I could find and the coverage is rather minimal. Whpq (talk) 21:21, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:21, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:21, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sufficient notability not demonstrated. Mcewan (talk) 04:20, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - None of the current sources (though many are 404'ing on me) are about her at all, and I see no other evidence that she passes the GNG or BIO. Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 03:29, 3 July 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:09, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UNIT Post Production[edit]

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

Delete. Non-notable company. Very spamish and promotional. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:15, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is an older version that had loads of references, but it looks like a lot of that was removed, possibly by someone from the company, following some changes [1]. Stephen! ^Coming... 21:59, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:15, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:15, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:15, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's just an advertisement. Mcewan (talk) 04:23, 2 July 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. WP:CSD#G7 blanked by author JohnCD (talk) 09:18, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anand Reddi[edit]

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

A medical student who has written 12 blog posts on The Huffington Post There are no independent, reliable sources that go into any detail. The Washington Post reference is a letter to the editor. Others are just quotes from by him or point out his research paper. Bgwhite (talk) 19:08, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 19:11, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 19:11, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The publications listed in BMC Pedaitrics and AIDS are peer reviewed publications. The other articles are written by independent journalists/NGOS (and have no quotes by Anand Reddi). There is no evidence that the information provided is false and information is credited with verifiable attributions. The article is valid and reputable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilkistudent (talk • contribs) 19:34, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 20:19, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG Seasider91 (talk) 20:23, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Doesn't pass WP:GNG right now. Could pass this threshold in future though. --Artene50 (talk) 04:58, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG. References updated — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilkistudent (talk • contribs) 15:37, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Autobiographical article written by user:Wilkistudent. He is undoubtedly a good student and may become notable in the future, but for now he does not pass either WP:BIO, which would require information or commentary ABOUT him from independent reliable sources (the sources in the article are either by him, or are from sources such as blogs and letters to the editor), or under WP:ACADEMIC (which would require significant and highly-cited publications), or under WP:AUTHOR (simply being a published or HuffPost writer is not sufficient to meet this guideline). Nobody is claiming that the information is false or unverified - just that the subject does not meet the notability criteria to have an article here. This is an international encyclopedia and there have to be standards for inclusion. --MelanieN (talk) 17:28, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If Reddi deserves an article on WP, then so do I - and legions like me. Floodgates baby! Famous _dog (c) 13:41, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep'Reddi's advocacy is credited with restoring $366 million for HIV treatment in Uganda. He received a direct response from the Obama administration. See and read references^[1]^[2] ^[3]^[4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilkistudent (talk • contribs)

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 early keep. <addition>Consensus is that the subject </addition> clearly meets the specific notability guidelines, ~~no votes to delete except the nominator~~ (stricken later) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:38, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Carfrey[edit]

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

Played one game. Can't find any sources or mentions, except in statistical databases. Because he played one game in majors, he meets the NSPORTS guideline, but there isn't any evidence he meets WP:GNG; this is a case where presumption of NSPORTS may be wrong. KarlB (talk) 18:31, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.. Played in the Majors and its long been established that Major League players should have articles on wikipedia. Also nominator seems to be shopping for articles to prove a point he is trying to make. Spanneraol (talk) 18:57, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close as part of forum shopping from current NSPORT discussion, no prejudice against a more proper AFD outside of that discussion. --MASEM (t) 19:15, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and a trout slap for nominator The Henry Oxley discussion isn't enough to convince you that project consensus is to keep? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:23, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close as a pointy nomination. I would have done so myself but I am in a discussion surrounding this topic so probably involved. Either way it is a clear case of a keep as there is no way that any major leaguer would not have sources. One of the main purposes of NSPORTS is to stop over zealous deleters from deleting athletes in the 1800's where it is next to impossible to find online sources. This nominator has just given the perfect example of why it is extremely important to have NSPORTS as it stands. -DJSasso (talk) 19:37, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Disruptive AFD.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:59, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't see how a nomination of an apparently non-notable person qualifies as disruptive behavior or editing to make a point. Sure, there's an ongoing conversation regarding the massive quantity of sports people articles that fail notability guidelines, but that doesn't make a proper nomination any less proper. If there were concrete action in process toward addressing this problem outside of deletion venues, then I could see how mass nominations would be improper. Considering the lack of action to address the ongoing problem, and the fact that this is a single nomination and not some fait accompli in action, I think the above accusations are completely baseless. Gigs (talk) 20:11, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 20:14, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 20:14, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 20:14, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

comment wait, Wikipedia:FORUMSHOP#FORUMSHOP means something else. What exactly did I violate by nominating this example? I've not nominated 200 articles, I nominated one. Why the anger? --KarlB (talk) 21:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep wether he made 1 apperance or over 100 apperances in the majors it doesn't matter, still notable according to WP:NSPORTS Seasider91 (talk) 21:33, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why disruptive because of the following:

This nomination is in the face of obvious consensus as set up in Wikipedia:Notability (sports). Both editors User:KarlB and User:Gigs are involved in discussions there, as well as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henry Oxley. Both of these discussions (and many others) show a history of obvious consensus swing toward supporting WP:WPBB/N as a standard for notability, of which both editors are well aware of. When discussions have failed to go "their way" on either of these pages, KarlB has gone out to make another AfD that clearly meets the Wikipedia community standards but not his/her own in an attempt to make a point. Gigs has done the same thing with other professional athletes.
KarlB could have taken several courses of action on this article: WP:AFD, WP:PROD, tagging the article as possibly lacking notability, etc. Knowing that the consensus is to support WP:WPBB/N, the editor chose the harshest and most disruptive path--AFD. This is disruptive because it is in the face of known consensus on the topic and goes outside the discussion of the topic into the encyclopedia itself, where readers not involved in this discussion become involved.
WP:FORUMSHOP contains no reference to any minimum number of "attempts" but states instead, "Raising essentially the same issue on multiple noticeboards, or to multiple administrators, is unhelpful." Editor KarlB has done that here. Hence, the accusation of "Forum Shopping" has come up.
I have no doubt that both users in question believe that this subject is not notable and unworthy for inclusion in Wikipedia. However, that discussion should be held at the established location of WP:WPBB/N rather than going out and picking an article to have the discussion there. Wikipedia is not a battleground.

While both editors have certainly been civil and polite, that does not mean that these actions are not disruptive. I believe they are, and it appears that several others do as well. Therefore, I believe that the accusations above (including the one I made about this being disruptive) are valid accusations. Becase this subject clearly meets the community standards for notability and this AFD is an obvious bad faith nomination, I believe it should be closed immediately.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:38, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since when is a good-faith AfD nomination disruptive? Paul I appreciate your efforts to improve the encyclopedia, but attacking me for a single AfD is not helpful. This is also not about the discussions on the sports page; as you know my proposal is to have a very different process for these; forum shopping would have been bringing the same exact proposal to the Village Pump or ANI or anywhere else to try to get a different audience. This is not forum shopping, this is a tangential nom. I came across this article, did some searching for sources, read through google books references, was surprised to find that this guy literally played 1 game, and based on comments I've seen in NSPORTS, that if GNG is not met these can still be deleted by consensus, I decided to try a nomination here. There are also other editors, besides myself and Gigs, involved - majority rule != consensus, Paul.

What I've done at AfD is the same thing done every day - nominate an article that I think does not meet the presumed guidelines of notability conferred by WP:WPBB/N - such nominations if made in good faith (which this one was, esp provided I already spent time doing research) are not disruptive, and I find it unfair that I'm being attacked accordingly. In the same post in which I shared this nomination, I provided a great source of old newspapers that can be used to defend old baseball players (and find new content), and I also linked to a massive wiki of baseball profiles (with 10x the number of people as wikipedia), and am currently proposing additional ways to save information from deleted baseball articles, so your accusations of bad faith here are wide of the mark.

And finally, I'm not proposing (through this nomination, or through discussions on talk page) to change the NSPORTS notability guideline; I just think it is, as it says it is, a presumed notability, that can be and is regularly challenged at AfD, and this is proper and acceptable. If this was someone who was pitcher of the year in 1870 and had played for 4 teams over 10 years, yes that would be a silly nom; but this was a guy who played 1 game, and I couldn't find *anything* about him. I just find this whole thing rather crazy; take a look at AfD for minor league players, guys who have played for years, have long records, many articles about them, well sourced;etc, they are often deleted, but a major league player with zero data and 1 game to his name - where we don't even know how he ended up in the majors in the first place - just gets a free pass? I'm sorry, but the language at the top of NSPORTS is clear - please read it. Nowhere does it say if the subject passes WP:WPBB/N, it is disruptive to nominate them.--KarlB (talk) 22:15, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, we don't create "disruptive clauses" for every guideline.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:22, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we can look at what is *does* say: "Please note that the failure to meet these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. These are merely rules of thumb which some editors choose to keep in mind when deciding whether or not to keep an article that is on articles for deletion, along with relevant guidelines such as Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources." Seriously Paul, feel free to vote to keep, but there's nothing improper or disruptive about this nomination. --KarlB (talk) 22:23, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

comment see the following two noms, which are similar, and which were deleted - again with no accusations or attacks on the nom. Instead, the useful word common sense was applied. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marios Antoniades; Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2011_December_19#Cosmos_Munegabe. --KarlB (talk) 22:49, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This appears to be a disruptive attempt to prove a point about notability on Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports). He passes the the sport guidelines, which the nominator acknowledges. The nominator makes the keep argument effectively by saying he meets the criteria for an article. --LauraHale (talk) 22:58, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
comment as an example of how the notability tag works (one of Paul's suggestions above), here is another player who played one game: Joe_Adams --> [2]; a year after the notability tag was placed, there are no improvements to the article. The bottom line is, if the notability of bios cannot be challenged without accusations of disruption, a major change to NSPORTS is in order. I think from the editors responding here, it is quite clear they feel presumed notability is the same thing as iron-clad notability never to be challenged.--KarlB (talk) 23:07, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Karl: This is an AfD for Carfey. The notability of Joe Adams is not the issue here, nor is this the place to argue for systematic changes. I think you made the best arguement for keeping the article by acknowledge that Carfey satisfies the notability requirements. --LauraHale (talk) 23:12, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm arguing, on this one, for common sense. Joe Adams is just an example b/c Paul suggested I tag for notability; I'm pointing out that that often doesn't do much good. Also please read the other two examples I linked to, which were deleted. Consensus can go many ways. Barely meeting a notability guideline is a perfectly reasonsable excuse for AfD nomination - in fact, thousands of AfDs every year are someone who barely meets the guideline. Your accusations of disruption do not assume good faith and are insulting to me.--KarlB (talk) 23:23, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I find your comment that he meets notability guidelines very compelling. I think it is an excellent reason to keep. I agree with you that he meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines and that he should be included. I apologise for the lack of good faith in accusing you of disruption, but I do wish to thank you for posting a compelling reason he should be kept as part of your AfD. I hope that the closing admin takes your statement of his notability and passing Wikipedia's consensus derived guidelines about baseball notability into account. --LauraHale (talk) 23:37, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for apologizing, but the rest seems a bit snide. The reason I made this nomination is that I felt the presumed notability was up for debate; as is clear from NSPORTS, these are only guidelines, and should be taken into account at the AfD. Thus far, no-one has made any argument that this guy passes WP:GNG, so I hope the closing admin and other eds weighing in will take that into account also - the question is, do we think we can make this more than a stub? Is there anything about this guy's baseball career that makes him notable?--KarlB (talk) 23:59, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Karl, I dont think the comparison to the other deleted articles is valid, because the notability guidelines for soccer players are not quite as clear as those for baseball players.Spanneraol (talk) 00:26, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My point was not about the notability of those soccer players - it was about the discussion - do you notice how no-one is accusing the nominator of disrupting wikipedia? The noms are the same principle - barely meeting NSPORTS, no sources found, thus AfD. As I said before, feel free to vote, but I'd ask anyone who trouted me to strike/apologize/AGF.--KarlB (talk) 00:36, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, because the fact that you posted this AFD during a contentious discussion about notability AND linked to it on the NSports page as an example of what you were trying to accomplish tends to add credence to the views that this afd is part of you attempting to prove something. Spanneraol (talk) 00:50, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is obviously not productive to argue with an editor who refuses to assume good faith. Apparently, notifying NSPORTS was a *bad* idea in your opinion? And, you obviously didn't read my proposal at NSPORTS; if you had, you would realize that the process I proposed was quite different than what transpired here. In any case, here's a nice wet trout for you for not assuming good faith. Thwop. --KarlB (talk) 04:13, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem isn't that you notified NSPORTS, its that you nominated the article during a contentious discussion which is usually considered a very bad thing to do as its considered a bad faith nomination and usually called pointy. -DJSasso (talk) 11:57, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Let's apply some common sense here (similar to the concensus at the Cosmos Munegabe and Marios Antoniades AfDs mentioned above) - this article doesn't satisfy the GNG and I've been unable to find sources that suggest it could. Playing in a single regular season game is simply not enough to be notable without significant coverage. Jogurney (talk) 02:04, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to satisfy WP:GNG as a professional baseball player with a 15-plus year career. I'm finding quite a lot of information on Carfrey. He did not just play one game. He had a career in professional baseball that appears to have run from 1882 through at least 1897. He also played in an 1891 game that attempted, unsuccessfully, to introduce the sport of indoor, winter baseball. Most of his career was in the minor leagues, but he does seem to have received a good deal of coverage over the years. Of course, on-line information is quite limited for 19th Century baseball players, but I'm adding some of what I've found. Cbl62 (talk) 03:42, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Cb162; your article rescue skills are impressive. And this is not to denigrate the quality of your work, but I simply ask this - if this same player had done everything he did, but didn't play that one majors game, would we be having this discussion, framed in this way? I've seen minor league baseball AfDs - they are pretty harsh and set a pretty high bar. The sources you found, while impressive in their scope, only mention Carfrey in passing (literally - his first name is often not mentioned at all). And I grant that he didn't just play one game - I shouldn't have suggested that (I meant only 1 majors game); in any case the world is full of people about whom we could write similar articles to this one, but we don't... --KarlB (talk) 04:01, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is the point of NSPORTS, by the time they have met NSPORTS they have likely already met GNG while still being a minor league player. People always try to attack the one game players in the majors without considering the fact that most minor league players get significant coverage as well, especially the ones who have made it to the major league. Thus why the notability is drawn at playing a game in the majors. Because they usually have long since passed the GNG line as an amateur or minor leaguer by time they hit the majors. -DJSasso (talk) 11:46, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a reflection on Cb162's impressive research, but I could write an article about my grandmother, based on published newspaper mentions in society pages, award dinners, charity events, weddings, funerals, and dozens of other mentions that would have just as much, if not more, biographical detail - but that still doesn't make her notable. Remember, Wikipedia:NOT#NEWS and Wikipedia:LOTSOFSOURCES#Lots_of_sources - a dozen trivial mentions is still a dozen trivial mentions; I don't have access to the offline sources, but all of the online sources that were added I looked at, none of them did much more than mention Carfrey's name. That's the problem with sports in general - sports coverage will naturally describe or list the members of the team (e.g. Carfrey played second base today) - but if they mention that he played second base whether in high school or little league or the majors, the level of coverage is still the same - routine, trivial, every-day coverage - that does not meet GNG. You should talk to this guy, he may have some thoughts for you DJ - he has the same name as you: [[3]] "Meeting or failing to meet any of the NSPORTS criteria is not in and of itself a reason to keep or not keep and that in the end you still have prove they meet GNG." NSPORTS is not under dispute here, GNG is. For another example, see: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cody_Martin_(baseball) - look at this query: 81 GNEWs hits - but this guy was still voted non-notable enough to be merged to an article of his own.--KarlB (talk) 13:22, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Turning this AFD into yet another place to argue your personal disdain for the level of sports notability is not helping your cause with respect to accusations of forum shopping and WP:POINT. Especially when you begin building strawmen centred around hypothetical scenarios that are not relevant to this article. Reso lute 16:28, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

None of what I said in the two comments are mutually exclusive. The guidelines are written to make it an almost 100% guarantee that sources can be found. There are exceptions, but the exceptions are usually not the ones that were major league players. The exceptions are usually minor league players in other sports. Routine and trivial refer to boxscores and passing mentions. But the minute the article is an indepth article about the player and not just some puff piece like high school player of the week. Then they have received enough coverage to be on the wiki. If your grandmother has had articles talking about her in such a manor and not just a passing mention then yes she would qualify for an article as long as it happened in more than one source and for more than one event. As for your baseball example, ironically you are attacking one of the most strict of the sports guidelines, frankly their over zealous merging of minor leaguers is going to far in my opinion. But its been slow work convincing them to even have lists of minor leaguers. -DJSasso (talk) 19:17, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your nomination stated "Can't find any sources or mentions" (assumingly online). As for the offline sources that Cbl62 has added, you also stated "I don't have access to the offline sources." Are you assuming that the offline sources are also trivial in your continued opposition?—Bagumba (talk) 19:41, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure the offline sources are what he says they are (I WP:AGF), but the question is, are any of them significant? I don't think anyone needs me to change my vote, but I would be happy to if Cb162 pasted several examples of significant coverage from these offline sources. In spite of the number of sources, none of the online sources that I've read confer notability IMHO; and the titles of the offline articles don't suggest much more. DJSasso says above "indepth article about the player" - I haven't seen one of those yet. per: WP:GNG "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material" Adding up many different trivial mentions does not equal significant coverage. --KarlB (talk) 20:04, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure you have a policy that backs that up right? Because so far all you linked to was lots of sources which is an essay, not policy. -DJSasso (talk) 20:06, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The newspaper articles I've cited are all available on-line either through newspaperarchive.com or la84foundation.com, both of which are excellent resources. Newspaperarchive.com can be accessed on an unlimited basis for a modest fee. The newspaper articles are not feature stories about Carfrey, nor are they simply box scores with his name. They deal with him in varying levels of detail. Cbl62 (talk) 21:09, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I linked to WP:GNG and Wikipedia:NOT#NEWS. Those *are* policies. The article is full of fascinating historical trivia about a minor-league player and which base he played and whether he got a black eye or not. Having read the article now several times, I'm still wondering what is notable about him? Why is he in this encyclopedia? Again, all props to Cb162, but I'm still not seeing GNG.--KarlB (talk) 20:26, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the past I sometimes argued a player being WP:ROTM or lacking WP:IMPACT, but it has rarely gained consensus. Also, I haven't seen how a higher standard of accomplishments could objectively be applied, not to mention justifying a higher standard than GNG for sports.—Bagumba (talk) 20:51, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually, WP:GNG is a "guideline" and not a "policy" -- hence the name "General Notability Guideline" --Paul McDonald (talk) 22:20, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have to echo Paul here, GNG is a guideline as well. NOT#NEWS refers to having articles that are simply telling the news which this is clearly not doing so isn't really applicable. I think you seem to be confusing fame and notability. You can be of note without being famous. -DJSasso (talk) 12:11, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Based on presumption of WP:BASEBALL/N, but especially in light of the offline sources found and added to the article since the AfD nomination. Appears promising that the threshold set forth in the SNG warranted the presumption that it meets GNG. I don't have access to the offline sources, so will assume good faith on their addition.—Bagumba (talk) 06:07, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Simply, passes notability guidlines, apparently, some users use the rules and no ways other to help unless brown nose their way to the main founder, User JB.--GoShow (...............) 03:30, 27 June 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 as per unanimous positive consensus and the absence of calls for deletion outside of the nominator. A non-admin closure. And Adoil Descended (talk) 01:28, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Harold Covington[edit]

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

Subject of the article is not a notable person and subject of the article has been found to use persistent sock puppetry to vandalize the article Wasp14 (talk) 18:20, 25 June 2012 (UTC) — Wasp14 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep -- this person easily meets WP:BIO. Sock-puppetry is not a reason for deletion, and in any event the article is currently semi-protected so that "new" users are unable to edit it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:26, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. Although there has been an edit war over this article lasting years, it is a war between the subject of the article, Harold Covington, and various rivals of his in the white supremacy scene. However, neither Mr. Covington nor any of the other persons who have edited the article (including me) are notable persons. The fact that a handful of persons have shown interest in editing the article does not mean the subject is notable. Harold Covington is not a real published author of note. His books are all self-published vanity books that he sells over the internet. The fact that Mr. Covington unsuccessfully ran for the Republican nomination for a minor State political office (NC Attorney General) certainly does not make him a notable politician. The fact that he may or may not have been a lower enlisted person in the Rhodesian army is certainly not something of note. The fact that he maintains a number of Blogspot blogs and Yahoo! groups, with a small readership, where he espouses white supremacy, certainly does not make him notable. His "Northwest Front" is nothing more than a website and a PO Box. It is not a significant notable organization within the white supremacy scene. In fact, he has never been the head of a major white supremacy organization. As the article points out, he acted as an imposter claiming on the internet to be the head of a Nazi party, which was in fact actually headed by someone else. This does not make him a notable person. Although he has been occasionally mentioned on the websites and in the publications of some anti-racist organizations, which discuss the subject of white supremacy in great detail, he is not listed as a top figure in white supremacy by these anti-racist organizations.Wasp14 (talk) 18:32, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Very notable guy, easily passes WP:BIO & WP:GNG, as evidenced in the coverage he has received:[4][5][6]. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:56, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your sources are not notable. The book "Codename Greenkil", which concerns the Greensboro shooting, was originally self-published by Elizabeth Wheaton in 1987, and much later published by the University of Georgia in 2009 and is not a reliable, neutral source. Your other sources are just brief mentions of Covington in a couple of small town NC newspapers, which were covering the Greensboro shooting. If the main reason Mr. Covinginton is of any note is related to the Greensboro shooting, then perhaps his article should be merged with the article about the Greensboro massacre. Interestingly, there is no mention of Mr. Covington in the present version of that article.Wasp14 (talk) 19:50, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The book I linked to (Encyclopedia of White Power: A Sourcebook on the Radical Racist Right) was published by Rowman & Littlefield, which is a reliable publisher, and the two articles that I linked to were published by the Associated Press. I hadn't noticed the book Codename Greenkil, but now that you point it out, it does contain significant coverage of Covington--and the University of Georgia Press is a highly reliable publisher. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:09, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK I mistakenly thought your google books link was a link to the google books page of "Codename Greenkil" which is used as a source in the Harold Covington article. In any case, both the book you did link to and "Codename Greenkil" are obscure texts published by universities. The "Encyclopedia of White Power: A Sourcebook on the Radical Racist Right" is part of a series of books about "radicals" by Jeffrey Kaplan, which were the only things he ever wrote. He gives a brief 15 page mention of Harold Covington out of a 591 page book. Elizabeth Wheaton, who was involved in far-left politics in the 1970's and 80's, wrote Codename Greenkil, and the only other things she ever wrote were a couple biographies of feminists. In Codename Greenkil, Wheaton even says Covington only had a few followers. If these 2 obscure books and a couple of short wire service mentions in small town newspapers are the best sources for Mr. Covington, that's not much. On the Harold Covington talk page, someone claiming to be Harold Covington says he is not notable and should be deleted.Wasp14 (talk) 21:26, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

15 pages is not brief (unless they're very small pages or in very large type). Or at least, it qualifies as an item of significant coverage - it's not just a passing mention. Equally, notability requires significant coverage to be in multiple independent reliable sources; it doesn't require the sources to be notable in and of themselves. How much else the authors in question published, is not really relevant. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 10:44, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 20:06, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 20:06, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 20:06, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:BASIC: A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. The references already in the article clearly demonstrate that the subject meets this criterion, and the rest of the deletion rationale is not a valid reason for deletion. VQuakr (talk) 04:16, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If there's an issue with a sockpuppet, please report him. But, this article meets notability requirements, so no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater (gawd, that expression is awful, isn't it??) JoelWhy?(talk) 12:52, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't start the issue of sock puppetry. I mention it because of the following - 18:33, 30 July 2011 Courcelles (talk | contribs) protected Harold Covington‎ [edit=autoconfirmed] (indefinite) (Persistent sock puppetry) So it has already been determined that the article is constantly vandalized and sock puppetted and has been semi-protected. Wasp14 (talk) 00:54, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There is agreement (even in the "keep" opinions) that the topic is notable but the current content is worthless. On that basis, I find that the argument for applying WP:TNT is more convincing, as the "keep" opinions do not articulate what if anything in the current article could be worth keeping. Of course, this deletion does not prevent the recreation of the article in a usable form. Any redirection is likewise an editorial decision. Sandstein 05:38, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sharia in the United States[edit]

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

This looks like a blatant POV essay/thoughtpiece made up of OR - and it has unsourced claims like "some sources have alleged that certain judges at the state level have been handing out sentences based on Sharia Law."! -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:16, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And the example case included is only supported by sensationalist news sources that use the word "Sharia" - there is no reliable source offered to support a claim that telling someone he should not have deliberately offended Muslims is an actual example of the implementation of Sharia law. And frontpagemag is not a reliable source when it comes to its opinion pieces. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:20, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of other sources used in the article don't look reliable either - http://shariahinamericancourts.com/ appears to be an anti-Sharia advocacy site, and http://www.onenewsnow.com is a Christian site. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:32, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Let's not confuse validity with notability. The idea of sharia law being imposed in the US is a political bogeyman if ever there was one, but there's plenty of coverage of the topic, especially around stunts like Oklahoma's sharia ban. The article is in poor shape now, but revision is a better option than deletion. --BDD (talk) 18:51, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not opposed to a rewrite, but if we take out the blatantly POV material sourced to unreliable advocacy sites, and the unsourced claims, there would be nothing left of the current article. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:32, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Redirect to Ban on Sharia law per Boing! said Zebedee's reasoning. This would require a fundamental rewrite in order to be useful to the project. I suggest drafting first, and once more sources are available (if they indeed exist), the article can be sourced more reliably. The fact that none of this article's information is included in the main Sharia article also gives me pause. Also, take a look at this article that we already have. I still say delete rather than merge because there's almost nothing from this article that could reasonably be merged (since there aren't really any reliable sources). Sleddog116 (talk) 20:04, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 19:58, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 19:58, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 19:58, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and rewrite in favor of what BDD is proposing.--v/r - T P 20:16, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Merge Merge Ban on Sharia law into this article. In other words, Keep this article. Prachursharma (talk) 20:36, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say exactly the opposite would make more sense - delete this article for the reasons I've suggested, and then if there is anything relevant that can be sourced to reliable sources rather than to advocacy sites, add it to Ban on Sharia law#United States. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:52, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note that Prachursharma, the author of this article, has now been indef blocked "for both creating an article with arguably anti-semitic tone, and then blatantly linking it to an anti-semitic attack page". -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:26, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The arguments that the subject is discussed elsewhere and that this particular article is nothing more than a propaganda piece is persuasive. We don't have an article either on Martian landings in the United States, a subject with a great deal more press over the last century, and something about as likely to occur. Ravenswing 21:10, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose I can live with the article being deleted as is. I may write a better version myself, but I'm not going to do so today or anything. There really is something here. While the Martian metaphor is apt for, say, the fear that US courts will start mandating the hijab, the fact is sharia can be considered in a judicial opinion, the same way foreign legal systems can. But as I understand it, bans like Oklahoma's don't even allow for private contracts based on sharia, which makes a mockery of some very basic legal tenets in the name of this phantom menace. (tldr: My vote stands, but I'm amenable to deleting without prejudice.) --BDD (talk) 22:13, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. The first few pages of Google discuss a plathora of different topics related to this article including: bans that have occurred in various states, anti-Sharia movements, Sharia laws being introduced to US constitution, how the sharia law is possibly relevant to US today, a discussion of why Sharia law should be the sole law in teh US (Omar M. Ahmad founder of CAIR said:"Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant" he said. "The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America , and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth," he said.). Not to mention all the stuff not even related to the laws themselves, but all the background info surrounding this: there are ___ Muslims living in the United states, and approx. ____ live under the sharia law. Some Christians are opposed to it because of __ while others ahev actually taken some good lifestyle tips from it. There is a lot of controv surrounding it..... Look, I don't know what I'm saying. I'm making it up on the spot. But the idea behind it works. And I think this is the sort of stuff we should be jam-packing the article with.--Coin945 (talk) 22:24, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a good argument for an article on the subject, but not this current article. It sounds to me like what you are effectively talking about is delete and start again. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:37, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well what I mean is for us to salvage all we can form the old article and add in all this great stuff. If nothing is salvagable, then technically you're right. But I wouldn't call it deletion and recreation. I'd just call it blanking the article and adding new information in the same edit.--Coin945 (talk) 01:42, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For the purposes of at least having an article to work with (otherwise it's unlikely anyone's going to even think of creating such an article), I'd say at the very very least, replace the article with a one-line stub. A list of some helpful sources in the talk page would also help. But I'm sure instead of chatting about this article, we can get straight to work and rebuild this (clearly notable) article.--Coin945 (talk) 01:53, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not unsympathetic to that idea, but if we reduce it to the only supportable statement in the whole article, "Sharia in the United States is not currently permitted", then that says nothing more than is already at Ban on sharia law, and we'd have a clear WP:CSD#A10. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:32, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But I've already explained how, even after a preliminary search on google, I was able to find many sources for and against Sharia in US - both supporting and fearing it. I even found sources that merely describe the situation without picking sides. What made you think that we would possibly "reduce it to the only supportable statement[s]"? I've clearly demonstrated that there is much more out there so as to not leave us with a lopsided bias argument as the basis for an article.--Coin945 (talk) 16:31, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm talking about what's in the existing article, not about what's on Google. We are deciding whether or not to delete the existing article, not a possible future article that might be based on good sources - and we are not deciding whether or not the topic deserves an article. If you wish to rewrite it before this AfD concludes, that would be great, but until someone does, we must make our judgement on the current content - and in my view, there is not enough in the current article to make even a stub. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:02, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well then, there's the intrinsic difference between the way you and I see AFDs. I entirely disagree with your view that "we are not deciding whether or not the topic deserves an article". I say that we are - that that's the whole purpose of AFD's. We are seeing if the concept itself is notable, regardless of the state of the actual article in its current form. All this time, the article could've been worked on to being it up to a good standard. All the people who pitched in to this convo could've spend their time doing tweaks and edits to help the article, but instead it has just been dismissed. I am completely opposed to this philosophy and always aim to remind people that AFD's are secondary to the main purpose of the discussions - to work out how best to rescue the articles. And I know you might say that AFD's aren't the place for articles in need of "rescuing" etc.. I've seen articles in dire need of help turned away from AFD because they don't 'belong' there, but the main point is that bringing certain article to people's attention through AFD is actually a catalyst for change (or at least it should be). Often, however, most of the time and creative energy is spent arguing whether or not the article should be kept... and if the topic is intrinsically notable and its just its current incarnation that's bad, then it's a real shame that so many people hopped past giving their 2 cents and not one person actually stayed long enough to help solve the actual problem. Actually sounds a lot like slacktivism to me..... It's late over here in Perth, but when I get a chance, I'll replace this article with a small stub, and I guess we'll go from there, because needlessly deleting a notable article is disruptive and annoying IMO.--Coin945 (talk) 18:59, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Articles aren't "notable" - only their subjects are notable. And I think I am correct in my understanding that AfD is for discussing the deletion of an article based on its current contents, and not on the notability of its topic. We do not keep an article whose content violates Wikipedia policy, even if its topic is notable. But you are, of course, welcome to rewrite it, in which case we will move on to review what will then be a different article on the same topic. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:59, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some examples of where this unofficial philosophy is shown to be the best way to go:

Wikipedia:Potential, not just current state - "Why deletion of articles with potential should be avoided: In most cases deletion of an article should be a last resort in the event that the article's topic is not notable and has no potential for its own encyclopedic entry on Wikipedia. Deletion of a article can be one step backwards in creating an encyclopedic entry for a notable topic. It is frequently a better option to do one or more of the following: Mark the article as a valid stub, Bring the article to the attention of the relevant WikiProject, Add templates marking relevant issues with the article to readers and editors, Simply delete and clean the sections of an article causing a problem, such as copyright violations." (or even better, work on the article yourselves :D)
User:Mike Cline/The Inclusionist's Guide To Deletion Debates - "The inclusionist is also adept at evaluating articles, not only on their current merits but future potential as well. When the inclusionist is confronted with a deletion debate and the article needs improvement, actively mentor those editors interested in the article in the ways it can be improved and saved. Take the time to re-write lead-ins, find and cite reliable sources, and suggest to interested editors other ways in which the article can be improved."
Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians/Members - "I am amazed by how many good (or potentially good) articles fall foul of PROD, SPEEDY and AFD and it seems that people not getting involved is what allows this to happen - "The only thing necessary for deletion is for good men to do nothing...""
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion is not a war zone - "If you wish to argue for deletion: [Remember that] if an article is on a popular topic, it will tend to have secondary sources written about it and may have potential" --Coin945 (talk) 19:18, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those are all good guidelines - and I'd be happy to support anyone who wants to make this into a keepable article by the end of the 7 days. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:33, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Right-wing fear-mongering about something that does not and cannot exist isn't a notable or article-worthy topic. If anywhere, it deserves a short mention in Islamophobia. Tarc (talk) 00:59, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - without prejudice for recreating a completely different article - while theoretically, this might be a legitimate subject for an article, there is no way that you could get to that point and have anything left of the current version. nuke it and start fresh. -- The Red Pen of Doom 03:28, 26 June 2012 (UTC) present the article has been nuked and started fresh - i am not convinced to !vote "keep", but i am no longer in the "delete" camp either. -- The Red Pen of Doom 01:57, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is a clear POV fearmongering essay and has major WP:CBALL issues. Maybe the article can be recreated with a more neutral point of view in future. --Artene50 (talk) 05:03, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We need some WP:DYNAMITE to blow this article away so we might rewrite it. Canuck^{89 (converse with me)} 10:40, June 26, 2012 (UTC)
Redirect to Ban on sharia law. Every point the nominator makes is well-taken, but it is also clear that a legitimate article could (and should) be written by editors more competent to address the legal issues and more willing to comply with BLP, RS, and npov requirements. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 11:05, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, that's not a bad idea - I expect the actual legal status of Sharia in the US, with a properly sourced NPOV assessment of popular reaction, could make a valuable article. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:36, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- This page is a mess (created by a editor who has since been perma-banned.) I don't see anything here to really salvage; I could see an article being made on this topic, but this ain't it. JoelWhy?(talk) 12:48, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- note: the creator was indef blocked, not perma banned by the community -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:16, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:TNT, then? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:50, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Provisional Keep I think this is a proto-article that needs cleaning/expanding if it does not overlap other current articles on the same subject (need to look into that--if that were the case, I'd vote Delete/Merge). There is a considerable debate on the issues of Sharia Law in the American system. There are reports that judges reference it (or may reference it) in cases now. We see honor killings in quiet American neighborhoods. I think it's a valid article as long as it's not a doppelgaenger.--ColonelHenry (talk) 18:34, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A redirect to Ban on sharia law is unhelpful because that's not what someone searching on sharia in the US is looking for, while readers looking for information on observance of sharia in American Muslim communities will be at best ill-served by Islam in the United States, a poor redirect target at any rate because people looking for that will just go there first. There is at any rate no content in the current article after removing material from unreliable or unrelated sources. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:16, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Darn it, wikipedia has discovered the evil plot to have sharia take over the United States. Which it already has.[7]. In which case we should either move this to State Religion of the United States, or Ban on sharia law, take your pick.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:10, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on article change: Okay, so I'm not an expert on this topic or anything, and I'm not going to say that I gave the article justice, but I have now provided what I said I would - a small stub that shows the potential scope of the article. There are many arguments for and against, and this article has the potential of being very comprehensive. While I am not the man for the job, I am happy to do my little bit.--Coin945 (talk) 20:28, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- While this topic could be nice to have (just as "Canon Law in the United States" or "Halakha in the United States" could be interesting), this version is pretty much useless. Better to start from the ground up that start from bigotry. Of the five sources used:

1. The Christian Science monitor is usually a reliable source, but this article misquotes the CSM piece in a rather POV way. The CSM piece explains how Sharia really has no effect on the US gov't, and really only affects Muslim Americans.

2. The NYT is also usually a reliable source, but this article places undue weight on Newt Gingrich's quote without pointing out that he's objectively being a fearmongering blowhard there.

3. The third source is plagiarized in this article. It also attempts to misquote the piece to make it appear legal precedent that judges cannot consider Sharia law when handling cases between Muslims.

4. The fourth source is an anti-Islamic wordpress blog, not a reliable source by any means. That they do not cite the original news piece the blog presents clearly demonstrates that this article was created as a POV-pushing anti-Islamic piece. (And no surprise, the original author has been banned for bigotry).

5. The fifth source is a blog on a newspaper, and is misquoted to try and present Muslims as wanting to combine our secular government's rules with Sharia, rather than treat them as complimentary. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:04, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, you have made false assumptions regarding my edit. I in no way attempted to subvert this topic by misquoting, plagarizing and using non-notable sources. I merely tried to get something in the article, to replace the bad content that was in there before. If you are so opposed to my changes, then why don't you hop onto google and find some good sources to replace these ones. As I've said aboove, it's very easy to pick out the flaws in an article but very hard to actually go out there and fix it yourself. You have listed 5 things wrong wiht the article, and so far you have fixed none of them..... :/. BTW, I agree with you about the other 2 articles being interesting. - they should def be created :D.--Coin945 (talk) 21:15, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I didn't see that those uses were you trying to improve the article. Always remember that books.google.com is your friend. These appear promising:

I'll go through them in a bit for select ideas, though the search appears to have taken them to good pages. I've also still got my textbooks from my Islamic cultures class that I might be able to dig up at some point. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:56, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Ban on sharia law, which is what this article is actually about. I don't think the redirect is a problem, since I doubt there's actually enough to say to justify an independent article on 'Sharia in the United States', without discussing the proposed and actual bans of it. Robofish (talk) 00:49, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, merge, or userfy - In my mind, I can see this could become a good article: there are plenty of possible sources that could have been found already, it's been debated widely in the media, and it's a notable fringe theory as shown by the thousands of possible reliable sources. The question isn't whether Sharia will likely become a threat to secularist Democracy and the common law in the United States, but whether it is being used as a meme or bogeyman to get ignorant people to pay attention to well-financed, serious political candidates for National and statewide office. The only real issues are, "Is this article such a ugly mess of a stub that we need to remove it from mainspace?", and "Do we need to blow it up and start from scratch?" Bearian (talk) 00:56, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep timely and notable Bellstarr (talk) 21:14, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as Roscelese above, after merging any useful content to Ban on sharia law, which is (broadly) what this article is actually about. Do not redirect the title to that article. An article called "Sharia in the United States" should tell the reader about how US Muslims conduct the arrangements described at Sharia. To redirect the title to the Ban article would be POV. It can be redirected to Islam in the United States as better than anything else. Sussexonian (talk) 20:51, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) →TSU ^tp* 10:38, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Crusader Union of Australia[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet the notability guideline for organisations (contested prod) – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:08, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Fails GNG as there are no reliable sources listed. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 17:36, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GNG does not require the RS to be listed in the article; it simply requires the source to exist. -- 202.124.73.125 (talk) 13:45, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Gongshow ^Talk 19:38, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Gongshow ^Talk 19:38, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Gongshow ^Talk 19:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is nontrivial news coverage in Christianity Today Australia and in this book, as well as mainstream broadsheet newspaper coverage going back to 1933, 1950, and 1952. There seems to be a failure of WP:BEFORE here. -- 202.124.73.125 (talk) 13:37, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also this book. -- 202.124.73.125 (talk) 13:53, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources, and passes WP:GNG: [8], [9], [10], [11]. Also, per WP:NRVE, topic notability is about the availability of significant coverage in reliable sources, and not based upon whether or not sources are present in articles. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:30, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per reliable sources mentioned above providing significant coverage. St Anselm (talk) 03:57, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage in reliable sources. Also Castlemate is Push Polling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.91.165 (talk) 09:55, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Those books and newspapers are not reliable sources? -- 202.124.73.246 (talk) 13:17, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- This is not one Christian youth group, but a whole network of them. I am not clear about the relationship to a similarly named UK-based organisation, which is cewrtainly notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:09, 1 July 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 List of SpongeBob SquarePants characters. Consensus is that the article does not meet the notability guidelines, but a redirect to List of SpongeBob SquarePants characters is appropriate. Davewild (talk) 18:25, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Old Man Jenkins (Spongebob Squarepants)[edit]

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

Minor SpongeBob SquarePants character with no apparent discussion in books (note that the hits either are book adaptions of the show or copy content from fan wikis) or news (see [12], they're just episode recaps that happen to mention Jenkins). The character is already listed at List of SpongeBob SquarePants characters, and anything else here is simply an invitation for fancruft, in my opinion. (Coincidentally, the entire article was copied from Wikia, a much better home for such information. It can't be speedied, though, because Wikia has CC-BY-SA licensing, and attribution is provided via a hyperlink.) Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 17:08, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 19:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 19:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Spongebob squarepants Seasider91 (talk) 21:45, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no redirect Character is just used for plain reaction shots and has no durable notability outside the usual Nickcrufters. Terrible writing about a character that can be summed up with the "get off my lawn" stereotype. Nate • (chatter) 03:04, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Not independently notable. Mrschimpf's argument against redirect seems to be "I don't like this character", which is not a valid argument, and redirects are cheap. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:29, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The entire article is a long textdump nobody can read through, and there was no assertion of WP:IDLI at all. Who beyond the editors who care about SBSP gag characters are actually going to make the effort to type the above title in for a search? That's why my rationale is what it is, not any not liking this character. Nate • (chatter) 10:47, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Said redirect would be to List of SpongeBob SquarePants characters, I take it? Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 14:04, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of SpongeBob SquarePants characters. I don't see how Old Man Jenkins is particularly notable. Sure he can be funny sometimes (like the time he was eaten by Mystery the Seahorse or when he was denied entry on a roller coaster), but his real-world notability is not established. Probably better off in a SpongeBob wiki than on Wikipedia. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:41, 28 June 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 G10 deleting this for two reasons: 1) While WP:AGF applies for a good long ways, this addition is beyond the pale. This article instantiation is essentially poisoned by the racist propaganda underlying its creation, and I've blocked its author accordingly. 2) Having said that, there are some arguments below that an article on the topic could be researched, and if we continue this debate to its logical conclusion that would be foreclosed by the resounding delete outcome. If editors believe that a compliant, fully-sourced, neutral list could be made, I will be happy to email the text to anyone who wants to start over, and we can have a debate that isn't doomed by the overt anti-semitism that makes deletion of the topic a foregone conclusion. Jclemens (talk) 02:32, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Religious affiliations of the Chairmen of the Federal Reserve of the United States[edit]

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

Non-notable list; religious affiliation is not particularly relevant to the to the position of chairman of the Fed. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:50, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article nominated for deletion is no different from these articles. If this article is deleted then these articles (given below) should be deleted as well:

Religious affiliations of Vice Presidents of the United States

Religious affiliations of Presidents of the United States

Religious affiliation in the United States Senate

Prachursharma (talk) 16:56, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's different in one respect: those positions are all elected positions, so the religion of the candidate could (and frequently does) become significant in their election. The Fed chairman is appointed by the President, not elected, so his religion isn't really relevant. That said, I wouldn't oppose the deletion of any of those lists as well (particularly the Vice President's list). Also, see WP:OTHERSTUFF. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:03, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Being elected is hardly different from being appointed. If you are elected, it means that you were appointed by the majority. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prachursharma (talk • contribs) 17:06, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Are there reliable sources about the religious affiliations of the Fed Chair? None are cited in the article. That could be the relevant difference between this article and the others you mention. LadyofShalott 17:10, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The religious affiliation of each of the Fed Chairmen is clearly mentioned in each of their respective Wikipedia articles.

Read these articles for yourself: Charles S. Hamlin,William P. G. Harding,Daniel R. Crissinger,Roy A. Young,Eugene Meyer,Eugene R. Black,Marriner S. Eccles,Thomas B. McCabe,William McChesney Martin, Jr.,Arthur F. Burns,G. William Miller,Paul A. Volcker,Alan Greenspan,Ben S. Bernanke

(It is interesting to note that for some of them, their religious affiliation has been edited out of their articles in recent edits.)

And in any case, it is better to find and add the missing sources to the article than to delete it.

Prachursharma (talk) 17:21, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The question is not whether each individual's religious affiliation has been documented, but whether there are reliable sources (not zionistjewfedreserve) regarding the topic as a whole. LadyofShalott 17:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lists are treated differently — we don't demand a comprehensive list of Albanians in order to keep List of Albanians from deletion, for example. We need reliable sources proving that entries on a list fit the scope of the list, and we need to be sure that the list isn't trivial intersection (which really can't be determined without discussion), but other than that the only valid reasons to delete a list are non-topical issues such as copyvio or attack page. Prachursharma, I looked at the article histories for all of the men on the list, and I couldn't find any in which religion was removed, except an unsourced portion of Hamlin's article. About which of the others were you thinking? Nyttend (talk) 18:23, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This is borderline speedy for me (G10). Did anyone notice that the only source is "zionistjewfedreserve.com"? --BDD (talk) 17:37, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, that was added after I tagged it as unreferenced and this AfD was started. LadyofShalott 17:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 17:44, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 17:48, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 17:51, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obviously (to those of us not taking a too strict interpretation of WP:Assume good faith) the purpose of the list is to point out that most of the Chairmen have been Jewish. Of course not every Jewish person is religious. Overall the article is WP:Original research since secondary sources have not said that the religion or ethnicity of the person holding this job is something of importance, in contrast to the case of the President of the United States. The article on the Vice Presidents should go too. Borock (talk) 18:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And what about this article? Prachursharma (talk) 18:07, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since you asked, delete Religious affiliation in the United States Senate too. It is just raw data about the current Senate, in violation of a couple of WP policies. Borock (talk) 19:11, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not Original Research. The article about Ben Bernanke already mentions that he is Jewish and the same is true for other Fed Chairmen's articles. Therefore this article does not introduce any new information. Prachursharma (talk) 18:27, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:OR: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." Borock (talk) 19:13, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete This page was created for the sole purpose of serving as anti-Semitic propaganda. This is clearly demonstrated by the links included by the original creator, as found here. But, regardless, this topic doesn't appear to meet notability guidelines. I have not seen this topic discussed outside of in the context of hate pamphlets, neoNazi websites, etc. But, if you have a reliable source discussing this in a context not dealing with conspiracy theories how the evil Jews run the world banks, etc, I would be happy to change my vote. JoelWhy? talk 18:05, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean to say that this article is merely anti-Protestant/anti-Presbyterian/anti-Episcopalian propaganda? Prachursharma (talk) 18:16, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - subject is not itself of demonstrable notability, so the article fails notability. I also agree with editors above that there seems to be not only, perhaps, some driving purpose, but also, as per Borock, that there are serious potential OR problems in saying ethnic Jews are necessarily religious Jews. I am not so sure I agree with him on the article on Vice Presidents, however. John Carter (talk) 18:08, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - list of a non-notable subject; seems to be trying to advance a POV. A request for sources has only resulted in very inappropriate links. LadyofShalott 18:11, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, simply listing the religious affiliations of these men does not make it an attack page, and we could easily rework it by changing the non-Jews to "Christian" or something like that. Listing a specific group of prominent people by a central defining topic such as religion is more substantive than pages such as List of Presidents of the United States with facial hair, which survived AFD — it would be absurd to delete this list as a trivial intersection when consensus has supported the existence of another list with substantially less defining of an intersection. Nyttend (talk) 18:12, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Nyttend. There are far more ridiculous articles on Wikipedia than this one.

For example:

Heights of Presidents of the United States and presidential candidates Handedness of Presidents of the United States

Prachursharma (talk) 18:38, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno, that sounds more like an argument to make Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United states presidents with facial hair during their tenure (2nd nomination) a bluelink to me. The key is that, however ridiculous presidential facial hair may seem, there are reliable sources that discuss presidents in terms of facial hair; I know of no reliable sources that discuss Fed chairmen in terms of their religion. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:16, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're free to, but until/unless consensus changes, that article stays and is a good basis for keeping other articles. Some months ago there was a discussion about mandating that lists themselves have sources of the sort you demand, and that concept was solidly rejected. Nyttend (talk) 18:24, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Was it? I didn't know. Could you link me to the discussion? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:26, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The substantive issue here is obviously notability; all else aside, we have zero references indicating this is a notable topic. But, the underlying issue is a bit more troubling. Saying that this page is the same as the religions of our VPs is naive. I really mean no offense -- I am simply pointing out that it is ignoring the very real fact that, in the context of the Federal Reserve, the only time religion becomes a factor is in anti-Semitic propaganda. This is not some innocuous list that serves at least some small purpose (e.g. How does religious affiliation impact voting patterns, etc.) This page has absolutely no purpose other than to try to link Jews to the control of money. You can't view this page in the bubble of 'well, it's not overtly attacking Jews, and therefore, the page is ok.' It's an attack page, pure and simple. But, even if you disagree with me on this point, it doesn't matter -- unless there are sources demonstrating notability, there's really nothing to discuss here. JoelWhy?(talk) 18:32, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why aren't these articles attack pages?

Religious affiliations of Vice Presidents of the United States

Religious affiliations of Presidents of the United States

Heights of Presidents of the United States and presidential candidates (Isn't this article an attack page for short Presidents?)

Religious affiliation in the United States Senate

Prachursharma (talk) 18:41, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, see WP:OTHERSTUFF. (Plus, I suspect those pages didn't include links to propaganda that would have made Hitler giggle with glee.) In any case, provide reliable sources, or there's nothing to discuss. JoelWhy?(talk) 18:43, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because there are no genocidal hate groups out there making a big stink for decades over purported Jewish control of the Vice-Presidency, Presidency, or the U.S. Senate; and because the above articles have never cited bigoted hate websites like zionistjewfedreserve.com! --Orange Mike | Talk 18:51, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article about Ben Bernanke already mentions that he is Jewish and the same is true for other Fed Chairmen's articles. Therefore this article does not introduce any new information. Prachursharma (talk) 18:27, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant keep if reliable sources added. There's something about deleting a Wikipedia article because of the use people think it might be put to that bothers me. The list appears to be accurate, so far as I know. I find all these articles very trivial. But if it's good enough for vice presidents, it is good enough for Fed Chairs.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:46, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

reply to sensible point - because it's clearly here as a WP:COATRACK for antisemitic haters; and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an valid argument for retention. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:51, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why aren't these articles a WP:COATRACK for antisemitic haters? Perhaps these articles should be deleted as well?

List of Jewish Nobel laureates

List of Jewish American businesspeople

List of Jewish economists — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prachursharma (talk • contribs) 20:45, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Jewish American sportspeople

List of Jewish Medal of Honor recipients

Prachursharma (talk) 19:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per LadyofShalott and JoelWhy. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:51, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per JoelWhy: no reliable sources have been cited, and I can find none, that treat this issue as notable. And I further doubt whether there is reliable sourcing for some of the people on the list; for example, I have been unable to find any reliable source to substantiating the assertion, repeated often in anti-Semitic literature (but as far as I can find, not elsewhere), that Charles Hamlin was Jewish. --19:11, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Delete due to lack of reliable sources covering the notability of the intersection of persons who are chairmen of the Fed and religion. All the sources that were being used by this article were correctly deleted as failing WP:RS, leaving the article entirely unsourced. I spent a few minutes doing good-faith searches on scholar.google.com, news.google.com and JSTOR and came up with nothing. Making no comment here about other articles except to say that if I saw, for example, Religious affiliations of Vice Presidents of the United States AFD'd I'd apply the same criteria and do the same research. Making no comment about the article creator's motivations as it's not necessary to do so; a simple application of Wikipedia notability policy results in Delete. Zad68 19:26, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- (e/c) I'd like to address one of the many other articles Prachursharma has brought forward as justification for keeping this article: Heights of Presidents of the United States and presidential candidates. The enormous difference between that article and this article is that the subject of "Heights of Presidents of the United States and presidential candidates" has been the subject of serious (and sometimes lighthearted) coverage in reliable sources--take a look at the references list for the article, including Is Presidential Greatness Related to Height?, Is presidential race a simple matter of standing tall?, Presidential Timber Tends To Be Tall and Time-tested formulas suggest both Bush and Kerry will win on Nov. 2. That article even has a see-also link to a general article about Heightism in politics. Even if the religious affiliation of each Fed Chairman in this article were meticulously documented, that still does not justify keeping it, as the the intersection of being a Fed Chariman and a member of a religion is a trivial intersection, unless it can be shown that the subject of the intersection itself has been covered by reliable sources. Zad68 19:55, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And what about this article? Prachursharma (talk) 20:09, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Look at that article's list of references. The article provides several reliable sources that cover the subject of handedness of presidents. Where are the reliable sources that cover the religious affiliations of Fed chairmen? Zad68 20:16, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Based on Prachursharma's comments, I'm concerned now that Prachursharma may have created this article to make a point, as a lot of the arguments brought forward are textbook WP:OTHERSTUFF. Zad68 19:55, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Nyttend . Edison (talk) 19:44, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment if you look at the AFD Nyttend referenced, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_United_states_presidents_with_facial_hair_during_their_tenure, the closing admin wrote that the reason for the keep was because an editor "provided multiple sources that demonstrate the notability of the topic": "The topic is covered in numerous sources including Media literacy: thinking critically about visual culture, Project President: Bad Hair and Botox on the Road to the White House, Encyclopedia of hair: a cultural history, Predicting Elections from Biographical Information About Candidates, The American Presidency, etc." Such sources have not yet been brought for this article and I wasn't able to find them. Maybe someone with better research skills can bring them? But if not, the article should be deleted. Zad68 20:05, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if and only if it can be referenced. I see nothing wrong with listing information such as this. If anti-semites want to use it for their own ends, so be it. We don't censor information just because it could be used for purposes of which we may disapprove. In fact, if properly referenced, it could be used for the opposite purpose. Like other editors here, I was somewhat surprised to find that the archetypal "Boston Brahmin" Charles S. Hamlin was Jewish. A little digging, produced this, a speech he gave about his childhood, which includes reminiscences of local chuches and pastors. Not a rabbi to be seen. Instead we learn of "dear old Dr. Putnam — and what Roxbury man can ever forget the powerful influence for good that he wielded?' There was also St. James,’ where I went to church, under the rector, the Reverend Percy Browne, now, alas, gathered to his Fathers...." And then he goes on to describe his memories of the church etc etc. Paul B (talk) 19:55, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Unless sources can be found specifically discussing the topic and not from an antisemitic point of view then I'd consider this exactly what it was created for. The author created it using anti-Jewish sources as a hate page and it should've been deleted as a hate page. Allow recreation if sources are found that arn't anti-Jew centered.--v/r - T P 20:10, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete -- it will be virtually impossible to have sources for this article that meet the conditions of WP:BLPCAT (please note those conditions carefully). As things stand, without sources we've got some pretty significant BLP violations here (hence the speedy). Apart from that, the topic is simply not notable -- we would need sources that show us not only the religious affiliations but why they are a significant/encyclopedic matter. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:12, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per LadyofShallott. And some of those other lists should be deleted, too. At least the presidents one has some commentary and analysis so it isn't just another list. I do think it's lovely that we can now argue about Jewish lists in addition to Jewish categories. BTW, I should note that based on the tally in the article the Jews win, although I'm not sure which way that cuts on the antisemitism arguments. We should create a list along the lines of offices that have had more Jews than other religions. Of course, putting aside my obvious sarcasm, that would get into the "what does being Jewish mean" issue.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:21, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- On a side note, your sarcasm might be a legitimate idea. "List of offices traditionally held by a specific religion" could be a list of all major world-relevant offices that have been predominately held by a specific religion. For example, the President of the United States has for a long time been protestant (I think). I think your on to a good idea.--v/r - T P 20:38, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Afraid to sign your note, TP? Two comments. One, I have a big mouth. Two, we should have a guideline/policy called WP:NOTASTATISTICIAN.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:33, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't even have to be a list. It could be an article discussing why some offices have fallen along religious lines.--v/r - T P 20:40, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That...actually sounds really interesting. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:41, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it could be reliably sourced and its notability established, I would be interested in such a list as well. Certain offices, of course, are both political and religious, like the Dalai Lama, for instance, but for other offices if there is a clear indicator of preference for adherents of specific groups, and possibly comments in RS as to why they are such, that could be interesting and useful. Not sure if it's really relevant to this discussion, though. John Carter (talk) 20:47, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, a magnet for WP:OR and controversy - fodder for administrative intervention, including edit-warring, vandalism, and topic bans (religiously construed). Relevance is hardly a requirement for AfDs, John.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:49, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"a magnet for WP:OR and controversy - fodder for administrative intervention, including edit-warring, vandalism, and topic bans (religiously construed)" - Isn't that the definition of "Wikipedia"?--v/r - T P 20:52, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

<like> Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:54, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Yeah, I started making up titles for the article in my head, and the degree of OR implied by my suggestions nearly made me gag. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:54, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) You have to live in the real world, TP, not just the world of problems. There are quite a few Wikipedia articles that are uncontroversial. I'm sure someone could do a study on it.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:57, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a hate page. If kept, remove the religious information which is currently unsourced. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:44, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on my reasons for declining a G10 speedy on this. If we are to take a purely factual list (assuming it to be accurate and sourced) as intended to "disparage, threaten, intimidate or harass... and serve no other purpose" we can only do that by making assumptions about the article author's motives. That is not a good basis for deletion decisions - we should consider the content, not the contributor. I have no doubt that Religious affiliations of Presidents of the United States shows a majority of protestant Christians - does that make it an anti-protestant hate page? JohnCD (talk) 22:23, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete on WP:SNOWBALL. And as far as G10 speedy, you would have to completely ignore hundreds of years of (deadly) persecution based on the stereotypes perpetuated by these types of claims to say that it was not intended to "disparage, threaten, intimidate or harass... and serve no other purpose". Although letting it go to its conclusion so that it can just be G4 speedied in the future has its merits as well.-- The Red Pen of Doom 00:52, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - President and Vice-President I can see, as these are the leaders of the country and much of what those who have held the office do is noteworthy, albeit sometimes silly (the handedness and facial hair articles. The Fed Chief is just an appointed position, not even considered a government employee, no significant or special notability regarding their religious views. Tarc (talk) 01:07, 26 June 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. Deletion was done by User:Jimfbleak under Wikipedia:A7. (WP:NAC) Mark Arsten (talk) 19:04, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tande'm[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG, but might possibly meet WP: BAND Electriccatfish2 (talk) 16:20, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:A7. Don't see how it remotely meets either WP:GNG or WP:BAND.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:48, 25 June 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. Davewild (talk) 18:22, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mark A Wallace[edit]

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

Non-notable hospital administrator. Has received equally non-notable "awards". Role as an "overseer" for a business school is not notable. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:11, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It appears that it's important for these updates to be live ASAP. That implies Wikipedia is being used to promote this WP:NN individual. Toddst1 (talk) 16:17, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Should be deleted as the subject is a non-notable hospital executive. It seems promotional rather than like an encyclopedia article. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 16:38, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The hospital of which he's CEO may well be notable but I don't see inheritability here. The awards, and the many, many others listed in his bio page linked within, seem to me to be the usual pile of engraved glass on the walls of anyone in such a post -- not about merit but linked to fundraising. A juried award at a national level might have produced a different result, but I didn't find one such. Ubelowme (talk) 18:03, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 19:34, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 19:34, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 19:34, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The awards indicate some kind of notability, although I recognize that the article was created by someone with a conflict of interest and in its original form was a copyvio from the hospital's official biography of Wallace. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:35, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not seeing any evidence that the awards received are in any way notable, thus a recipient of them would not be notable by virtue of having received them. The Talk page edit linked above strongly suggests that this page is being used to prop up a resume or something of that sort, which makes this a particularly troubling bio. Heather (talk) 14:08, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent sourcing found at Google News. Article references are press releases and other self-referential material. Written by an SPA. --MelanieN (talk) 14:23, 26 June 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. SNOW. DICDEFFY article with unreliable sources on tendentious topic by now-indeffed sock of indeffed master. Drmies (talk) 02:08, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Katva[edit]

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

Dicdef, uses unreliable sources to attempt to establish notability. Specs112 t c 15:18, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Quora is the main source for this article. Quora is a reliable enough source and has been used on other articles in Wikipedia. Prachursharma (talk) 15:22, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I know almost nothing about Quora, but it seems too social-network-ish to be a reliable source. Show me another article that cites it as its main source, and is actually a good article. Besides, you haven't responded to the fact that it's a WP:DICDEF. That alone could be grounds for deletion. Specs112 t c 15:29, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- So you'd have us believe that a posting (a) by an unidentifiable person ("Anon User") whose reputation for fact checking and accuracy cannot be determined, (b) that points to this article yet was supposedly written 11 days before it, and (c) also points to Urban Dictionary as its proof, is a reliable source? If there are other articles in Wikipedia this badly sourced, as you claim, please point to them so that they can be cleaned up or deleted forthwith. Uncle G (talk) 16:07, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 17:17, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 17:20, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 17:23, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Dictionary definition that is clearly sourced to unreliable materials. "Anon User" does not a reliable source make. And Urban Dictionary? Are you serious? LadyofShalott 17:29, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Even if the sources were great, it would still be a DICDEF. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 21:48, 25 June 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:20, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abu Ubaydh Al Tunisi[edit]

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

A terrorist mentioned only for his death in a drone attack in Pakistan. Fails WP:BLP1E, WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 15:04, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No coverage on the subject other than naming in a list of 30 militants killed by Drones. clearly fails WP:BLP1E and WP:GNG for an individual article. --DBigXray 15:18, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New sources added only give trivial mention of death, example of WP:BOMBARD --DBigXray 22:29, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 19:20, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 19:20, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 19:24, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 19:24, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG. A one event occurence doesn't confer notability. --Artene50 (talk) 05:09, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Al Tunisi was not a one event individual. RS document he is a veteran foreign volunteer who fought against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. That is a significant event. Almost all senior members of al Qaeda, including bin Laden, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and Zarqawi, were also fought against Afghanistan`s Soviet invaders. Being a volunteer doesn`t make one notable, in and of itself. But his ongoing role as a senior jihadist for over two decades, does. Geo Swan (talk) 12:51, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Creator Geo Swan, there were 250,000 fighters against Soviets in Soviet war in Afghanistan and thousands of them were foreign mercenaries. The claim above does not prove notability by any stretch of imagination. If the person was as notable as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, or Zarqawi then the subject will itself get necessary WP:SIGCOV atleast in local media for his works, all he gets is a mention that he was killed. The comparison is clearly flawed.--DBigXray 13:09, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing has been done by this person to get notability. If fought a war which 250,000 people fought and being killed by a attack doesn't make him notable. →TSU ^tp* 14:49, 30 June 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. Davewild (talk) 18:21, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rosa Linux[edit]

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

No indication of WP:notability. Just another linux distro - based on Mandriva, only references given are to Mandriva and not Rosa Linux. Disputed prod. noq (talk) 15:04, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very little content as WP: NOTINHERETED states that it doesn't have inhereted notability. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 17:37, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 19:15, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 19:15, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - When I saw this at CAT:PROD I so wish it qualified for CSD given there's nothing more than an infobox. If those sections were filled out, maybe it will be different, but as it stands, there's absolutely no assertion of notability. KTC (talk) 21:04, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This page is mostly an empty shell that the author appears to have abandoned, as it has not been edited in three days. Rotorcowboy ^talk
_contribs 08:35, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is more info in the infobox then the article. This doesn't seem to appear notable and nor does contain anything. →TSU ^tp* 10:56, 2 July 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 prejudice against the creation of a redirect — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:13, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Abdel-Rahman al-Rashed[edit]

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

a militant covered only for a single event his death. An existing List Saudi most wanted list#List of February 3, 2009 is more suitable. Fails WP:BIO , WP:SIGCOV for an individual article. DBigXray 07:20, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a run of the mill terrorist, a real-life redshirt. Bearian (talk) 22:20, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"bigotry in its many forms" Anarchangel (talk) 09:10, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 19 June 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, Specs112 t c 14:26, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Since he was one of Saudi Arabia's most wanted terrorists in 2009, I would think that this would give him more notability than usual and this stub of an article could suffice. I mean, he's not just an ordinary Islamic terrorist killed in a Yemen government operation. --Artene50 (talk) 05:16, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep - user Artene50 are right. being one of Saudi Arabia's most wanted terrorists in 2009 is making him notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 09:37, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It was an annual list of 100 wanted criminals, which every country publishes regularly. The person only finds mention in articles for his death, WP:NOTNEWSPAPER also applies here, clearly fails WP:SIGCOV --DBigXray 12:18, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I believe that notability is based on the coverage by secondary sources, which this topic misses. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 12:22, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. He has done nothing notable other then death by security officials. Barely gets away with A7 and there is no notability in the article. →TSU ^tp* 14:31, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Made the news only for dying; no WP:RS covering anything in his life other than "was a terrorist". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:34, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If there is no coverage about him except the fact of his death, then there's too little substantive content for us to write a biography with. Sandstein 05:50, 3 July 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 Move to Talk:Flook (application)/parallel version. This can neither be history-merged, as it is a parallel version, nor deleted, as it is needed to preserve attribution for Flook (application). Per WP:MAD and WP:IAR, I'm closing this discussion and moving the page to the talk namespace. This debate shouldn't really have been at AFD in the first place, so there's no need to drag this out longer than necessary. We can delete the redirect resulting from the page move in a couple of days under CSD R2. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 15:07, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Flook (application)/old history[edit]

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

I believe Flook (application)/old history is unnecessary, and should not be used to retain history, but that it should be merged properly or otherwise taken care of using a better method. At this point, the practice of creating pages such as the one I am nominating for deletion is not customary and should generally be avoided. 69.155.128.40 (talk) 21:48, 15 June 2012 (UTC), last modified 22:00, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AFD moved and wikilinks fixed by Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 02:27, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This should either go to WP:Rfd or maybe be speedily deleted as a G6(?). Clarityfiend (talk) 04:28, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
History merge to Flook (application). Archives of old history should not be kept in separate pages. JIP | Talk 06:12, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not old history. It's a parallel history. There were two parallel duplicate articles, one at Flook (Application) and one at Flook (application), and one has been redirected to the other after a content merger. Then someone else realized that the merger had been done in the wrong direction and attempted to swap the names to get the capitalization of the disambiguator right, but didn't quite manage it, leaving this redirect here instead of at Flook (Application). Uncle G (talk) 14:36, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - In that case, a history merge is out of the question. Doing a history merge would make the changes to the article switch between two different versions of the article. The options I propose are either to keep this article as a redirect to Flook (application), or delete it. JIP | Talk 19:28, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete Since it's useless. —Hahc 21 00:31, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If material from it was used in a merge to Flook (application), then we can't delete it, as we need the page history to preserve attribution for that article. However, it is a bit strange keeping it hanging around in article space. Per Wikipedia:Merge and delete, how about moving it to Talk:Flook (application)/parallel version or something similar? — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 07:03, 24 June 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, Specs112 t c 14:16, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apology for relisting this, I'm kind of new to AFD processes, and didn't know the guidelines for relisting. Also, delete. Specs112 t c 14:30, 25 June 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. Davewild (talk) 18:20, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Big Four (IT Services)[edit]

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

There is no discernable reason why this list only covers the top four, and no source for why four instead of five or three, for example. ArglebargleIV (talk) 14:04, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Unheard IT jargon. Probably a notion of user. — Bill william compton^Talk 15:03, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's been a bit of press-release coverage of Tata Consultancy Services making the "Big Four"[13][14] but, as Googling will show, this isn't a commonly used term in the way Big Four (audit firms) is. This page seems to be intended as advertising, especially as it links to TCS but none of the other three. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:11, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 19:11, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 19:11, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 19:11, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Little advert is seen and there is lack of content (notable ones) as well as WP:RS. →TSU ^tp* 10:58, 2 July 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 Community of Wikipedia. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:16, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimeet[edit]

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

Page Wikimeet was prodded as not notable, but some people will want to know what a wikimeet is and where to find more information about wikimeets. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:38, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Definitions and information can be found at WP:Meetup, to which WP:Wikimeet redirects. There's no reason to have a mainspace article on the phenomenon if it doesn't meet the notability guidelines. I'd also support a redirect to Community of Wikipedia#Socializing, which links to Meetup as well. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:17, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Community of Wikipedia which has various types of meeting and so can explain the topic with good context. Warden (talk) 13:25, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect / Merge with one of the links referred to in the article. This sounds like it's just in the wrong namespace. --Ritchie333 (talk) 13:47, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. We already have a redirect at WP:Wikimeet. bobrayner (talk) 15:13, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect to Community of Wikipedia#Socializing or Wikipedia:Meetup --Ne0 (talk) 21:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 19:03, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 19:03, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some people may not know to look at a [[WP:...]] address. Why can't we have a redirect to it from plain Wikimeet? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:45, 25 June 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 as per unanimous positive consensus and no calls for deletion outside of the nominator. A non-admin closure. And Adoil Descended (talk) 01:34, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mosmetrostroy[edit]

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

Originally tagged this for speedy, which was declined. The article is advertising-ish and unreferenced, and may not meet the WP:GNG. Specs112 t c 12:30, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 18:48, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 18:48, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: G=23k, GN=50, meets WP:N.-- Dewritech (talk) 15:30, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:GHITS. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:54, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Has refs and looks to be notable. INeverCry 16:57, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Refs =/= WP:GNG passage. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:54, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I've added sources. Take a look at the article now. It's a very big company and its activities have been well covered by the media. --Moscowconnection (talk) 10:51, 1 July 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 (expired BLP-PROD). (non-admin closure) Electric Catfish 14:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Helmut Carriage[edit]

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

I don't know if this person meets WP: A7, or WP: GNG at all. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 12:19, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just tagged it for A7. The subject does not appear to meet any notability criteria whatsoever, wholly lacks refs, and even seems a bit like a hoax. --IShadowed 12:31, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- An admin removed your A7 tags. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 14:03, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't know, why did you nominate it for deletion? You've basically expressed no rationale for deletion, there. Nominate things at AFD after doing the research to determine whether something satisfies the notability criteria, so that you do know. Uncle G (talk) 16:48, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 18:37, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 18:37, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 18:37, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 18:37, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Uncle G: why was this taken to AfD a full 2 minutes after creation?? By a new editor on top of that (ever heard of WP:BITE?) At the most, this could have been tagged with WP:BLPPROD given the lack of references. And who knows, perhaps that this new editor would have come up with some reliable sources establishing notability. Creating AfDs like this is wasting everybody's time. At this point, I'm not going to !vote, because it is not possible that in those 2 minutes you searched for sources yourself, as requested in WP:BEFORE. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 19:46, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am sympathetic to the article's creator, and agree wholeheartedly that newbies should not be bitten. Googling "Nathan Helmut Carriage" returns precisely two entries, both to Wikipedia pages. "Nathan Carriage" is more productive of results but none seem relevant. A search for his aboriginal name revealed many references to emus but none to Mr. Carriage that I could find. I am not sure what is the best standard against which to measure this article -- WP:MUSIC, WP:PROF, etc. -- but I can find nothing to indicate that he meets WP:GNG. Given the nature of the subject matter, I'm willing to believe that there are print sources not available on the internet and I encourage any interested party, including the article's creator, to provide them. (I don't live in Australia but I'd be looking for local newspaper coverage.) Ubelowme (talk) 21:43, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No, I did not bite him. I was trying to avoid biting him because while I could've CSD tagged it, I decided that it might be conteversial, so I decided to get a 2nd opinion here. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 22:07, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, why does it take more than 2 minutes to Google the subject? Electriccatfish2 (talk) 22:08, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And yes, I am very farmiliar with the deletion policies here, but I decided that this was borderline, so I took it here to get other editor's opinions. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 22:10, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Uncle G and Guillaume2303, taking this article to AfD 2 minutes after creation sounds a little improper. Cavarrone (talk) 06:44, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find any independent information on this person, plus the phrase "harsh terrain of Canberra" gives off a hoaxy vibe. ... discospinster _talk 13:59, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Close -- let BLPPROD run its course and then renominate after research about notability has been carried out. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 17:59, 26 June 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. Davewild (talk) 18:19, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Brooks (hypnotherapist)[edit]

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

Issues: WP:NOTSOAPBOX, WP:V

The article is explicitly autobiographical and promotional in character, and the overall tone of the article remains unchanged, in serving to promote an individual, their activities, and their publications or websites.

Verifiable, reliable, and independent sources are lacking. Meph^talk 12:14, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Shameless self-promotion, poor sourcing, peacockery of the first degree, a whiff of fringe. Famous _dog (c) 12:18, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I shall attend to it forthwith, please delay the execution for a few days...

User talk:Cruithneach77 —Preceding undated comment added 12:20, 25 June 2012 (UTC) — Cruithneach77 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 18:28, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 18:28, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 18:28, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Everything Famousdog said, and then some. Get it out of here. --MelanieN (talk) 18:36, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Don't worry, Cruithneach; a deletion discussion normally lasts a week, so you have until July 2 to find the independent reliable sources the article needs. --MelanieN (talk) 18:45, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All the supplied sources that I can access provide very weak support. The one possible strong source is this Language Pattern Bible book, but that appears to me a non-notable book by a non-notable author. Google searches I've done on Brooks don't bring up anything substantial. Generally the article feels nothing more than a promotional vehicle.—A bit iffy (talk) 19:07, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N Is the article creator 'Stephen Brooks' or someone connected to this person? The article reads like total self-promotion as if the creator is WP:SPAMing a particular hypnotherapist with the help of wikipedia. --Artene50 (talk) 05:34, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Promotional and many facts are not sourced. Fails WP:GNG. →TSU ^tp* 10:59, 2 July 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 and redirect to City Montessori School. (non-admin closure) KTC (talk) 08:53, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jagdish Gandhi[edit]

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

I am proposing either to delete this or to merge this page with the page of City Montessori School. Because both the pages contain biography type of article of Mr. Jagdish Gandhi. No doubt, the school seems to be a notable one but the person in question may not be notable as per wiki standards. I leave this responsibility to my experienced colleagues on wiki. Bharathiya 08:44, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with merge/redir to City Montessori School -- no other information about the educator is presented. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 20:21, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete and/or merge. I found this news article about his receiving an honorary doctorate, but I don't think it's enough by itself. All the other news stories I found that mention him do so only to give brief quotes by him or mention him as the founder of the school rather than providing independent biographical detail. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:44, 21 June 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, →TSU ^tp* 11:01, 25 June 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ramanathapuram, Coimbatore[edit]

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

DELETE - Not notable. No need for separate article. Either it should be deleted or it should be merged with Coimbatore page. This page does not serve any purpose. -- Bharathiya 02:26, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment large neighborhoods are generally kept, but smaller areas in my opinion should be deleted. Do we have any idea of the population? Bearian (talk) 18:10, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree. But this is neither a large neighborhood nor an highly important area. It is just an another urban area within the city of Coimbatore. Not notable for wiki in any manner. Even there is not even a single reliable reference, anywhere.--Bharathiya (talk) 18:51, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I found only 12 news Ghits but many Book Ghits. I am still not sure what to make of this one. Bearian (talk) 21:26, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This page can be deleted as this page does not seem to be containing any important information. --Bharathiya (talk) 08:11, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Can anyone let me know which policy obstructs from creating a location based stub article?? -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 18:11, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I thought Wikipedia talks about notability and not importance.Here are a few links from The Hindu. 1 2 3 4 (Not too certain about the last one). I don't mind cleaning up the article. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 08:57, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Coimbatore; as just a neighbourhood/urban area it's best covered in the city article. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:06, 25 June 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, →TSU ^tp* 11:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let me tell you [The Bushranger], every neighborhood of Mumbai has a Wikipedia article. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 17:27, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF may exist, but that doesnt' mean this, or them, should. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:55, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With HighBeam Research account, the website threw some 18 sources for me. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 17:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as evidences for notability has been mentioned by User:Rsrikanth05 -Anbu121 (talk me) 19:14, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I found one more on ToI: here. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 11:02, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone actually add the sources found, so that we could evaluate the results better? Bearian (talk) 00:48, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would if the article is kept. I see no point in adding sources to something that is going to be deleted. You can use the links provided for 'evaluation' as of now. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 10:12, 28 June 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. Davewild (talk) 18:17, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Digester (computing)[edit]

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

Article has been tagged for lack of notability since September 2011 Shentino (talk) 10:27, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. Googling confirms there's just nothing out there. Msnicki (talk) 22:37, 12 June 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, —Hue Sat Lum 16:10, 18 June 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, →TSU ^tp* 10:58, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Reference is not a reliable source, no news hits, search results seem to just link to this page and the project page. No indication of importance whatsoever. Only the fact it is about software saves me from suggesting it gets speedy deleted as per A7 --Ritchie333 (talk) 11:20, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Any editor can then create a sutiable redirect if required. Davewild (talk) 18:16, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Peeved[edit]

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

An unnotable, defunct band. I can find no reference to this band at all in any reliable third party sources. All I'm really finding are mirrors of this article. Amusingly enough, a bunch of (not very good) online dictionaries seemed to have picked up this article to copy as an alternate definition for the word peeve. Only one member of the band appears to have gone on to any sort of independent notability at all (and even that is extremely marginal at best) and it doesn't meet any of the other criteria of WP:NBAND. Rorshacma (talk) 19:21, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm finding no coverage in reliable sources for this group; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:BAND. Gongshow ^Talk 20:00, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 12 June 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, —Hue Sat Lum 16:14, 18 June 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, →TSU ^tp* 10:57, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to peevishness. Me, I'm peeved that lots of commonplace concepts such as this are covered by us primarily as the names of bands (e.g. pixies, sculptured, slayer, &c.) Warden (talk) 13:35, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of WP:RS Surprising this has been here since 2005 --Artene50 (talk) 05:19, 26 June 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. There is a consensus that this does not qualify as a standalone article. Since none of the delete !votes give any reason that this should not be a redirect, there is no reason in the discussion not to have the redirect. Rlendog (talk) 17:27, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Whole F'n Show[edit]

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

An ip turned this article into a redirect without consensus. I don't believe this is correct procedure. So I have reverted the edit to restore the article and wish to open the discussion up to other wikipedia members. If this ends up getting erased so be it but at least procedure would have been followed. By the way my vote is keep Ruth-2013 (talk) 21:36, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A one off event with relatively sparse coverage in reliable sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 00:20, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Rob Van Dam as "The Whole F'n Show" title has more notability as Van Dam's nickname. At WP:PW, it's not customary to have articles on individual non-PPV events for either of the top two companies. This event barely attracted routine coverage from the wrestling press and possibly none from the mainstream. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 13:38, 12 June 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, MacMed^talk _stalk 21:36, 18 June 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, →TSU ^tp* 10:56, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails both WP: EVENT and WP: GNG. I googled it and couldn't find any reliable sources. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 14:10, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rob Van Dam as a plausable search-term. Lugnuts (talk) 17:31, 25 June 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. Rlendog (talk) 17:21, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

England 6s and 2s curse[edit]

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

The topic of this article is purely original research, based on what appears to be some kind of "terrifying" "pattern" to the years in which the England national football team was eliminated from major soccer tournaments vis the penalty shootout method. Not even much of a pattern, since the major tournaments in question are held every two years, without fail. — sparklism ^hey! 10:36, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete what looks like original research to me. The only reference is to a tweet and the name of the tweeter is the same as that of the WP article creator. Source not at all sufficient. Thincat (talk) 12:40, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — sparklism ^hey! 13:19, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:50, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - load of rubbish -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:50, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - OR, some bloke on Twitter noticing a minor coincidence is not notable subject matter. Giant Snowman 15:03, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per GiantSnowman. Specs112 t c 15:04, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As original research. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:06, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of widespread coverage needed for WP:GNG. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:16, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename Or rework and merge with some other article about the English international football team. The theory of a "curse" is obvious rubbish, but the basic facts of the defeats on penalties are easily verifiable. Páraic Maguire 16:37, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- And those facts are for the most part in England_national_football_team#Competitive_record already. Specs112 t c 17:02, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice. As it stands, the article is nonsense, but there's no reason the topic can't get mentioned at Sports-related curses or even its own articles if WP:RS pick up the concept. --BDD (talk) 17:30, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - C'mon... – Pee Jay 17:46, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:OR? Not even sourced. →TSU ^tp* 10:52, 2 July 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:19, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comparative Dravidian Linguistics[edit]

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

This page should be deleted as it is written like a foreign language dictionary, which Wikipedia shouldn't be. Max Viwe | Viwe The Max 10:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This page should not be deleted for the following reasons:

It speaks to the gap in the literature on Wikipedia pertaining to Comparative Dravidian Linguistics which has hitherto remained unaddressed.
The inclusion of the comparative phonetic table of Dravidian words serves to illuminate the methodology of Comparative Dravidian Linguistics.
The inclusion of Tamil script in the table is in accordance with current academic research in Comparative Dravidian Linguistics which employs Tamil script as the standard script in which phonetic, and morphological research is carried out.
It is, therefore, not 'written like a foreign language dictionary' which Wikipedia certainly should not be.
It is written like any other encyclopedic entry, and designed to be edited, amended, and refined which is precisely what Wikipedia should be. -- புகழ் 11:04, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I disagree with the proposer's reason for deletion: this is an article about comparative linguistics, and it presents some information in the form of a table comparing languages, which is proper.

However, it does duplicate material that is either already covered or could be included in the articles Dravidian languages and Robert Caldwell, and we should consider whether this article content should be merged or deleted as unnecessary duplication. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:23, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with proposer, and this also appears to be a list WP:NOT. --Nouniquenames (talk) 17:30, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Where does WP:NOT prohibit lists per se? That will certainly come as news to the editors of all of Wikipedia's featured lists. Angr (talk) 18:21, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 18:11, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 18:11, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nothing useful in this article that isn't already at Dravidian languages. Angr (talk) 18:21, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (if there's anything not redundant) into Dravidian languages. It appears to have been written in ignorance that the latter exists. (There's no separate article on Comparative Indo-European Linguistics.) — As for the standard academic usage of Tamil script, can we at least also have the standard romanisation? —Tamfang (talk) 18:29, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I considered the option of merging, but (1) the article is basically completely unsourced except for the uncontroversial claim that Tamil, Malayalam, Telugu, and Kannada are genetically related languages, and (2) the article really has nothing useful that isn't already at Dravidian languages. The table of related forms should be deleted no matter what, because even with a romanization tables like that don't prove anything. They're actually worse than useless, because they can mislead readers into thinking they convey meaningful information, when they don't. Angr (talk) 18:51, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, given that Wikipedia is an English language encyclopedia, the chart should be romanized. As for being 'useless', it certainly is not. Enthusiasts who can read Tamil script are given easy access to comparative methodology, which is the primary analytical tool with which linguistic data from each distinct language is manipulated, and knowledge extracted. The reader can easily, and instantly see how the morphemes individually, and collectively converge, and diverge. It really is a treat to see such painstakingly meticulous work presented with such facility. -- புகழ் 16:38, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, in fact, they can't. A table of cognates cannot show how the comparative method works or why related forms are related. At best it shows superficial similarities, but those alone are not enough to prove that words are related. Our articles on language families are full of these tables – I'm not singling this article out by any means! – and they frankly do more harm than good in my opinion. Angr (talk) 19:50, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There is nothing useful. The so called comparative study is already covered in Dravidian languages. The table just provides translation, nothing about the topic. Anbu121 (talk me) 19:03, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Disagree. The table is a sample of the comparative method displaying the distinct phonological, and morphological forms for the same meanings across the four primary Dravidian languages: Kannada, Telugu, Tamil, and Malayalam. Thus, given the topic being illuminated it is an instructive demonstration of the comparative method in action. -- புகழ் 16:48, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Where is the so called 'method'? I cannot see even a single word in the article which explains the method. The table provides just translation. Anbu121 (talk me) 03:26, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - "Comparative linguistics is concerned with classifying languages according to language family through the application of the comparative method which exploits phonetic, morphological, and syntactical characteristics of the language under investigation in its analysis." The attached table illustrates how the comparative method is applied to the questions of comparative linguistics in practice. Cheers, -- புகழ் 11:04, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - No, the table shows some of the source data. —Tamfang (talk) 17:08, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In addition to the other problems, the "Comparative Phonetic Analysis" appears to be original research, as it is unsourced. Sandstein 05:51, 3 July 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 to keep with a strong suggestion that it be renamed, which does can be discussed/implemented at the article and talk page. Davewild (talk) 18:14, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

United Nations resolution on Israeli settlement activity, 2011[edit]

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

There was plenty of UNSC resolutions about I/P conflict that were vetoed by US though reported by newspapers it doesn't make this specific resolution somehow notable per WP:NOTNEWS this article should be deleted. Shrike (talk) 09:52, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. WP:NOTNEWS is worth specifically repeating. --BDD (talk) 17:31, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 18:07, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 18:07, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:NOTNEWS? Because it's a one off article? Then why have we just voted to keep Israeli transfer of Palestinian militant bodies (2012), a completely mediocre piece of blip expansion, of nugatory interest, and a fine example of WP:COATRACK to repeat that there are terrorists in the West Bank. To retain the one while pressing for the deletion of the other, while they ostensibly share the same vice, is a sign of POV promotion and deletion according to one side's ostensible advantage in the media wars, and this, lacking any coherence in principle, means for me we should not make an exception here on the grounds of what, in Shrike's request for deletion, appears simply to be a matter of WP:IDONTLIKEIT.Nishidani (talk) 20:17, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Seems like with that amount of sourcing it easily satisfies the project's notability guidelines. Tarc (talk) 01:10, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I can see this article needs some beefing up since various factoids one can easily read in the references are missing. Obviously it was an important resolution with a number of WP:RS covering it. An article listing failed resolutions might be interesting in addition to List of United Nations resolutions concerning Israel which evidently covers ones that were passed (though that does not seem to be definitively stated). CarolMooreDC 04:15, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename - The topic is notable, historically significant, and widely covered by reliable sources, however the name is of the article somewhat misleading (since this is a failed resolution). Marokwitz (talk) 07:01, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Very good point. Off-hand, Vetoed suggests itself, but it might sound polemical. Suggestions, anyone?Nishidani (talk) 08:49, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Marokwitz The Determinator p t c 15:36, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename - Topic seems notable but the title is misleading. I might suggest "Proposed United Nations resolution on Israeli settlement activity, 2011." Rlendog (talk) 17:19, 2 July 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. Rlendog (talk) 17:15, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Journal of Science and Technology[edit]

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

No indication of notability: no substantial coverage in reliable sources. Article was created by an individual with a clear conflict of interest: User:Indianjournal. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:27, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agreed per nom. Gamble2Win (talk) 09:52, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak ~~keep~~delete Although the article was created by a COI editor, it was completely re-written within a few days of its creation. I have updated the article: it is abstracted and indexed by CAS and The Zoological Record. The journal's website also claims that it is indexed by the Science Citation Index and Scopus. I have not been able to verify that: the Thomson Reuters master journal list only mentions TZR and I cannot open the Scopus coverage list (my version of Excel is too old...). However, when I search Scopus for this journal, I don't find anything. It is possible, of course, that the journal only recently got accepted for SCI and Scopus and that these databases have not been updated yet. ~~Nevertheless, I think that the listings in CASSI and TZR are just sufficient for a keep, albeit barely.~~ Upon reflection, I don't think that inclusion in TZR and CASSI is suffiecient grounds for a keep !vote (even a weak one...) --Guillaume2303 (talk) 10:54, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note that WP:NJournals is an essay not a guideline or policy (although it confusingly states its a guideline in the text). It doesn't met the criteria there either due to it's dubious reliability. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:08, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did not mention NJournals in my !vote at all... TZR and CASSI are reliable sources under WP:GNG and both seem to think that this journal is worthy of inclusion. I think that says something. I'd like to see more, though, which is why I didn't !vote "keep" but only "weak keep". --Guillaume2303 (talk) 11:22, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that TZR and CASSI are reliable sources. Note that significant coverage in reliable sources is required per WP:GNG though . IRWolfie- (talk) 12:25, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update by poster A further note. Just to point out, the journal has a dubious level of peer review and is not a reliable source for use in wikipedia except to state the opinions of individual authors. (for example see the paper Everything: Non-Foundation of Theory of Everything: Non-living Things and Living Things published by the journal in 2010 which states: "the very concept of space-time has been proved to be a mathematical misrepresentation. A unified theory of forces in nature has been proposed. The theistic Foundation of Theory of Everything also envisages the theory for living things with primary concern of the life of human beings. The characteristics of the ‘soul’ energy has been defined; besides proposal has been put forward regarding the characteristics of the ‘energies’ which being the source of life in all plants and animals. ". Since the journal is unused as a reliable source on wikipedia, WP:IAR for the purpose of providing blue links in references doesn't apply. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:08, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 18:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 18:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 18:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Rather than going by WP:NJournals, I think the right guidelines for this case are WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV. Our current article gives the impression (belied by IRWolfie's observations above) that this is a perfectly respectable journal with full peer review. To counter this, we would need reliable sources saying it isn't, which are unavailable. So because of its inadequate level of notability, we are unable to provide an accurate and neutral article about it; I think the best way to resolve this is to just not cover it at all. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:15, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability beyond its own website. Some dubious material contained therein. Very broad topic area and inhomogeneous editorial board, usually an indicator of a dumping-ground. Famous _dog (c) 13:20, 27 June 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. Rlendog (talk) 17:13, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chamber of Computer Engineers of Turkey[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. very limited coverage in turkish [15]. LibStar (talk) 07:44, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:Too limited covarege in Turkish ? This is a joke isn't it ? [16] There are 166000 Google hits. Is this too limited ? If this is limited what is not limited ? Besides the chamber is founded recently and the number of hits increases sharply.Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 20:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GOOGLEHITS is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 12:13, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good, if too limited covarage is not the rationale than what is the rationale for tagging ? Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 15:22, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

please read WP:N or WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 02:15, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's be serious. Goggle hits were used to prove that the topic was not notable. Well I showed that just the reverse is true by using the very same search engine.(It was 166000, now 167000). Certainly the topic is notable. It may need to be expanded. But that has nothing to do with deleting. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 07:58, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What counts for notability is whether there is significant coverage in independent reliable sources. I only saw an old mention (from October 2011) in Cumhuriyet of the first steps to be taken, not enough to establish notability. Is there more? --Lambiam 16:25, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the article. Cumhuriyet wrote about the first steps. Now the chamber is founded and the computer engineers are isuued from Chamber of Electrical Engineers. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 20:33, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:21, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:21, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:21, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This source has 31 .jpg images of newspaper articles about the recent decision to formally split the Computer Engineer's Chamber from the Electrical Engineer's Chamber. Unscintillating (talk) 22:33, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. That is more than enough to show notability. --Lambiam 22:58, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable topic in addition to being wp:notable as per WP:GNG. Unscintillating (talk) 02:12, 2 July 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 Battle of Fort Brooke. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:21, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Ballast Point[edit]

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

This (unsourced) article is about a minor confrontation that was part of the (slightly) larger Battle of Fort Brooke, a raid in Tampa, Florida during the US Civil War. There is no need for a separate article, as the action is known by the other name and most of the info is already mentioned in the other article. Some merging of details would be appropriate if they can be verified. Zeng8r (talk) 06:46, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - After taking a quick look, I'd agree that merging pertinent details would be the way to go and this article is not necessary as a stand-alone. Gamble2Win (talk) 09:52, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:17, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:17, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - I agree, this article has nothing that isn't already in, or should be in, Battle of Fort Brooke. -- Donald Albury 15:37, 26 June 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:22, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Bechtold[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The sources provided in this article barely mention its subject (a living person), they only refer to her in passing in her role as a Military judge, and don't contain anything close to significant coverage of her as either a person or in her official role. The article fails WP:BIO and WP:BLP and being a Colonel also fails WP:SOLDIER DBigXray 06:12, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. The sources offered are routine personnel announcements, trivial mentions and court decisions the subject herself wrote, making them WP:PRIMARY. None of the usual Google searches turned up anything useful. The best I found was yet another trivial mention. Msnicki (talk) 08:13, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom and per Msnicki--they've already adequately covered the case in my opinion. Gamble2Win (talk) 09:55, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- This nomination asserts the article lapses from the guideline WP:Notability (people) (aka WP:BIO). WP:BIO has a subsection devoted to more relaxed criteria for individuals who hold a national office, like legislators -- or judges -- WP:Notability (people)#Politicians. Whether WP:Notability (people)#Politicians applied to Bechtold was discussed, at length, during the first AFD. The closing administrator wrote:

The result was keep. Consensus seems to be that national-level appellate judges are notable ex officio.

Usually, when someone considers nominating an article for deletion a second time, they make sure they are nominating it for deletion for a new reason, or at least acknowledges the previous discussion, and says why they think that discussion was not sufficient.

I agree with the original concluding administrator, I think the wording of WP:Notability (people)#Politicians -- the relevant subsection of WP:BIO -- is pretty clear. I think it says individuals who hold a national office, are notable if RS confirm they hold that office.

The nomination states the article does not comply with WP:BLP. I would appreciate it if how it did not comply with BLP could be spelled out.

With regard to the assertion that according to WP:SOLDIER Colonels aren`t inherently notable. Well, since WP:Notability (people)#Politicians says national level judges, like appellate judges, are inherently notable, and WP:Notability (people)#Politicians is a guideline, while WP:SOLDIER is an essay, I suggest what SOLDIER says is not relevant. Geo Swan (talk) 15:19, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the subject is not a Politician, but a soldier. The creator Geo Swan's arguement of WP:POLITICIAN also fails on "the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article", because there is no coverage of the subject other than taking the name in the articles on proceedings. WP:SOLDIER is still relevant here as the subject is from military--DBigXray 15:27, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

She was a soldier, but is a judge/politician. Having been a soldier does not preclude her or any other veteran from meeting the notability guidelines of any other section, whether they met WP:Soldier or not. Dru of Id (talk) 16:03, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. What I mean is the Article does not qualify notability guidelines of Soldier or a politician. --DBigXray 16:55, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you please be more careful to refrain from referring to essays like WP:SOLDIER as if they were guidelines or policies. Essays may be a minority opinion, so it is a huge mistake to phrase references to them as if they were a binding guideline or policy.
I suggest the base comment here is based on a misconception. WP:POLITICIAN has three numbered points, that distinguish between LOCAL office holders and NATIONAL office holders. It makes clear in the 3rd numbered point that LOCAL office holders have to meet all the regular notability criteria. This confirmed for me that when RS confirm an individual holds a NATIONAL office this is sufficient to establish their notability. Note the essay WP:SOLDIER also say a certain small class of individuals are notable solely for the office they hold. WP:SOLDIER says flag officers are notable for the office they hold. Geo Swan (talk) 03:57, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone see if [17] is a viable replacement for the first reference deadlink? Dru of Id (talk) 16:11, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, although the subject is a member of a notable judicial body, the subject herself is not notable per WP:GNG or WP:SOLDIER. There isn't significant coverage of the subject herself where she is the primary subject of the source, additionally she is primarily a JAG Officer and not a politician and as such SOLDIER is relevant.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:54, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you please explain why you think the advice in the essay WP:SOLDIER is relevant? What do you think the relationship between WP:Notability (WP:GNG points to a subsection of WP:Notability) and WP:POLITICIAN (WP:POLITICIAN points to a subsection of WP:Notability (people))?? Other than a sidebar WP:Notability does not mention any other notability guidelines. I checked some of the other notability guidelines mentioned in the sidebar. WP:Notability (academics) specifically says this:

This guideline is independent from the other subject specific notability guidelines, such as WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:AUTH etc.: it is possible for an academic not to be notable under the provisions of this guideline but to be notable in some other way under one of the other subject specific notability guidelines. Conversely, if an academic is notable under this guideline, his or her possible failure to meet other subject specific notability guidelines is irrelevant.

Now WP:Notability (academics) isn`t relevant here. But it raises the important question -- do the more specific notability guideline amend and supercede more general ones? Why have any additional more specific notability guidelines if they don`t amend and supercede WP:Notability? Geo Swan (talk) 03:26, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The subject does not pass WP:GNG AND WP:SOLDIER, as for this specific discussion of notability there is not need to discuss whether one supersedes another as it is my opinon that the subject has not received significant coverage as mentioned in GNG (a more general notability guideline) to be considered notable. Additionally the subject does not pass any of the categories stated in SOLDIER. Moreover I do not see the position, as others may, as a judge in a possibly notable military judicial body to warrant the judges notability due to POLITICIAN. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 11:04, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IAR Keep- WP:Soldier is only relevant in that its suggestions for notability have not been met, and no one here has even suggested they have. Judges fall under WP:Politician, and national level appellate judges have by common outcomes been determined to pass, whether associated with the military or not. The only area the article fails, and if nothing is available offline will continue to fail, is in-depth coverage. Add Bosnia to the list of deployments, it's still insufficient. Wikipedia still recognizes the position. Dru of Id (talk) 19:06, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Conn (judge) argues otherwise. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:08, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - ...which closed 17 hours before my comment, and which had not been raised in this discussion. Dru of Id (talk) 03:29, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - As a general comment, WP:BLP clearly trumps any application of IAR in instances where this is being used to get around a lack of references. Nick-D (talk) 01:41, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't know the exact status of the USCMCR, but I'm pretty sure it falls somewhere in "international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office". So even if a high military court is below national office, she would pass WP:POLITICIAN. Also, for those of you talking about one guideline/policy superceding another one, there is no superceding, there is no policy that "trumps" another one. They are all relevant, and meeting only one criteria in one notability guideline means that the article should be kept. Failing one guideline does not mean an article should be deleted. It must fail all of them. The Steve 08:51, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. The discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Conn (judge) demonstrated that members of this court attract little coverage in reliable sources, so there appears to be no reason at all to assume that they're notable, especially given that this is a BLP. Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 28 June 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. The "keep" opinions have no basis in Wikipedia guidelines or policy, unlike the "delete" opinions, and so are discounted. Sandstein 05:41, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

National Anthem of Northern Province[edit]

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

There is no National anthem of the Northern Province. Provinces in Sri Lanka do not have anthem, let alone this being a national anthem... Page created by a disruptive, and now blocked user. Blackknight12 (talk) 06:06, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTALBALL. The article itself states that there is no national anthem for the province and merely mentions several songs "proposed", without identifying the parties which have undertaken such a project. A google search also failed to verify whether there is an official preparation to declare one sooner or later. ASTRONOMYINERTIA (TALK) 15:16, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: User:Astronomyinertia is canvassed by the nominator[18].Hillcountries (talk) 05:46, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 16:51, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 16:51, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: quite simply stated in the article it self that there is no national anthem. Furthermore there are on reliable sources here. Cossde (talk) 18:22, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: User:Cossde is canvassed by the nominator[19].Hillcountries (talk) 05:46, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No reason to delete. 76.64.229.109 (talk) 11:14, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can you give a reason to keep then?--Blackknight12 (talk) 13:08, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article should be kept, but a proper title should be introduced.Hillcountries (talk) 11:54, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There have been no talk of this and neither are there sources.--Blackknight12 (talk) 13:08, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No evidence presented of notability or verifiability. Possible hoax. j⚛e decker ^talk 14:20, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing (TV series)[edit]

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

Unreferenced article about a television series whose existence I can't even properly verify on either IMDb or Google. Delete unless article can be improved. Bearcat (talk) 06:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't actually find anything on this either, so delete per nom. Gamble2Win (talk) 09:56, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We have no evidence that this show or its producer/channel/whatever Centaurus actually exists, and I can't find any either. The page creator has made no other contributions to WP, so it's hard to assess his/her bona fides. Article strongly suggests this is an English-language show, so you would expect to find something about it, at least press releases, online. Unless we get refs, delete. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 16:47, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a borderline A1 (no context). We don't know which year (presumably 2012?), the studio/developer doesn't have an article, the actors aren't named, and the country of origin is unspecified. Potential G3 hoax, or just a terribly badly written article such that the topic is impossible to determine with the aid of Google... Jclemens (talk) 21:08, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as probable hoax. No results from searching the character names. Year is 2011 as that was when the article was written. Sussexonian (talk) 21:25, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Almost a G3. There are no sources to support the article nor can I find any. Even if found, notability is still on question. →TSU ^tp* 10:53, 2 July 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 or WP:NHOCKEY j⚛e decker ^talk 14:35, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Ebert[edit]

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

Another recently drafted player that fails WP:GNG and WP:NHOCKEY. First All-Rookie Team is not the same (and thus does not qualify for notability) as First All-Star Team, Contested PROD, removed without comment. Ravendrop 04:50, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails on notability grounds. Reading the article he'd probably be happy not to have the word 'plummeted' on his permanent record. Agathoclea (talk) 11:23, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NHOCKEY. Can be recreated when/if he meets nhockey or otherwise achieves notability. -DJSasso (talk) 13:16, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 16:32, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 16:32, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 16:32, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails NHOCKEY, can be re-created if he ever does. Patken4 (talk) 21:36, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NHOCKEY. It can be re-created once the person becomes notable but not for now. →TSU ^tp* 10:55, 2 July 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.

Victoria Pynchon[edit]

The result was Trainwreck halted. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Sandstein 05:54, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hanna Bahagiana[edit]

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

Unable to find reliable secondary sources which evidence the notability or existence of this dub artist. Each of the four sources appear to be user-published and lack editorial control. (webs.com, etc.) Additional, reliable sources as required by policies such as WP:GNG and WP:NRVE welcomed. j⚛e decker ^talk 04:11, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. Gamble2Win (talk) 09:48, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 16:18, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 16:18, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 16:18, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adding to dicussion I was similarly unable to find reliable, secondary sources evidencing the notability of Herra Nur Indah. --j⚛e decker ^talk 14:38, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete both per nom. Bgwhite (talk) 20:52, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but... I'm not sure if criterion no. 1 of WP:ENTERTAINER is met here, as it appears that both of them did have several roles in different anime, although of course they aren't the original VAs. What worries me is that no reliable coverage was found for either of them, which is strange since to my knowledge, Indonesia's interest in anime is relatively good, on par with Malaysia, the Philippines and Thailand. There should at least be some coverage (but then again, anime doesn't get a lot of local coverage here in the Philippines either). As it stands now, I can't see how either of them is as notable as people like Aya Hirano, Ayana Taketatsu, Daisuke Ono, Mamiko Noto, Yui Horie, or even Veronica Taylor and Luci Christian. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 21:31, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think WP:ENT #1 is an interesting question, as that guideline has several problems in practice. First, for an SNG, this criteria seems to be a little less objective than many of other other "inherent notability" flavored guidelines, there are pretty clear bars for notability for elected politicians, award-winning porn stars, and high schools, but ENT #1's reliance on a role being "significant" allows for a far wider range of interpretations than most of our guidelines. (If we changed it to say a role which had received significant independent coverage, that might be closer to my own view, but such a change would likely be opposed by a number of other editors who would feel that bar too high.) Second, there have been suggestions that voice actors in general, or alternately "dub artists" should be excluded, but even defining those terms is tricky. Third, entertainment coverage tends to be national but not international, so there are valid concerns about systemic bias. So, it's messy. My own view is that WP:ENT mostly tells you when to presume when WP:BASIC is met, and the wording around the notability of people guidelines support this. Entertainers as a rule tend to get coverage if they're notable, and in my view, vice versa; and that a result, significant "significance" of a role (that is, not only the character, but *that* actor's portrayal of the character), should be the bar for WP:ENT #1. That's pretty much how AfDs tend to go in my experience, and it's a view that has been upheld at DRV in specific instances as within admin discretion, but, I don't think we've ever had a formal consensus on these grey areas. Which is a pity. --j⚛e decker ^talk 15:04, 2 July 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. Sandstein 05:47, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tijana Andrejic[edit]

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

Unsourced biography of a Serbian pianist, with a moderately (but not quite blatantly) promotional tone; the corresponding article has been speedied twice in two days even on sr:, although I can't read Serbian in order to clearly determine why (if anybody here can read Serbian, please do fill us in.) Further, the creator's username is User:Tanjadir, which is similar enough to the article title to raise at least the possibility of WP:COI editing by the subject herself. As always, I'm willing to withdraw this nomination if the article can be significantly improved with proper sourcing — but it's still pretty clearly a delete in its current form. Bearcat (talk) 20:44, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The first time was for a copyright infringement, the second time was for notability. There is also a version of the article at [20], which was nominated for deletion via Serbian Wikipedia's afd process at 17:15 today for "not exceeding the threshold of significance" (Мислим да не прелази праг значаја). As of this minute it has two "deletes" and one "not sure". -- role^player 21:02, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article was also created in Italian on the same day (June 1st). At least that one hasn't been deleted or nominated for deletion yet. -- role^player 21:27, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 06:11, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 06:11, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 11 June 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:29, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - In its current form, I would vote delete per Bearcat. Jihadcola (talk) 07:20, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - We have references, i don't see any really convincing reason for deletion... --WhiteWriter^speaks 15:47, 19 June 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:03, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now. 25- or 26-year-old classical pianist born in Novi Sad, schooled in Novi Sad, and biggest claim to fame is winning the "B" division (for ages 14-17) of the almost brand-new piano competition associated with her music school, in Novi Sad. Her professional career seems to be a combination of the non-notable and slight connections to the mildly notable, none of it reliably sourced. The two cites offered are her bio from a Prague youth festival she performed at and an interview from her local city paper in Novi Sad. She's young and could well become notable in future, but for now fails WP:MUSICBIO and fails WP:GNG. If substantial coverage from secondary, reliable sources can be found, happy to look again. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 18:36, 30 June 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:58, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Graffiti Markup Language[edit]

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

Non-notable XML-based file format. Ciaran Sinclair (talk) 20:49, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:08, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Graffiti Research Lab that produced this markup is quite famous, so it may be possible to find references. I've added one now, though I don't think it's enough to establish separate notability. If more can't be found, merging is probably in order. Steven Walling • talk 03:54, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:22, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found reliable sources: [21] (curated blog), [22]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:33, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The topic appears to meet WP:GNG, per:

Wehn, January (March 29, 2011). "Graffiti Markup Language: Open and dangerous". De:Bug Magazine. Retrieved June 25, 2012.
Moss, Ceci (January 8, 2010). "Graffiti Markup Language Gets An Upgrade". Rhizome.org. Retrieved June 25, 2012.

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:59, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Watch the video on Wired. [23] This is clearly notable. Dream Focus 16:49, 26 June 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. Davewild (talk) 18:07, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Calleen Anderegg[edit]

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

Speedy (marginally) declined, see edit summary by patrolling admin. Seems little more than a local radio personality and has no widespread notability. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 17:38, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I found this source in the Spokane Daily Chronicle, it's a full-page piece, so it would be significant coverage in one reliable source. WP:GNG generally requires multiple sources, so this isn't enough for me to !vote keep yet. Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 12:11, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find any sources of relevance to notability other than the above. If more substantial sources are found, I'll change my !vote. This person seems to fail WP:ENT and WP:GNG. Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 09:01, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →B music ian 02:49, 17 June 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:28, 25 June 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. Davewild (talk) 18:02, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Munugala Sudhaker Reddy[edit]

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

With greatest respect, it would appear that this article fails the test for Politicians. It would appear that Munugala Sudhaker Reddy was apparently the Sarpanch of a number of villages in Chinna Gollapally. Local government members are only notable if they meet the test outlined in WP:POLITICIAN, where they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article". Shirt58 (talk) 13:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A Sarpanch is no more notable than a kamnan or a puyaiban of a Thai sub-district or village, or the chairperson of an English parish council. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:03, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:00, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:00, 18 June 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 13:22, 24 June 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:05, 25 June 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:17, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No references other than the person's facebook page. Google search does not seem promising. Considering that he is a politician, there should have been references if he is notable. Anbu121 (talk me) 09:29, 27 June 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. The deletion is uncontested. Sandstein 05:48, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yianna Terzi[edit]

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

Artist does not meet any of the criteria for WP:MUSICBIO, appears that subject notability is only dependent on inherited notability of a parent. Tgeairn (talk) 17:58, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at first it appears to meet #2 of WP:MUSICBIO (Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart), claiming Ase Me Na Taxidepso is listed at #12, but even with my rusty Greek I know that's not what it says on that chart.--William Thweatt ^Talk | ^Contribs 20:00, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Each week's chart didn't have a dedicated link, so what you see when you click now is not what the source said when it was added. The internet archive was missing a good chunk of 2008 so I couldn't find anything during my quick search, but it did chart. Grk1011 (talk) 13:22, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 11 June 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:03, 18 June 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, BusterD (talk) 02:04, 25 June 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. Davewild (talk) 18:05, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Forks Mobile Home Park, Washington[edit]

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

Non-notable mobile home park. It's within the city limits of Forks, Washington, and neighborhoods are only notable if they meet the general notability guideline, which this clearly doesn't. The GNIS seems to be the only reliable source which mentions it, and there's no significant coverage of it to be found. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 00:56, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete just a trailer park, article gives no indication that it might be notable or unusual in any way. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:03, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:41, 19 June 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, BusterD (talk) 02:03, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Searching Google for ("forks mobile home park") yields nothing that looks like independent in-depth coverage. Searching Google News and Google News Archives likewise produces nothing: indeed, the last produced primarily hits for a trailer-park with the same name in Grand Forks, Michigan, suggesting that the subject of this article is less notable. The satellite view on Google Maps indicates that this consists of 40-50 trailers, completely within the city of Forks; while a free-standing trailer park well out in the country might merit inclusion as an unincorporated community, this is apparently nothing of the kind. Ammodramus (talk) 02:47, 25 June 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. Sandstein 05:55, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish American Society for Historic Preservation[edit]

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

Non-notable organization. References are mostly WP:PRIMARY and only list their programs, not why it is notable. CyanGardevoir ^{(used EDIT!)} 02:20, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Notable national United States organization that has many projects in several states across the U.S. (viewed by 5 million people every year). News articles on historic markers and other projects that they've sponsored can be found in local newspapers, such as Leavenworth, Kansas [24] and Buffalo, NY [25]. Their work has been covered in major periodicals, such as The Jerusalem Post [26], Israel Today magazine [27], Jewish Post and News [28], The Jewish Daily Forward [29]. They have international projects in Buchenwald, Germany and London, England. They provide resources for academic researchers, for example in these books (page 48) [30], (page 6) [31]. It's a significant and notable organization. The article needs to cite more secondary sources to make that clearer, but it's definitely notable enough for an encyclopedia entry.OttawaAC (talk) 03:13, 18 June 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, BusterD (talk) 02:03, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I followed OttawaAC's links, and did a Google search of my own for ("jewish american society for historic preservation"). I found a great deal of coverage of projects with which the organization had been involved, but no real in-depth independent coverage of the group itself. Asserting notability for the group based on the coverage of the various projects strikes me as too much like WP:INHERITED. Rather against my expectations, I'm forced to conclude that the group appears to fail WP:GNG. Ammodramus (talk) 03:10, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP: GNG as there are reliable sources from Jewish newspapers. Yes, this article could use cleanup as there are about a dozen maintnance tags on it, but all in all, it meets WP: GNG. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 14:12, 25 June 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. Sandstein 05:57, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yana Yanezic[edit]

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

There is no reliable source that the discussed actress meets the WP:ENTERTAINER notability criteria. Eleassar ^{my talk} 08:29, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Was unable to find anything but the most passing coverage (names in cast lists) via Gnews, Gbooks, highbeam, I don't see evidence of notability vs. WP:GNG. --j⚛e decker ^talk 19:49, 19 June 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, BusterD (talk) 02:02, 25 June 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. No consensus on whether notability is met or not. Davewild (talk) 18:04, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kenza Drider[edit]

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

Not notable, only a thin coverage occurred in a 1/2 month span about her intention of running in the French Presidential Election, (not that she had a chance to even be eligible). No known other activity and no coverage in other contexts. Tachfin (talk) 13:22, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Could certainly do with improvement, but did receive significant coverage, as internet search will show multiple artices about her. PatGallacher (talk) 21:17, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the article needs fleshing out using the available sources, she is clearly a notable campaigner for the right to wear the veil. The Digital Journal also refers to other coverage in the Daily Mail and Saudi Gazette. Meets WP:GNG. Sionk (talk) 23:07, 18 June 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, BusterD (talk) 02:02, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Merge to French ban on face covering. This article is not very substantial, and she is mentioned multiple times in French ban on face covering. It is the logical place to discuss her views on veiling. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:49, 25 June 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. Michael (talk) 07:57, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jerome Gleason[edit]

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

This article is unsourced and is full of original research and the factual a uccuracy of the article has been disputed, see the oldid before I reverted [32]. The article states that he was "little known". While the reverted version did contain a source, it wasn't used in text and I can't confirm the existence of a book entitled "Secrets of the US Government" by L.N. Harrt" Ryan Vesey Review me! 00:24, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. This looks very much like a hoax. Note that the "Childhood" section of the article says that Gleason was born in Germany as Emilian Wehrle, but changed his name later in life. Following the Wehrle link leads to an article about a clockmaker who died in Germany in 1896; it is illustrated with the same photo as the Gleason article. The Gleason article was created by an editor whose contribution history shows only a handful of edits apart from the creation of this article; none of those edits was especially constructive, and one of them was what, even stretching WP:FAITH to its utmost, I can only call deliberate vandalism. The vandalized article was Trumpeter clock, which is connected to Wehrle the clockmaker; the Gleason article was created two days after the vandalizing edit, and used the Wehrle photo. Ammodramus (talk) 03:58, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
db-hoax and so tagged Links to real person using exact same photo, claims received degree in "Forensic Science" from Harvard 1862. Bullshit. (Checking creators other articles to see what lurks there.) EEng (talk) 04:27, 25 June 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:24, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Zambos[edit]

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

Trivial mention and coverage in news articles, but no depth of coverage necessary to meet encyclopedic nature of a biography. See also WP:GNG. tedder (talk) 02:33, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 02:42, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 02:42, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Karen Zambos" as a fashion brand appears to have fairly wide notability in g-news and g-books. Perhaps the article subject might be shifted to cover the brand and not the individual. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:30, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 18 June 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:18, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE. Despite the number of g-hits (Google hits do not confer notability), I can only find trivial mentions of the designer or her brands, mostly from shopping sites, blogs, "who wore it best?" features and the like, as well as dozens of mirrors of the same. The designer needs to have significant coverage (written about at length), in multiple, independent, reliable sources, such as newspapers and magazines, to pass our notability guidelines. She's just not there yet. Valfontis (talk) 02:05, 25 June 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. Rlendog (talk) 17:06, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Combat 786[edit]

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

Unremarkable group that has had no citations added in the seven years since the article was created. UKWikiGuy (talk) 00:49, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 18 June 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:18, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. There has been plenty of time and nothing of substance has been added. Gamble2Win (talk) 10:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -I think sufficient proof of notability is given in the article. passes WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:38, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: - this is not strictly speaking true. The single article from the Guardian was purely of a speculative nature, and the events that it mentions did not occur, nor have the group "Combat 786" ever been spoken of again. UKWikiGuy (talk) 18:46, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless substantially improved (with citations) duing AFD period. Do we really need an article on a bunch of Muslim thugs. The lack of improvement of the articel over a long period points to their being NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:04, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, high level of speculation, needs more WP:Verifiablity - DonCalo (talk) 13:09, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence this group ever existed except on the day in 2001 when the Guardian paid a visit. Sussexonian (talk) 07:57, 2 July 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. Rlendog (talk) 17:03, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

T. P. Senkumar[edit]

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

Lacks notability AshLey ^Msg 11:51, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—fails WP:GNG. Imzadi 1979 → 07:26, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Senior police officer and senior civil servant. Appears to meet notability standards. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:18, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 18 June 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:15, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. The article has references, but I'm unsure as to whether they substantiate why the article's subject is notable. It's a shame none of the "Delete" voters said specifically why it failed the GNG. --Ritchie333 (talk) 08:59, 25 June 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 Institute of Legal Executives . — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:27, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CILEx London Branch[edit]

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

Seems a very clear case of WP:NOTINHERITED Branches or Sub-Groups of notable organisations are not notable in themselves unless there is some independent reliable sourcing that discussed the branch in some detail. I'm seeing lots of self-publicity in google but not so much independent coverage. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:41, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:29, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:29, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:29, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All mentions (outside ClLEx's own website) of the London branch that I could find after ten minutes of Googling were just passing mentions, mostly from social networkng sites. I would expect a notable present-day organisation to appear in Google results. Also, none of the references supplied are independent of CILEx. Hence fails WP:GNG.—A bit iffy (talk) 21:04, 18 June 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:06, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete no evidence to meet WP:GNG as a standalone article. LibStar (talk) 13:08, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Institute of Legal Executives (possibly just plain redirect). That body has a Royal Charter and is clearly a notable professional body. However, I do not think that the London (or any other) branch is likely to be separately notable. The target article may need to be renamed as a result of its achieving chatered status. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:11, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and Merge per Peterkingiron as best solution. Agree that the branch doesn't merit a separate article. DocTree (talk) 04:41, 2 July 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. Davewild (talk) 18:02, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Munugala Sudhaker Reddy[edit]

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

With greatest respect, it would appear that this article fails the test for Politicians. It would appear that Munugala Sudhaker Reddy was apparently the Sarpanch of a number of villages in Chinna Gollapally. Local government members are only notable if they meet the test outlined in WP:POLITICIAN, where they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article". Shirt58 (talk) 13:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A Sarpanch is no more notable than a kamnan or a puyaiban of a Thai sub-district or village, or the chairperson of an English parish council. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:03, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:00, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:00, 18 June 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 13:22, 24 June 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:05, 25 June 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:17, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No references other than the person's facebook page. Google search does not seem promising. Considering that he is a politician, there should have been references if he is notable. Anbu121 (talk me) 09:29, 27 June 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. (non-admin closure) →TSU ^tp* 10:49, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Younggam[edit]

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

basically unintelligible, at best it seems to be some sort of dicdef, the various provided "sources" just seem to include the word as opposed to being about it Jac16888 ^Talk 11:30, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proper spelling is yeong-gam. Page should be edited by bilingual speaker of Korean and English. (영감 is correct) Bleakgh (talk) 17:33, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I found 영감 in Joseon, so probably the page Yeong-gam is unnecessary, although it would be nice to add 영감 to Wiktionary. Bleakgh (talk) 17:39, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is basically a dictionary definition, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. If this is a honorific, I'd expect it to be covered in Korean honorifics, although I don't see it mentioned there. But an article about a foreign-language honorific that is written in casual, ungrammatical English is of no use to English-speaking readers. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:03, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. not. there word is for korean historical and traditionally word and the old man's nickname, it's widely used. it word was used more than Approximately 1,000 years. -- Hotsover (talk) 03:06, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
but reported in several korean news and newspapers. -- Hotsover (talk) 03:02, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- [33], [34], [35] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hotsover (talk • contribs) 03:10, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't understand what those sources have to do with this article. When I run them through an automated translation, they appear to be searches for the Korean words for "inspiration" and/or "three products". This AfD is supposed to be about the word "younggam" as a title for old men. Even if all the results in the search were mistranslated and should have said "elderly man" instead of "inspiration", that would just show use of the word; it wouldn't show discussion of the word. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:53, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 14:32, 17 June 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:03, 25 June 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. Rlendog (talk) 16:54, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jeph Howard[edit]

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

Lack of reliable sources. Only one source is cited, and that's a Last.fm page that appears to be a direct copy of the article. Would support merging some data to The Used if it can be accurately sourced, but I've found nothing that would confer notability (a couple of interviews with him have information on the band, but nothing about Howard himself). Bert McCracken is notable, his bandmates - at least this one - not so much. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:00, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Last.fm artist pages are not reliable sources; it's user-editable wiki-style material. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:15, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's rather my point :) Yunshui 雲‍水 07:48, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Used, per WP:NMUSIC: 'Note that members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band'. The article can always be recreated if he becomes independently notable. Robofish (talk) 17:12, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a few more sources since all of that information can be found in their DVDs. I've watched them both. I was unsure on how to do it before, my mistake. Lips Of Deceit (talk) 19:33, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment DVDs produced by the subject of an article are not independent coverage, and hence do not satisfy the notability requirements. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:43, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to his band, no independent notability. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:17, 27 June 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:59, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mullipallam[edit]

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

DELETE - Does not even meet Wiki:GNG. Not able to get any reliable sources which shows its notability. Does not deserve to be in wiki. -- Bharathiya 02:18, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Is this place actually Munnirpallam? --Oakshade (talk) 05:04, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. We keep settlements if we can confirm their existence. This village is easily found with Google. I found its post office and coordinates. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Any inhabited place officially recognized is notable by longstanding policy. The village has a school and a post office. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:21, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is a verifiable link to a school in this village in Tamil Nadu. So, it exists and any village, town or city whose existence is confirmed is recognised per wikipedia policy. --Artene50 (talk) 05:27, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Per Wikipedia's Five pillars, the encyclopedia is also a gazetteer, and per Wikipedia:Notability (geography). Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:42, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All inhabited places are inherently notable. -Anbu121 (talk me) 09:34, 27 June 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. See WP:SOFTDELETE: "Soft deletion is the closing of an AfD with minimal participation as "delete" with the understanding that anyone who wishes to contest the deletion at a later date may request restoration for any reason at WP:REFUND. This achieves an effect similar to WP:PROD". Sandstein 05:53, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Karizma (singer)[edit]

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

I'm not really seeing any significant coverage, just a news brief wishing her a happy birthday and a blurb in a notorious tabloid. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:29, 18 June 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 June 18. Snotbot t • c » 15:01, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Moldova-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 25 June 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, BusterD (talk) 03:05, 2 July 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, →TSU ^tp* 10:49, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that this fails WP:NOT#INFO and WP:NOT#STATS. Davewild (talk) 18:00, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Monday Night Football series-by-series history[edit]

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

This clearly fails WP:NOT#INFO, WP:NOT#STATS, and original research. Kept in a AFD back in 2005 which standards were a massive joke back then. Delete Secret ^account 23:53, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Gah! "Indiscriminate collection of information" indeed. This is far more detail than is appropriate for a general encyclopedia. --BDD (talk) 00:24, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I just looked over the old AfD (well, VfD), and it might as well just redirect to Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 00:25, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete clearly a non-notable intersection of a notable topic. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:34, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons already expressed, assuming nothing can be salvaged. —Al E.^(talk) 19:40, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't think this is an "indiscriminate" list at all (see WP:DISCRIMINATE) as it is a list that clearly focuses on Monday Night Football games. I've reviewed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monday Night Football: Series By Series History and find at least most of keep the reasons given there to be solid and sound (some are not, but they aren't reasons to delete either). The article could use more editing and sources, but that's a content issue and not a deletion issue. The article meets WP:LISTN quite easily.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:54, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Just about every vote in that AFD is that it may be useful, encyclopedic and interesting which aren't reasons for keeping an article nowadays, and I'm not discussing a cleanup or a merge here for a content issue. Random listing of game by game scores isn't something that belongs here as it's original research and I can't see anything that can't be salvaged. Secret ^account 16:01, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - 8 editors took the position of Keep: three said it was either "useful" or "more useful" and one said "interesting" -- but not every editor had those statements as their only reason to keep. Don't hold editors from 6-7 years ago to the standards that are set today--they might well have made additional arguments (and some indeed did). Further, these are clearly not "random" listings and it's not original research. It's specific, it's targeted, and it's verifable. The definition of "rivalry" in sports is well-established, and according to the records in the NFL and for MNF, these games are considered "rivalries".--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:02, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - And the rest said "Wikipedia is not paper", or Keep end the discussion now, not one keep commenter mentioned any policy (to be fair neither did several of the deletes). I was starting to edit Wikipedia during that time and I remembered people usually commented on "VFD" like what the name expect votes for deletion, and how they liked the article or not. Not everything that is "verifiable" is worth keeping as we need to follow guidelines and policies, but this is a concern. Almost all MNF football games isn't involving rivalries, and the league and television executives decides what games they put for that day. Anything involving rivalries should go on the main MNF page, not in a series by series history. WP:NOT#INFO is not just for random listings on a list (if that's the case INFO would have been removed a long time ago, we had this since 2006). WP:NOT#INFO is mainly used for topics that is just clearly unencyclopedic and violates other policies and this is as clear cut of an example, especially section 3 involving statistics. WP:DISCRIMINATE is an opinion essay and a bit misinterpreted as well. Secret ^account 05:26, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Ultra-crufty, but Wikipedia is not paper and this is a benefit to the project, not a detriment. We must keep in mind that Wikipedia is not only a serious encyclopedia, but a compendium of popular culture. This may not be suitable for the first purpose, but it falls well within the purview of the second... Carrite (talk) 02:49, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Anything that is policy based? Wikipedia can be a "compendium of popular culture" but whatever article that qualifies needs to meet the relevant policy or guideline. Secret ^account 04:44, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore All Rules works for me. Carrite (talk) 04:07, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- - This is the Article Rescue Squad motto to a T, "keep because we're a compendium of popular culture". Facepalm Tarc (talk) 01:23, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I made that term up myself and I'm not in article rescue squad, so they're gonna have to pay me royalties if they're using it. But since you're giving me the facepalm, I'll give you a little essay by a South American academic and wikipedian: Deletionism is not and never was a "consensus", not even a majority opinion. It is the stupid and destructive ideology of a small minority, that prevailed by a combination of robot power and a broken "consensus" mechanism that, in any other context, would be called "ballot fraud". It is stupid, because its goal is to move Wikipedia backwards, towards obsolete standards of paper encyclopedias. It is destructive, because it has led to the loss of tens of thousands of good articles and good editors, and earned Wikipedia some very bad press — which, this time, was quite deserved. In conclusion, Wikipedia will soon change, in spite of all shrugs and so-whats. If it does not change course now, radically and quickly, it will just die in a few years. To save itself, Wikipedia must set as its top goal the recruiting and keeping of new bona-fide editors. That includes banning deletionism and any other unnecessary practice, rule or feature that may drive those editors away, no matter how dear it may be to its inventors and users. That includes, in particular [1] scrap the notability rule, [2] delete and ban all editorial article-side tags, and [3] stop the paranoia about unsourced BLPs. All the best (with a bit more hope) --Jorge Stolfi, 28 February 2010. I don't buy every word of that myself, but there's your thought for the day, Mr. Facepalm. Carrite (talk) 04:10, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Never heard of him, but the sentiment is very A. Nobody-ish. Hopefully this person is banned or retired already, as their opinion in on unsourced BLPs is particularly naive and distasteful. Tarc (talk) 04:20, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A Wikipedia page is poorly-suited for this kind of dense statistical trivia. Despite the iconic history of MNF, there is nothing particularly notable about specific head-to-head series tallies; at best, it is something for the tv hosts to mention at the end of a blowout game to kill time. Straight-up WP:NOT#INFO and WP:NOT#STATS, and taking anything from a 2005-era VfD and applying it here would be like looking at cave paintings for guidance when trying to figure out how to use Photoshop. Tarc (talk) 01:23, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Monday Night Football and the teams are obviously notable; while a handful of these games and MNF "rivalries" may be notable, the vast majority are neither notable nor meritorious of being included in a stand-alone list article. The article should be deleted per nom and WP:NOT#INFO and WP:NOT#STATS cited above. However, the closing admin should consider userfying it for any editor who wants it, and who is willing to attempt to salvage elements for team and season articles. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:50, 1 July 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.