< 20 October	22 October >

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator (non-admin technical closire).Ymblanter (talk) 10:46, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Noëlle Lenoir[edit]

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

Article written by the subject about herself. ~~Unreferenced BLP.~~ Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 23:31, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources added establish notability and thank you for the comments below that explain further. Can I close this myself or wait for an admin? Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 07:43, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to have been created by the subject herself; no references; not notable. LogicalCreator (talk) 07:15, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article says she was a minister in 2002, which makes her automatically notable. I will try to reference.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:58, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, she was indeed a minister, and I linked the fact to the Time.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:06, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:33, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:33, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nominator was quite right to notice the unreferenced state of the article and the at least apparent massive COI of someone creating their own article. However, I do wonder if the nominator then looked any further before nominating. The article actually looks like a rather loose (and unattributed) translation of the French Wikipedia article by a person with reasonable fluency in, but an incomplete mastery of, English - and the lack of references also seems to have come straight from the French Wikipedia article. The French Wikipedia article, it should be noted, has mostly been written by editors other than its subject - so while there still seems to be a COI, it's a somewhat unusual variant. None of the foregoing, of course, relates at all to the subject's notability - but, as Ymblanter has already noted, the subject passes WP:POLITICIAN - arguably, she does so not just for her time as Minister of European Affairs but also for her preceding nine years on the Conseil Constitutionnel, the nearest French equivalent to the American Supreme Court. The GNews results probably satisfy WP:GNG by themselves, though many of the more recent ones in particular have a tendency to be interviews, articles by the subject, or the subject acting as spokesperson for one of a number of groups (though in each case, these seem to be at least as much using her existing prominence to publicise her interests as using her interests to promote herself) - but there are also GBooks results, and while the GScholar results may not be adequate to meet WP:PROF, they still look good for someone who has devoted most of her career to non-academic activities. The article therefore clearly needs some careful attention, but there seem to be good grounds for keeping it. PWilkinson (talk) 23:33, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG. --Bob247 (talk) 22:01, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The referencing added since the nomination establishes notability as a politician holding a position as Minister of European Affairs for France. -- Whpq (talk) 13:39, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article has neutrality issues, but the subject is notable. She has been covered by multiple secondary sources, including being profiled in Time Magazine, and was the Minister of European Affairs. Meets the general notability guideline.--xanchester (t) 06:22, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was SPEEDY DELETE as recreation of previously deleted material; see previous AFDs. postdlf (talk) 17:33, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of unreleased Lady Gaga material[edit]

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

AfDs for this article:

Struggling to see where this fits into WP:NMUSIC. Many of the songs the information is taken directly from the BMI Repertoire and is just the direct copy. Per the principles of our notability guidlines all we know is the titles of the songs (and writers), but in many cases we know not of the purpose of the song. Where we do know the purpose its not particularly reliably sourced. Lots of artists record and write songs which don't get used. Their existence and appearance at BMI, ASCAP, Harry Fox Song Agency or any other song agency doesn't make them notable. Individual reliably sourced coverage from third parties about a song does make it reliable. If the principle of the current state of the article was applied to someone like Dolly Parton you'd end up with 1000+ ! — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 22:35, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I do not quite see how this (or any of these songs) are notable, unless you are a big Lady Gaga fan. However interesting the list may be, I don't quite know if it fits here, on Wikipedia, and/or even on the Lady Gaga article. I assume the creator of the article tried to put this list on Lady Gaga's article and someone had them move it or something similar. Not sure whether or not this should be deleted, moved, merged, or whatever. LogicalCreator (talk) 07:20, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:27, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:27, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:05, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jamillah A. Shabazz[edit]

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

In my opinion, the sources provided in this article do not reach the level established in the notability criteria. The creator removed my {prod} tag, indicating that she disagrees and a community discussion is called for. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:41, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Channeling spirits will not establish notability. I haven't found any third-party sources and, honestly, the article would need a rewrite as it suffers from POV issues. SwisterTwister talk 22:49, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Channeling a spirit is extremely notable; yet, also extremely unfalsifiable. No legitimate references, either. LogicalCreator (talk) 07:22, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:25, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:25, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 13:42, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--No WP:RS. Utterly fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:BK. Qworty (talk) 05:47, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing to have in depth coverage in reliable independent sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:02, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete likely self-promotion. Gigs (talk) 06:09, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete likely self-promotion. --Musamies (talk) 06:20, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Lady Gaga. MBisanz ^talk 00:12, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Little Monsters (social network)[edit]

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

Non-notable social networking site owned by American singer Lady Gaga. — Ṟ Ṉ™ 21:24, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep or Merge. A website such as this is partially notable, but the article needs a lot of work. It is missing references. This could possibly be merged into the Lady Gaga article or into the list of Social Networks (which it may already be a part of). LogicalCreator (talk) 07:25, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:21, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge probably It's got quite a bit of press coverage[1][2][3][4] but it's only really notable because of the Gaga connection, and the media coverage doesn't contain much detail. I can see some people might argue keep, but there's not much to keep just now. --Colapeninsula (talk) 22:08, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I'm seeing buckets and loads of secondary source coverage from all over the place. — Cirt (talk) 22:34, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (with Lady Gaga) or Keep - likely to be significant coverage, but may not be relevant outside of Gaga. --Thevampireashlee (talk) 16:42, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Lady Gaga. All the secondary coverage I'm seeing is primarily about the Lady Gaga rather than the site. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:04, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect. This is the usual practice for a song of questionable notability. The arguments to keep it as a stand-alone article are basically wp:UPANDCOMING arguments, generally not considered valid. If it does acquire the foretold notability after being released the redirect can easily be undone. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:53, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cola (song)[edit]

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

Not notable song which hasn't even been released yet. — Ṟ Ṉ™ 20:41, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Enough critical reception to hold its own in an article. More will be added once its been released. --MrIndustry (talk) 20:44, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note Just because something hasn't been released yet does not mean it should be deleted from Wikipedia (case in point Taylor Swift's Red album, which is released tomorrow). Otherwise, I have no opinion on this. Lukeno94 (talk) 20:46, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but this doesn't meet notability guidelines. Just because people went crazy when she said "my pussy tastes like pepsi cola" is not enough to hold an article of its own. Maybe after more reception is added (after the album is out), then this article could exist. Also, the Red compariso is apples to oranges. Different things. This is not a single. — Ṟ Ṉ™ 22:21, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is why I stated that I have no opinion on this, not that it should be kept or deleted. Lukeno94 (talk) 14:21, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Song hasn't charted, or even been released. Fails WP:NSONGS. Zac (talk · contribs) 22:33, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As Zac has stated, this song has not been released yet. Bizarre carl (talk) 22:53, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Paradise (EP), the album upon which this song will be released. --Thevampireashlee (talk) 01:53, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The song has received quite some critical reception an media coverage before even being released. It will gain even more after its release. teammathi (talk) 11:12, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While this song has been mentioned in reliable sources and news coverage, none of those articles are about the song. Rather, they're about the album. Therefore, I don't think there's independent and reliable sources about the specific song, which means we don't even have to look to the secondary notability guidelines. Lord Roem (talk) 15:57, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:19, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Paradise (EP). There's a chance for more reviews and charting, so redirecting is way more useful than just deleting--demis ^talk 21:00, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Due to recent leaks of the snippets, more of the lyrics have been revealed and the already spotlighted song will more than likely have heavy focus and analysis. It just saves re-making the page when the song is released and it comes under discussion again. - Curtis Machen. 13:46, 25 October 2012 (GMT) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.216.237.252 (talk)

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:07, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gorby no Pipeline Daisakusen[edit]

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

Video game with no evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:15, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this old retro game was released for three platforms, and features a notable person. There's the Japanese Wikipedia article, MobyGames page, etc. This page just need a decent text. Any help is welcome! --Hydao (talk) 20:43, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gorbachev's notability is irrelevant to the notability of this game. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:47, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Gorbachev's cameo—also see WP:NOTINHERITED czar · · 20:01, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Mikhail Gorbachev was a notable leader during the 1980s and this game should be notable for its light-hearted approach towards Soviet-Japanese politics during the latter period of the Cold War. If anything, this game should be declared historically essential and be exhibited in the Smithsonian Museum. GVnayR (talk) 22:15, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We don't judge articles by what we think should happen. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:47, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG without WP:VG/RS. Its jawiki page is completely unsourced. Show me any signs of non-inherited notability (especially old magazines and foreign language reviews that I can't access) and I'll reconsider. czar · · 16:14, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk). — Frankie (talk) 16:17, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. MSX Magazine (published by ASCII Corporation) devoted a page to the game in the "New Soft" column of the May 1991 issue (see p. 15). Although it was also covered on pages 112 and 116 in the May 1991 issue of MSX-FAN, that particular magazine was published by Tokuma Shoten, the same company that published Gorby's Pipeline Plan, which excludes it from consideration per the GNG. MSX-FAN and MSX Magazine were the principal MSX print publications in Japan. —Ringbang (talk) 05:39, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Ringbang's sources. Using Google briefly I was also able to find a few obvious RSes including this Kotaku article (clearly discussing notability), and Famitsu entries showing release dates for the game on various systems including the Famicom version, and the MSX2 version. -Thibbs (talk) 06:13, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent sources provided by Ringbang and Thibbs. I'm speechless. --Hydao (talk) 05:27, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much. I updated the article with these resources. Great teamwork, friends! Ringbang (talk) 06:51, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 20:12, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Habit body[edit]

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

I'm taking this to AfD as I haven't a cotton-picking idea what to make of it, but I'm pretty sure this falls under WP:BLOG or WP:NOTESSAY or something similar. AutomaticStrikeout 19:45, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - this seems as if it has absolutely no relevance to Wikipedia at all, but seems to be a spam article created by a malicious user. Lukeno94 (talk) 20:49, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The current article is a WP:SYNTH essay, crossing WP:NPOV. Notice that on Talk:Habit body, the author complains that Wikipedia is not providing protection for "new useful ideas", indicating some confusion about the Wikipedia's role. (I note also that the author of one of the cited books "Your Habit Body: Owners Manual" has a domain name matching the account name of the article creator.) But whatever the quality of the present article, the further question is whether normal editing could result in a more suitable article, and whether the concept is notable? In this respect, one might point to its usage in Merleau-Ponty (not mentioned in the article but visible in Google Books); so may there be a salvagable article on this topic? AllyD (talk) 21:47, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Original research. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 08:41, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:OR, WP:SYNTH or blog. Peridon (talk) 09:54, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. At least in this form, purely the fringe theory of Bruce Dickson, who has written (and self-published) a surprisingly large number of related volumes. I don't think any of this is strictly a copyright violation from Dickson's works, but there's not really any question where it originated. And third party sources are entirely lacking. Maurice Merleau-Ponty's use of the term was something rather entirely different (and isn't mentioned in his article, so a redirect doesn't appear necessary at this time). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:06, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is 100% pure WP:OR. Looie496 (talk) 15:19, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:03, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This page is just a violation of WP:OR And therefore should be deleted.Bizarre carl (talk) 22:43, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not to repeat the same words, but this is truly an essay and would need to be rewritten. SwisterTwister talk 21:52, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Original research. Wikipedia is not a webhost for essays.--xanchester (t) 06:14, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to University of Warwick. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:09, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

University of Warwick Symphony Orchestra[edit]

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

Contested PROD, Non Notable, Fails WP:GNG, there appears to be no significant coverage of this student orchestra, the one The Daily Telegraph cite added does not demonstrate notability. Mt king ^(edits) 19:25, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:01, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:01, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:01, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:35, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to University of Warwick - Google News has provided mostly event listings and a few more sources for the wedding performance. Although the India wedding event was quite a performance, it would not be sufficient for the article thus I lean towards redirect. I also lean towards delete because there isn't any appropriate information (such as history) to add once the article has been redirected, aside from the wedding performance which would be weak. However, as I was visiting uwso.co.uk while I was finishing my vote, the website provides brief details which would probably be enough for a redirect. Any suggestions as to how we should add it? University_of_Warwick#Organisation_and_administration? I'm willing to add the section myself but I want clear consensus before executing it. SwisterTwister talk 22:13, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to University of Warwick as above. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:11, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Metre per second. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:10, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Benz (unit)[edit]

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

Not notable and not verifiable — Quondum 18:58, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be a proposed unit, but very few sources mention it. I say either delete or merge/redirect to metre per second. I note that there is also a deletion discussion running on the talk page. Chris857 (talk) 20:23, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the reasons suggested by Quondum. I would not support any mention of this in any article unless a better source (more authoritative and with specific discussion) was found than the ones that have been mentioned so far. --Steve (talk) 22:16, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~Merge and redirect – as nominator. I initially proposed it for deletion (WP:PROD) since I felt that this would be an uncontrovertial deletion. One editor opposed on the talk page, but since there has also been support for deletion there, it seemed appropriate to have an AfD debate here. — Quondum 05:00, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For completeness, the most notable reference I've found so far is (Stephen Dresner (1972). Units of measurement: an encyclopaedic dictionary of units, both scientific and popular, and the quantities they measure. Hastings House.), quoted here:
Quantity: Velocity (SI) Definition: 1 benz = 1 metre per second. Note: This unit has been proposed by Germany, but has not received general acceptance.

I still stand by my position that this should not be an article. — Quondum 12:44, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am comfortable with the merge-and-redirect approach as suggested by others below, since enough mention seems to have been found to justify this. — Quondum 17:26, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No apparent notability at all. Unless somebody comes up with a reference that actually uses this unit, I see no reason to include it anywhere.T R 10:23, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. It's mentioned in a few places online, but there's no substantial treatment, it's not included in mainstream lists of SI units, and the arguments for inclusion on the article talk page are more about it being useful than it currently being used. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:03, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:18, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Metre per second, where it deserves a brief mention. I was able to find some references, but not enough to justify a separate article. Owen× ☎ 13:20, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to metre per second. In addition to sources previously mentioned, it gets a brief passage in this 1974 book on the history of measurement, and is at least name-dropped in this 2005 journal article (showing that, while not adopted per se, it at least has some continuing currency). I don't think that's enough for a article, but there's enough bits and pieces here to warrant inclusion in the natural topic, in my opinion. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:25, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have boldly added a brief passage to metre per second. I'm not entirely wedded to its retention if consensus finds against the quality of sourcing, but the addition may otherwise allow a redirect to solve the debate. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:43, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good move, Ossifrage! Owen× ☎ 23:41, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Metre per second, and add another hatnote for people looking for Karl Benz. The unit seems worth mentioning, but not worth its own article, in terms of both notability and possible extent of the article. That said, all references found so far mention the unit, none uses it. Thus I can also live with deletion. — HHHIPPO 18:33, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as no-one uses this unit and doesn't seem notable though enough for an article but a brief mention in m/s would be fine.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 20:23, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There may be a valid argument to be made that Wikipedia should have such an article, but consensus seems to favor the notion that this is not that article. It may be appropriate to revisits this after the election when it is more of a moot subject and emotions have slacked off a bit. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:09, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of United States presidential candidates, 2012[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

AfDs for this article:

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

As per WP:IINFO. Serves as nothing more than a voter's guide. Far too large an article, and only favours the two main political candidates, as well has having vast amounts of detail missing (the missing Romney sections seem to point to a pro-Obama bias). This vast collection of indiscriminate information should either be deleted or merged with United States presidential election, 2012 – Richard BB 18:48, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article is awful from every perspective. Its purpose is to serve as a voter guide, which is not what WP is here for. Its scope is limited to the two major party candidates, when some others such as Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson are on the ballot in almost every state. Much of the content is a blatant copyvio of both content and formatting from OnTheIssues.org (for example, compare what's in the "Energy" section with the Obama and Romney sections at http://www.ontheissues.org/Energy_+_Oil.htm#Headlines). The "Biographical data" section shows a weird slant in favor of Obama, playing up his minor achievements while completely ignoring Romney's time as CEO of the Winter Olympics, time as a church leader, etc. Wasted Time R (talk) 19:03, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it. This article is brand new and nobody has put significant effort into it yet. What is wrong with comparing the positions of political candidates? I think this would be a great detail article beneath the main election article, which has very little info on the candidates positions on the issues. Wikipedia did this before with the 2008 election.Farcaster (talk) 19:06, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd say that just because other stuff exists that doesn't mean this should exist. –Richard BB 20:20, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would ask you to please look at the citations that were used. Thanks. Mugginsx (talk) 21:50, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which others have said are not reliable. Besides, that doesn't change the fact that you said that there is another article of this kind, which means that this one should stay. That's not how it works. – Richard BB 06:45, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete itI vote for deletion of this article. violates WP:Reliable Sources and is totally bias. The entire Abortion section is quoted to an online political website and does not meet RS Guidelines This same citation is used over and over again as the only citation in many sections, Abortion Section, Free Trade Section and Energy Section, and the material it is citing should be deleted on that basis alone. http://ontheissues.org/Abortion.htm#Mitt_Romney - This is not considered a reliable source on Wikipedia. The entire article is in the style of a ""Voting Guide Mailer" and in no way is it encyclopedic. This article is one of the most bias I have ever seen. Put this article out of its misery. Mugginsx (talk) 19:35, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - One can easily make a comparison by looking at the articles about Obama and Romney. Dough 48 72 19:56, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't believe I have seen an article of this nature before. This topic does not deserve a page of its own. Wikipedia does not do political comparisons. In addition, this article is Pro-Obama; here is a section of the article: Non-partisan analyses of Romney’s tax plan have estimated that it could add more than $3 trillion to the federal debt over a decade,[14] and would favor the highest-earning Americans,[15] possibly raising annual taxes on middle-class earners by as much as $2,000... I mean common people, it does not get more biased than that! - Harpsichord246 (talk) 20:38, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Actually, that isn't biased at all. Romney is proposing extending the Bush tax cuts, which means that would add $3.2 trillion to the debt over a decade per CBO (cited in article in tax section). He has yet to specify which deductions or exemptions he will remove, so his plan as stated on his website (which differs significantly from his debate positions) has a further $5T in tax cuts. All the more reason for our fact-based encyclopedia.Farcaster (talk) 22:00, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Same reasons as Harpsichord246 gave. Lukeno94 (talk) 20:50, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A train-wreck. Not fixable 16 days before the election. Newross (talk) 20:52, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a voter guide. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. AutomaticStrikeout 20:55, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Agreed - this is an encyclopedia, not an editorial. Please leave arbitrary t-charts of the issues to bored high school students everywhere. --66.90.145.103 (talk) 22:13, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Here is the article from 2008: Comparison of United States presidential candidates, 2008
Delete A little better than the first version which barely contained anything, but in this form it reads like a mudslinging forum in the form of a Wikipedia article with gridding (he said-he said), and third parties don't exist here either, which is at least part of the related 2008 article. Major help needed before a weak keep can even be contemplated. Nate • (chatter) 22:13, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I am not aware of any formal policy that prevents Wikipedia from presenting direct comparisons of candidate positions in an article devoted to that purpose. An article for the 2012 election developed in the format of the Comparison of United States presidential candidates, 2008 article would seem to be very useful both for readers currently following developments in the election that is underway and for future readers who may want to look back to the campaign and find in one place highlights of the positions the candidates had taken on major issues. However, in its present version, this 2012 article falls far short of the standards we should expect for Wikipedia insofar as large sections of the article remain that have been drawn directly from another copyrighted source and the article addresses only the positions of the two major-party presidential candidates, despite there being several other candidates in the race. Were this Article for Deletion discussion taking place two or three months back, I would have leaned toward giving the article more time to develop. It seems exceedingly unlikely, however, that the necessary work required to correct this article's deficiencies can be completed in the time remaining before the election, which is the period during which it would be likely to receive the greatest amount of attention from Wikipedia users, since the election is a mere two weeks away (and since many voters are already casting votes now under early voting and absentee voting rules). (Note that I began these remarks as only a "comment" but have shifted to calling for a "delete" after considering the points I was making as a comment.) Dezastru (talk) 22:33, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Massive problems aside from the many general reasons against such a page on WP. Has no historical significance. Arzel (talk) 22:56, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For same reason given by AutomaticStrikeout. Mpgviolist (talk) 01:34, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Great summary and the side by side comparison is encyclopedic. See also Comparison_of_United_States_presidential_candidates,_2008 Cwobeel (talk) 03:33, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a train wreck and a voter guide, not an entry for an encyclopedia. To be honest, I don't think I'd have voted Keep for the 2008 version if I had been involved given that it also seems like it was mainly copied and pasted from ontheissues.org CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 04:11, 22 October 2012 (UTC)— CoffeeCrumbs (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, not a voter's guide, etc. Also, this covers only two of the candidates. Qworty (talk) 05:14, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing the very first requirement for Wikipedia - being an encyclopedia article of any long-term value. It is also subject to being gamed (see the part on energy policy stressing that Romney was seeking money from the oil industry for his campaign), for WEIGHT issues (long lists of puff comments from candidates), etc. As for other articles (2008) - "OTHERSTUFFEXISTS" is specifically not considered as a strong reason to keep. Collect (talk) 07:22, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Revise - Here is the one from 2008, Comparison of United States presidential candidates, 2008, which is better because it doesn't contain loads of bullet points like this article. So, REMOVE THE BULLET POINTS to begin with. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 08:06, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. By including only two of the candidates, the article is simply political propaganda. This article has the potential to severely damage the reputation of Wikipedia. Whoever created it should make a public apology. X5dna (talk) 09:55, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is WP:NOT a voter's guide (though I hope we don't have to add that example!) and the "subject" of the article is one that would be near-impossible to cover while respecting WP:NPOV. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 10:39, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable and encyclopedic. There's a difference between a how-to-style voter's guide, and a factual list of the main positions held by the different candidates. There are many sources for the differences between candidates, making this a notable topic.[5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12] The 2008 version of this survived AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of United States presidential candidates, 2008) and the same arguments apply. Many of the arguments for deletion don't match any kind of Wikipedia policy reasons for deletion: complaints about lack of 3rd-party candidates, criticism of article quality, difficulty of maintaining NPOV, etc - all these are surmountable issues. Some people argue for deletion because there is no long-term value, others argue it's a permissible topic for 1912 but too soon for 2012: clearly not everybody arguing for deletion is correct. It should of course be updated post-election as historians debate the main issues at stake, but there are enough reliable sources to start now. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:18, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and probably should be blanked right now for copyright violations. What an eyesore. I hope we still realize that we're an encyclopedia, not the ultimate source of all potentially useful information. Rank-one map (talk) 11:52, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is an encyclpaedia, this "article" has no value and is just a partisan voters' guide. Amazing that Google saw fit to highlight it. A true encyclopaedic article would have a summarised comparison table of all the presidential candidates who are standing in the 50 states and so would include the Libertarian, Green, Constitution and Justice party candidates as well. As it is, it is simply awful.--Tovojolo (talk) 15:02, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is not an article, it's a laundry list of campaign talking points. Wholely unencyclopedic petri dish for the culture of more rabid wiki-partisanship. Is Wikipedia's reputation not sullied enough? – JBarta (talk) 15:03, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Any encyclopaedic information in this article should be worked into the individual pages on Romney and Obama. 129.63.129.196 (talk) 15:22, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article of campaign talking points; a non-salvageable train wreck replete with bias and POV problems. —Lowellian (reply) 15:51, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. I'm unpersuaded that this is "voter guide material" or "indiscriminate information." The topic itself is clearly a suitable topic for an article of lasting interest - the analogous article Comparison of United States presidential candidates, 2008 is well-formatted and reasonably well-balanced between all major candidates and remains useful 4 years later. The positions of presidential candidates is of lasting historical significance, since it affects not only who is ultimately elected but has an influence on all concurrent races, and also often forces the winning candidate to make some concessions to attract voters who find the position of the opposition appealing. The fact that we lack similar articles for every past election is due only to lack of interest/systemic bias. We have a number of B-class comparison articles, such as: Comparison of the health care systems in Canada and the United States, Comparison of cricket and baseball, Comparison of Norwegian Bokmål and Standard Danish, Comparison of the Amundsen and Scott Expeditions, Comparison of Spanish and Portuguese, and so on, which look reasonably high-quality to me upon inspection, establishing clearly that this format is not out of scope. The fact that this article focuses only on the two major candidates reflects to me that it's incomplete, and needs to be expanded; and copyright violations should obviously be excised, but the article is not 100% copyvio. Note that I don't expect this cleanup work to happen before the election. Dcoetzee 18:18, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your six examples of WP:OTHERCRAP, which is never a legitimate argument for inclusion. Qworty (talk) 19:08, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the Article and Clean-It-Up. The page being considered for deletion,Comparison of United States presidential candidates, 2012, is very much like it's already accepted predecessor Comparison of United States presidential candidates, 2008 and, like it's sister page, is an excellent chronicler of the historical backgrounds of candidates and events and positions held prior to and throughout the campaign cycle for 2012. It is a one-stop-shop depository and comprehensive wealth of comparative biographical information and associated links to pages on each of the two major candidates. As long as it does remain in place, it can be cleaned up to, like it's sister 2008 page, include information about the additional candidates who ran for this high office. Especially, and additionally, this page is encyclopedic on the issues of each candidates positions and the histories of those positions. This information may seem, and at times throughout the campaign is used for individual purposes of becoming more knowledgeable about the candidates, understandably, as many other pages are as well. However, as we move passed the election and into the next presidential term, this article will become more and most valuable as the collection of information and related links that it is, even while it exists during the actual election. To delete it now, I feel, or before the remaining 13 days would be premature and a great and monumental loss of organization, work and talent proffered by the contributors, editors and administrators and would result in a total loss of those efforts. Please consider the elapse of time and the short window that remains which may give any real credence to the argument of deleting it on the grounds of voter guide material. This issue will in very short order become completely moot. What we will then be left with, given additional clean up, is an excellent encyclopedic reference for years to come. WroteOddly (talk) 00:15, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The 2012 article and the 2008 article cannot be compared. The 2008 article included all of the major candidates. The 2012 article is an advertisement for two of the candidates at the expense of the other candidates. In effect, the 2012 article is a political advertisement advocating a two-party duopoly. Whether the United States should be ruled by a two-party duopoly is a significant issue in the United States, and this article takes a strong position on this important issue by ignoring other views. X5dna (talk) 01:42, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 1. This Article propagates the biased view that only the two major party candidates are worth comparing. 2. As a corollary to point 1: issues that are important to the country, the economy, or the world, and discussed by minority candidates, might be ignored by both major candidates if they both happen agree about such an issue, and thus such issues will not appear in the Article. This is a type of information bias that does not belong in Wikipedia. 3. Once we get past the initial biographical data, which can indeed be factual, we get into the realm of political and tax analysis. These latter topics are hard, almost impossible, to discuss and present briefly in a reliable, factual, or encyclopedic manner. No matter how many sources are cited, the final Article will strongly reflect the biases of the people who most recently edit it. 4. The timing is all wrong. It takes time for a good long authoritative article to be created on Wikipedia where strong opinions are involved. There is not enough time for this Article to be edited into a useful form, even if it could be done eventually, before the elections. Better delete it now than provide biased and vague information to readers. 5. I see no problem with one or more bloggers taking all this information, biases notwithstanding, and publishing it on their respective blogs. Rahul (talk) 02:22, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Google News is listing this article in its news cluster for all articles relating to the race: mennonot (talk)
Move to Comparison of Democratic and Republican presidential candidates, 2012, or Keep and include all the third party candidates than can be reliably sourced. Either way, make sure the amount of detail in each category is equal for each candidate. Mr G (talk)
Keep and clean up. Present quality is a poor criterion for deletion, as quality may always be improved. The article should be expanded to include other candidates and otherwise cleaned up, but not deleted. —Bill Price (nyb) 05:55, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment following up on User:Mennonot's comment, the article has attracted 20K views in a day since it got featured in Google News. --DarTar (talk) 06:30, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Is this significant? I don't think this has a bearing on the quality of the article. The US election is always going to generate a lot of traffic to every article related to the election. – Richard BB 10:40, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but completely rewrite. My take (i havent read any comments, only the nominator rationale, so this may have been said already) is that this article should be limited to reports on reliable sources who THEMSELVES have compared the two candidates. this article as it stands is original research. each comparison, no matter how apparently logical, which is made here is OR if not explicitly reported by, say, a NYT reporter who writes "romney on foo: nothing. obama on foo:4 reports he is against it, with reservations".Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:40, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Not enough time to rewrite. In the mean time, in its current form, it provides a very large number of readers with opinionated information. Rahul (talk) 11:19, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Practically speaking, i have to agree, thus it should be blanked back to nearly nothing, and built slowly back, with NO consideration for its use in the election.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:56, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: nearly impossible to keep an article like this bias-free and neutral when this is a still evolving subject. Aurorion (talk) 09:21, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up. Improve the quality and expand to include other candidates, but do not delete. Like others, I am annoyed that the public has not been kept informed about other candidates, and wish computers had wider screens... RS need not mention the comparisons themselves. This is a topic of great interest in the US. Smm201`0 (talk) 09:44, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Wikipedia isn't set up to develop articles like this given that they require synthesizing multiple sources, and this duplicates topics which would be better covered elsewhere. Nick-D (talk) 10:33, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete way too subjective ... Needs to be removed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.26.25.26 (talk • contribs)
Delete The sources are not making these comparisons, therefore this is OR and SYNTH. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 11:09, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as OP Most of the keep votes seem to request a rewrite or revision. With the election so soon, I very much doubt there is time for a rewrite in any meaningful way. The delete vote above mine, by Little Green Rosetta, says that many of the sources do not actually make these comparisons, meaning that this is OR and SYNTH. As such, with no time for the complete and total overhaul that this article would require to make it acceptable, we are left with a very (pro-Obama) biased article laden with original research. – Richard BB 11:23, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment with clear consensus for DELETE was is the article still up? 108.172.114.141 (talk) 12:58, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep . I wish these existed for all elections. This is of good historical value. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.136.184.30 (talk) 13:06, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree it's too subjective. Remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.214.33.57 (talk) 13:36, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but needs major work. I agree that the article presents issues, but the analogous article for 2008 is a useful resource, in time this article will improve. We're a wiki-- we label problematic articles with the optimism they will improve with time. --HectorMoffet (talk) 13:42, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OMG, for crying out loud! Delete! There's no way on earth and article with this topic can be NPOV. No. Way. A comparison of candidates is by definition subjective. This topic itself is inherently non-NPOV and non-encyclopedic. You're fooling yourself if you think this topic can be addressed without being an editorial. The topic has a place, but that place is not on Wikipedia! Fish Man (talk) 14:06, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Neutrality issues can be edited, sources performing comparisons can be found, third parties can be added in the style of the 2008 article. The amount of detail is encyclopedic, and Wikipedia is perceived by many to be an encyclopedia. I'm not a Wikipedian, so I don't know your policy on this, but it's very nice to have this sort of comparison as I research the people on my ballot. 164.107.101.18 (talk) 14:33, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article violates several aspects of WP:NOT. It is also NPOV in that it lists only some and not all of the candidates. The writing style leans heavily toward favoring one of the candidates. And following the 2012 election the article will have little or no value. Wikipedia is not a guide, it is not a newspaper. And not meaning to get into the "other stuff exists" argument, but unless similar articles retroactively list the platforms for the candidates in all previous elections back to George Washington, this article has no place on Wikipedia. → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 14:38, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. How the hell did this abomination even survive a speedy deletion? Good god wikipedia has become such a jokeWhatzinaname (talk) 14:42, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think both sides have good arguments. While it runs the risk of being tilted in POV, I think it could be fixed; it follows a similar format to the 2008 article. On the other hand, there is so little time, there is so much to fix, and I'm going into midterms. I know, I sound like an uncommitted voter from Lucas, Ohio. :-) Bearian (talk) 15:17, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with the assessment that the neutrality of this article is impossible and the format is unrealistic. We must act now, as this article is prominently visible in Google News. theMONO 15:19, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - and blank or hide from public view for now pending the outcome of the discussion (something that may require a faster administrative process). The subject is utterly unencyclopedic and cannot reasonably be made so. However much anyone tries, Wikipedia just isn't a voter guide. The article will be obsolete anyway after the election, and completely unimportant after a few years, so letting it stand for half the time between now and the election means we do half the damage. I haven't checked it for accuracy, neutrality, or completeness, but even if it were all of these things, it does a disservice to voters and to the encyclopedia for WP to try to offer this service. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:59, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please see the Deletion/Recreation strategy discussed on the article talk page. It may be a way to salvage the article (if it is salavagable at all).--NextUSprez (talk) 16:07, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, major rework per HectorMoffett. Comparison of United States presidential candidates, 2008 is an example of a good article still quite useful 4 years later - that's what this one should aspire to. It should include all candidates on the ballot, with very short position summaries. It's tempting to delete this one and start from scratch, but the 200+ cites so far are a useful starting point. – SJ + 16:12, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I agree with you in principle, it would need to be majorly reworked if it were kept. The 2008 version is a good comparison to use. However, that one was much better in several distinct and important ways (eg, encompassing all candidates who mathematically could win). With 2 weeks to go before the election, I just don't see how there would be time to bring this article up to standard. Gabefarkas (talk) 18:19, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - The work done to date should be preserved somehow - even if the article is renamed in the short term so that it doesn't attract high-profile traffic. I suggest moving it and its talkpage [back] to the userspace of one of the active authors, with suggestions for cleanup based on this discussion. – SJ + 05:23, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a voters guide. Article is synthy WP:SYNTH, although I do not see it outright violating that rule, it's awfully close. POV issues, I'm not sure how you can keep a NPOV with what is essentially soundbites.... when you go beyond the soundbites, it gets synthy. I don't think the article should exist at all in this format, and should only be considered to be written after-the-election. Roodog2k (talk) 16:21, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per WP:INFO, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NOTDIR and WP:UNDUE. This is a compendium of electoral facts which would fit within a newspaper special edition, not an encyclopedia. This is not useful for voters (as it is a magnet for vandals) and is not useful for the parties (as it can be skewed by malicious edits). doktorb _words^deeds 17:12, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is not a necessary article. One can make sufficient comparisons from the 2012 Presidential debate article and from the articles of Obama and Romney.Coviepresb1647 (talk) 18:38, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why is this still going on? This AfD needs to be closed (and I shall stress here this is my opinion only) the wretched article needs to be deleted. The reason why there needs to be a quick decision is that Google is doing enormous damage to Wikipedia. It's directly linking to the article and what do people see when they come? The great big banner at the top saying that the article, which Google has linked to, is being considered for deletion! It just makes Wikipedia look incredibly stupid. --Tovojolo (talk) 18:49, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Our BRD process is unable to keep up with this complex and ultra-fast moving collection of controversies NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:13, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think that this will have a place on wikipedia when it is written in retrospect. For example, the 2008 version was largely written in retrospect and the information is a lot better and more neutral. If we delete this page now, it can be rewritten following the election so that it is more neutral (neutrality is going to be just about impossible with only two weeks before the election) and more complete. Anyone interested in learning about the individual candidates can visit their respective pages for the time being.Spirit of Eagle (talk) 23:56, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The Wikipedia is not a directory of statistical comparisons, nor is it a voter's guide to American elections. This article is an example of the weakness of crowd-surfing an encyclopedia. We have no mechanism other than pitched battles at AfD to prevent partisans from using this project as a political ticker/blog, because all they do is parrot "but its reliably sourced!" and hope it carries the day. What's really sad is that right at this second, this article is linked directly from Google News' section about the political campaigns. So alongside legitimate news articles written by professional journalists is a link to a Wikipedia article where most of the first pageview is taken up by a big box describing why the article sucks. Facepalm Tarc (talk) 02:36, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and improve. I think there's a diamond in the rough here, or at least a cubic zirconia. The issue is the name and the early state the article is in at the moment. I think this article represent a start at would should be called Issues during the 2012 U.S. presidential campaign, considering Casualties of the Iraq War as the precedent and the model for such an article. There's nothing in Category:United States presidential election, 2012 that covers issues arising during the campaign as a whole. The biographical data would be mostly gone, except for the little bit needed as an intro and coverage of items related to a candidate's biography that became issues during the campaign. Organizing it this way means we are limited to just the two major party candidates. No doubt the editing will be painful for all involved, but it would be a legitimate topic to cover. Dynamic IP 72.244.200.243 (talk) 04:45, 24 October 2012 (UTC) — 72.244.200.243 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete' I don't like it! Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 06:23, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unencyclopedic Shii (tock) 08:55, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you two want your votes to actually count, they need a bit more meat on the bone. Tarc (talk) 13:02, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clear delete The bits of referenced material are synthesized and mixed with a whackload of WP:OR making this entire attempt to be partisan and inappropriate. Even the formatting - why is "Obama" in the right and "Romney" on the left - after all, O comes before R alphabetically. Such random choices makes this WP:BIASed overall. Delete and burn with fire (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:27, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - full of original research and synthesis; omits most of the candidates; violative (IMHO) of WP:NOT, as being a voter's guide (and a malformed one at that). --Orange Mike | Talk 13:18, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, major rework per HectorMoffet and SJ. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 03:19, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and add this to WP:NOT --Nounique names 07:39, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't know how this article can be written without original research, especially at this stage in the game. If anything, any "comparison" doesn't serve an encyclopedic purpose. Reporting views and allowing people to think for themselves - ok. But it's not appropriate for us to be arbitrarily deciding this for others. Lord Roem (talk) 16:36, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 'Reporting views' can be considered against the spirit of WP:NOTNEWS, especially when these 'views' are from primary sources. Strengthens your Delete.Roodog2k (talk) 16:58, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe "reporting" was the wrong word choice. But yeah, I agree. Lord Roem (talk) 17:02, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Split either into per subject articles or per candidate articles. There is simply too much information to cover all six (or more) candidates positions in depth in one article. Also rename to something better regardless. It is not a comparison except in the most trivial of senses (and the belief that it is seems to be creating issues). Rich Farmbrough, 18:07, 25 October 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Keep it. Meets every requirement of notability. I would like to see this for all presidential elections. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:26, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No one said it wasn't notable. It is notable. Although everything in Wikipedia must be notable, not everything notable must be in Wikipedia. This fails WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, potentially fails WP:OR. Passes notability, though. Roodog2k (talk) 13:29, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't WP:OR, almost every sentence has a reference. It isn't WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, it isn't a diary or a Who's who or a first-hand news report. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:26, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I like the side by side statements of their stands on issues. It lets the readers make the comparisons. It would be preferable to include all nominees. I'd like to see a table of candidates and issues with links to related content on all candidates' pages. If we made the structure of the individual candidates consistent, it would give readers easier access to candidates' stands on the issues.

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

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

The result was keep/withdrawn by nominator. Michig (talk) 18:33, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Robert A. Brightman[edit]

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

PROD reverted. ~~Sources and good faith search only produce works he's created, not third party independent sources that establish notability.~~ Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 18:42, 21 October 2012 (UTC) withdrawn Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 17:18, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is one review of his book Grateful Prey: Rock Cree Human-Animal Relationships at "History of Religions, Vol. 37, No. 2 (Nov., 1997), pp. 182-184 http://www.jstor.org/stable/3176349." I am hosting a copy here. There is another review in the "Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute; Dec97, Vol. 3 Issue 4, p808, 2p" and I have hosted it here. There is a third review at "American Indian Culture and Research Journal , Volume 20, Number 4 / 1996, p. 224" which I am hosting here. The book is published by the University of California, Berkeley, Press, which is as solid a publisher as one could get. Authors do inherit notability from their creations, that is books (see WP:AUTHOR); so these multiple reviews in reliable, third-party, secondary sources alone make him notable. Beyond that, he is a "named chair" professor at Reed College. That is not a major research institution (largely undergrad), still a notable one, and coupled with his notable book, gets him through WP:GNG. Churn and change (talk) 20:54, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've replaced the notability tag with refimprove tag and added a stub tag. Thank you. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 21:52, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:21, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:21, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per work done by Churn and change. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:59, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:12, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BioSmalltalk[edit]

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

Highly specialised piece of software of interest to a relatively small number of people. No attempt made to assert or demonstrate notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:12, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:08, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I haven't found any evidence of third-party sources and this link suggests the software's creator started the article himself. The other links I have found are simply copies of the Google Code page. SwisterTwister talk 23:08, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable 3rd party references to establish notability of this software. Created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 20:48, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Currently we've finished and reviewing two articles using this software in real laboratory phylogenetics workflows. I didn't know it was a requirement NOT to be the author to write an article. Actually I may use the same logic for proposing for deletion self-citation scientific articles from specific software researchers, but that is a highly specialized research of interest to a relatively small number of people. It would be nice to be reviewed by specialized article reviewers, I don't know your background. Please, delete the article and it will be back with the proper authoritative references that you need so badly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hernan mvs (talk • contribs) 05:20, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to XIII (video game). There is clear consensus that there should not be a standalone article here. The 'merge but nothing to merge' arguments, plus the mention already there in the main XIII article make a redirect appropriate. Michig (talk) 17:51, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

XIII: Lost Identity[edit]

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

Not notable to hold its own article. I did a search and only found this from Destructoid. Neither Gamespot nor IGN (the ones who review the most games, IMO) have reviews or major mentions of the game. — Ṟ Ṉ™ 17:33, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) czar · · 17:56, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All WP:VG/RS are very sparse on content: doesn't meet GNG. Consider merging into an existing article on the series' video game adaptations and building out there. (I'd vote "merge" now, but there isn't anything there to merge.) czar · · 18:07, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merging probably is the best thing to do. By the way IGN have a page on the game here. 1916Walker987 (talk) 18:13, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is a general page IGN makes with every game. The point is that IGN has no review, no articles about it. — Ṟ Ṉ™ 18:48, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect could work though since the article for the comic does mention this game. I do agree that there is nothing to merge.--174.93.171.10 (talk) 02:49, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per proposal; no reliable sources. Cyan Gardevoir ^{(used EDIT!)} 06:10, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is already a small section in XIII (video game). Also fails notability. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 13:03, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 17:58, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Free Speech (news website)[edit]

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

A recently created russian news website. Not notable. — Ṟ Ṉ™ 17:25, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:29, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:29, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is probably a case of Wikipedia:TOOSOON, I searched Google News with "Free Speech Russia website" and adding "August 20" and "August 2012" but found nothing relevant. I also searched Google News Russia with the Chuvash name the article provides but also found nothing relevant. SwisterTwister talk 23:29, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A non-notable website. --Ghirla^-трёп- 11:53, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Website is a only few months old. SwisterTwister is right that this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. No coverage of the subject by secondary sources, fails to meet the general notability guideline.--xanchester (t) 06:11, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted by Jimfbleak, G11: promotion. (Non-admin technical closure)Ymblanter (talk) 09:45, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Haroon Jamil Nasheed Artist[edit]

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

Does this person meet Wikipedia's standards for inclusion? I had originally prodded it, because I thought it didn't, but the creator removed my prod tag. Maybe discussion by the community will resolve the question. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:03, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the creator of this article, User:Haroon Jamil Nasheed Artist, has been blocked as an obvious sock of User:HaroonJamil95. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:18, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as blatant self-promotion. A local artist with no evidence of notability from WP:RS. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:20, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as self promoting spam. Frankly I'm surprised it wasn't speedy deleted given the sockpuppetry involved in its creation. --Biker Biker (talk) 19:38, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Self promotion. — ΛΧΣ21™ 20:43, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snow Keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:25, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zhou Zhonghe[edit]

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

Does "describing" an extinct bird make one sufficiently notable? As an outsider to the field, my feeling is "no." The external links in the article are dead links. Unless notability further established, delete. --Nlu (talk) 15:35, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep. Wow! This prof is on the "American" National Academy of Sciences. See here:[13]. NAS is the #1 formal membership a scientist can have anywhere in the world. He is the Director of the Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology at the Chinese Academy of Sciences. His article "An exceptionally preserved Lower Cretaceous ecosystem" shows 330 citations and it is in Nature, not just a top scientific journal but the top journal. There is any amount of secondary source coverage of him. I see you are tagging Chinese-sounding names willy-nilly. Please stop; you are embarrassing Wikipedia with these tags. Churn and change (talk) 18:52, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. There are tons of independent and reliable sources that I found relatively easily. Appears well-published, which fits WP:SCHOLAR #1. Additionally (and as an independent factor), he's the Director of his institute (see previous source) which also fulfils #5 on the secondary Academics guideline. With both reliable sources demonstrated and notability demonstrated, this is easily a keep. Lord Roem (talk) 15:50, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep per WP:SCHOLAR... The article needs to better express the subject's notability, but there are over 1000 citations on the first 5 Google Scholar titles alone. Celtechm (talk) 19:45, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per the US National Academy membership and WP:PROF#C3. I've added Churn's source to the article, as well as a source for his discovery. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:51, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep as above. Nom is advised to study WP:Prof before making further nominations in this area. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:13, 22 October 2012 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 14:39, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

David Allan (striker)[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that he had been named Young Player of the Year runner up. Since he has not received significant coverage for it, this has no bearing on notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:11, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:12, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 14:17, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - has represented a Scottish Third Division side (Elgin City), that isn't enough to satisfy WP:NFOOTBALL but it's a national league, so in my eyes it probably should do. Won't deny that the article needs a re-write and the infobox bringing in-line with the standard Football table style. Probably needs at least one proper source (ie, somewhere that isn't Soccerbase, or a club's website) to really be worth keeping though Lukeno94 (talk) 20:55, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There are thousands of national leagues all over the world; what makes you think that players in any such league are notable? Meeting NFOOTY means that there should be enough suitable sources about the player in order to satisfy the GNG, something which you failed to show. Cheers. – Kosm1 fent 05:57, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – didn't appear in a fully pro league and no indication of significant coverage in independent reliable sources, fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. – Kosm1 fent 05:57, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:48, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in Scottish task force's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 18:14, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Fails WP:GNG as he hasn't received significant media coverage nor has he played in a fully professional the (Highland League & Scottish Third Division) aren't fully pro, so also fails WP:NFOOTY. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 18:23, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Non-notable semi-professional footballer Dcfc1988 (talk) 01:21, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article is about a footballer who hasn't played in a fully pro league or represented his country at senior level, which means that the article fails WP:NFOOTY. Also fails WP:GNG due to lack of coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 10:13, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 14:41, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

London Speedlite Scene[edit]

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

A private social networking service, obviously important to its members, but lacking any significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of this article. Shirt58 (talk) 13:03, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

s*s*s"Keep" I am the article's creator. Reliable sources have been cited from individuals who are independent professionals in the field (photography). p4pictures is the website of photographer and photo specialist trainer of Oxfordshire based Brian Worley. In 1995 Brian joined Canon Europe where he was one of a small team preparing Canon’s European operation for the launch of digital cameras and other imaging products in to the European market place. During his time at Canon he has been European Product Manager for photo products, and most recently Communications Manager looking after the creation of the revised CPS program and the CPN website. Natetogg (talk) 17:53, 21 October 2012 (UTC)— Natetogg (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --Shirt58 (talk) 13:51, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A private social network that fails WP:GNG does not need a Wiki page, and the comment defending it above seems to make next-to-no-sense whatsoever. Lukeno94 (talk) 21:00, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Zero coverage in reliable sources. The article creator cites only personal websites like Simonvardy.com, p4pictures.com, and Swsphoto.co.uk. These fail WP:SPS. The link [14] is nothing more than a shout out. WP:ORGDEPTH explains we need to see non-trivial coverage in secondary sources. WP:CLUB says we need to see both "1. The scope of their activities is national or international in scale. and 2. Information about the organization and its activities can be verified by multiple, third-party, independent, reliable sources." We have not even one independent reliable source. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:14, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 14:43, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yago Del Piero[edit]

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

Non-professional footballer, fails WP:GNG and WP:athlete. Moreover the article had no real content apart from age and basic information. Matthew_hk t c 12:00, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think he may well be a professional (he is 18 and at Inter Milan, after all), but he hasn't played a professional match so he doesn't merit a place here. Remake the article if he becomes notable. Lukeno94 (talk) 20:58, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:33, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:35, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:35, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:10, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:57, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article is about a footballer who hasn't played in a fully pro league or represented his country at senior level, which means that the article fails WP:NFOOTY. Also fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. No prejudice against recreation if he plays in a fully pro leaugue. Mentoz86 (talk) 10:14, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 00:13, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ravi Neelakantan[edit]

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

Not notable, little media coverage - does not warrant an encyclopedia entry. 122.177.60.129 (talk) 07:58, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:05, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:05, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:13, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems to be little more than a big man on campus. Can't meet the WP:GNG unless there are reliable independent sources about him. Vcessayist (talk) 00:58, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 01:01, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Being the ambassador of India to Vietnam would suggest notability and I have found sources to confirm this. Although not the best, Google Books provided one result here and Google News provided this news article also mentioning his position as ambassador. Google News also provided additional results here, here, here and a Vietnamese article here and the results continue at the second page. These sources suggest that this is certainly not a hoax and I will add these shortly. The article will have to be trimmed to a stub and I plan to do so shortly. SwisterTwister talk 02:10, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: Relisting to allow sources identified by SwisterTwister to be evaluated

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michig (talk) 10:50, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I think there are just enough sources to warrant an article. --Anbu121 (talk me) 09:27, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Stephen Euin Cobb. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:16, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Future and You[edit]

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

Contested proposed deletion in July 2012. Concern is that while the podcast did receive one award in 2006, podcast lacks overall notability as it has not been mentioned in any third party works for verifiability. WP:WEB. Breno ^talk 12:17, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:06, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:06, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:06, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 20:24, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thine Antique Pen (talk) 10:25, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Whether or not the article is kept, it certainly needs to be trimmed. Not every guest needs to be mentioned, even if they do have an article here.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:31, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Additional: I went ahead and removed the vast majority of fan material added to the article. The stickler here is that it won a Parsec Award and while it definitely contributes towards notability, I'm not sure if it's so overwhelmingly notable that it would give absolute notability based on this factor alone.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:44, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Stephen Euin Cobb. I've thought about this a little and I have to say that while the Parsec Award is notable and it does give notability, it doesn't seem to be so overwhelmingly notable that it would give absolute notability to where this would be kept on that basis alone. Given that there doesn't seem to be any in-depth coverage of this podcast show in reliable sources, I think that this would be best served by redirecting to Cobb's page with the site being a mention on his page. Of course I do want to mention that Cobb's page suffers from the same level of fan writing and also needs some work, which I'll try to get around to.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 11:31, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I've cleaned out a good portion of the article's cruft and I'll look for RS to show that Cobb himself has notability.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 11:39, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 14:47, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tandemlaunch Technologies[edit]

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

One of a series of linked articles on very marginally noted company. Article created by subsequently-banned sock-pupeteer active in creating articles on marginally notable technological companies. DGG ( talk ) 09:17, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as spam. Most refs are in very obscure web publications. Fails WP:COMPANY. Tijfo098 (talk) 14:54, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Keep Refs 1,2,4, and 5 seem valid, though coverage focus is both Canadian and academic. Another possible ref [Here]. As a Quebec company, they may also ref in French, but my skills in French aren't up to the search. Celtechm (talk) 21:25, 22 October 2012 (UTC) This user is the subject of a current discussion at the conflict of interest noticeboard regarding paid editing[reply]
Delete not notable. Gigs (talk) 01:21, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and all guidelines for companies. Qworty (talk) 01:33, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 14:49, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Officeautopilot[edit]

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

Marginal computer software company Article created by subsequently-banned sock-pupeteer active in creating articles on marginally notable technological companies of this nature. DGG ( talk ) 09:15, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as spam. Most refs are in very obscure web publications. Fails WP:COMPANY. Tijfo098 (talk) 14:56, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The most solid references here are in sector reviews, for example the Capterra rating as 15 of 20, the Raab 2011 listing as a tool for micro-businesses (but not among leading vendors in the B2B 2012 report), and a positive review in Insurance Marketing Online. All in all, these seem to fall short of WP:CORPDEPTH/WP:NSOFT. AllyD (talk) 16:19, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Using the Capterra report for comparision: #1 Eloqua, #5 Unica (IBM), # Silverpop (SPA-created), #9 Pardot (SPA-created), #10 Act-On (created by User:Corporate Minion), #13 Neolane (SPA-created). It's a contest! And we have not been spared articles on companies ranking below Officeautopilot: LeadLife, eTrigue, Net-results (SPA-created), LeadFormix (SPA-created), LoopFuse (SPA-created). Tijfo098 (talk) 08:27, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A decision based less on research of the topic and more on the nominators evaluation. If DGG says delete it has gotta be bad! -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 09:36, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. We will see more and more of this since the business community is seeing that WP is not going away and id damn popular. It is too good an opportunity to miss for the marketing industry. We are in dire need an overhaul of WP policies, guidelines and systems. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 09:40, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This is mostly off-topic here, but what we need are objective guidelines for companies similar to those from the German Wikipedia. (We kinda have that for WP:PROFs.) No more local business journal + obscure trade magazine news coverage = GNG pass to SPAM. Tijfo098 (talk) 16:00, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree wholeheartedly. Lets get the ball rolling. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:32, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:16, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:16, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 14:51, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Hennessey[edit]

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

non notable academic technologist; Adjunct professor with a few publications. Article created by subsequently-banned sock-pupeteer active in creating articles on marginally notable technological companies. DGG ( talk ) 09:13, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. His most cited paper, "A Single Camera Eye-Gaze Tracking System with Free Head Motion", has 77 citations in GS, 24 in ACM DL and 14 in CiteSeerX. The rest of his papers are much more obscure. Tijfo098 (talk) 14:49, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:11, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:11, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:11, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find adequate evidence of his academic work passing WP:PROF or of his commercial work passing WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:34, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted by Rmhermen, G7: author's request; A10: duplication. (Non-admin technical closure)Ymblanter (talk) 09:47, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Europäisches Minderheiten Journal[edit]

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

The subject doesn't meet WP:GNG. There is no reliable source outside the printmedia business (however, I do consider SPRINGER a reliable source but that's precisely the publisher itself). Coverage is insufficient, thus. None of the sources that I could retrieve through a Google search has elaborated on the magazine, its histora, ists 7use, its circulation or its significance. And neither does the article itself. MountWassen (talk) 09:04, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. This journal does not even seem to exist, it is not on the list of journals published by the Verlag Oesterreich. Seems like this article was created by mistake by a new editor, who then proceeded with creating another article under the correct journal name: Europäisches Journal für Minderheitenfragen. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 10:56, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Tagged with G7 and A10 (Europäisches Journal für Minderheitenfragen). --Ben Ben (talk) 20:23, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Woodlands House School (Girl's Wing). MBisanz ^talk 15:51, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Woodlands House School (Boy's Wing)[edit]

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

It doesn't meet WP:GNG. WP:NHS says "Like any other topic, articles on schools must be able to meet notability standards". This doesn't as yet. Mr T ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 08:48, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge~~Keep~~ I have found three newspaper references to verify that the school exists: [15], [16], [17] --Anbu121 (talk me) 12:37, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Certainly appears to exist, but often called Woodland House School in sources. As it is a verified secondary school, it should be kept, but the actual name needs to be established and it needs to be merged with Woodlands House School (Girl's Wing) into a single article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:29, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Necrothesp.--Charles (talk) 10:05, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ΛΧΣ21™ 03:09, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The school has not attracted significant coverage in secondary reliable sources, as required by WP:GNG. Its mere existence is not sufficient to show its notability. The references cited above are passing mentions and fail WP:CORPDEPTH, which applies to schools. If the result is keep, which I think it shouldn't be, there certainly isn't enough coverage of the girls' wing to make it independently notable of the boys' wing and thus the two articles should be merged. I did a search and could find no further examples of significant coverage. --Batard0 (talk) 08:05, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 08:44, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with girl's school page into one article. Verified secondary schools are commonly kept, and this seems verifiable. BusterD (talk) 14:41, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Woodlands House School (Boy's Wing). MBisanz ^talk 15:51, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Woodlands House School (Girl's Wing)[edit]

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

It doesn't meet WP:GNG. WP:NHS says "Like any other topic, articles on schools must be able to meet notability standards". This doesn't as yet. Mr T ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 08:45, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge~~Keep~~ I have found three newspaper references to verify that the school exists: [18], [19], [20] --Anbu121 (talk me) 12:37, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Certainly appears to exist, but often called Woodland House School in sources. As it is a verified secondary school, it should be kept, but the actual name needs to be established and it needs to be merged with Woodlands House School (Boy's Wing) into a single article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:29, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ΛΧΣ21™ 03:09, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per Anbu121 - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:27, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The school has not attracted significant coverage in secondary reliable sources, as required by WP:GNG. Its mere existence is not sufficient to show its notability. The references cited above are passing mentions and fail WP:CORPDEPTH, which applies to schools. If the result is keep, which I think it shouldn't be, there certainly isn't enough coverage of the girls' wing to make it independently notable of the boys' wing and thus the two articles should be merged. I did a search and could find no further examples of significant coverage. --Batard0 (talk) 08:04, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 08:44, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Boy's wing and rename to Woodlands House School. WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES says secondary/high schools are almost always notable, but not convinced we need 2 articles on 1 school. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:23, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The "Girl's Wing" in particular does not seem to pass WP:GNG. The school itself might pass it (although I am not sure the references Anbu121 noted confirm even the school meets WP:GNG), but not this wing. If there were an article on the school itself, maybe a redirect would be ok, but there is not. Hoppingalong (talk) 01:09, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge both girl's and boy's wings pages into a unified school page. While insufficient sources seem to be applied on either article at this time, we normally keep articles on verified secondary schools as inherently notable, presuming that such sources will eventually present themselves for use. BusterD (talk) 14:09, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There is no consensus to delete or merge, however there is a strong sentiment (with which I happen to agree) that the articles should be renamed to "List of xyz typefaces" rather than "Samples of...". The sample images can remain, but these should be titled as proper list articles are. I won't mandate here that the articles be renamed, but I would highly encourage that they are renamed. If there is significant opposition to renaming the articles, then a discussion might need to take place first. If you need help moving the articles over redirects, contact me for assistance. ‑Scottywong | prattle _ 17:01, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Samples of sans serif typefaces[edit]

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

Not an article. We do not host image galleries on Wikipedia. Apparently prodded in 2009 but it didn't show up with a warning when I prodded it today. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:51, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There is already a good List of typefaces article. The difference here is the images of the types. It could be a useful tool, but it is not comprehensive or encyclopedic. —Zujine|talk 05:31, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The List of typefaces is hardly as useful as these lists, because it does not have the images of the typefaces. I confess that I was one of the editors adding to some of these pages back in 2009, because I thought they were interesting and useful then, and I still do. Yes, I know that useful is not a criteria for retention, but it should not be held against an article, either.--DThomsen8 (talk) 00:49, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this and all the other "Samples" articles linked from it. Wikipedia is not an image gallery. JIP | Talk 05:52, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/merge and move/recreate on Commons, where pages showing sets of images from Commons are perfectly allowed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:02, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm partly persuaded by arguments below that merging is reasonable. A pure collection of images isn't, but lists can be illustrated (and on graphics topics, it's right they should). Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:49, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge all to List of typefaces - If that list is ever to become a FL, it needs detailed content. The content in these nominated pages is an ideal start. Designer name, samples for comparison (like List of amphibians of Michigan) which are important given that this is a visual topic, etc. —Quiddity (talk) 21:11, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If merged, wouldn't they loose all the descriptive pictures? Dream Focus 08:39, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why not rename these to "List of FOO typefaces", expand them to make them comprehensive, and turn list of typefaces, which just contains bare wikilinks, into a list of lists? I also think that the added content, including illustrations, is the way to properly annotate such lists, and doing so does not make them mere "image galleries" within the meaning of WP:NOT. We want lists to be illustrated if feasible. postdlf (talk) 20:29, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all and rename. They serve a valid encyclopedic purpose like any other WP:SAL. All fonts in these lists are blue linked, thus notable. Clearly such lists exist elsewhere, so WP:LISTN is satisfied as well. I note that the main list lacks details such as [sub-]classification and designer, which these lists do provide. Tijfo098 (talk) 03:01, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration.

Keep Useful and encyclopedic. A picture is worth a thousand words. Remember, Wikipedia exist to educate people, not just include famous people that get ample coverage everywhere. There are surely reference books out there, before computers even, that list all of these, but I don't really think this is the sort of thing that needs coverage to prove its encyclopedic. Dream Focus 23:51, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also rename from "samples" to "list" because obviously these are lists, and should have that at the start of their names. Dream Focus 08:42, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reorganize: On Tijfo's point, just because the fonts are notable doesn't mean we need to organize them in this way. And remember, nobody's saying articles on individual fonts should be deleted, just that organizing them in six different lists on six different pages is the way to go p b p 04:23, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of typefaces. Per everybody above, the images are no doubt useful to some Wikipedia readers, but WP:NOT (though not entirely on point in this case) is against pages that are primarily a collection of images. There are, though, well established criteria for building and maintaining list articles. Whether the six "sample" pages and the list should be combined into one page or several is another question worth discussing, but it is beyond the scope of AfD. Cnilep (talk) 06:48, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you are misreading WP:NOTGALLERY. "Wikipedia is neither a mirror nor a repository of links, images, or media files. Wikipedia articles are not: [...] Mere collections of photographs or media files with no text to go with the articles. If you are interested in presenting a picture, please provide an encyclopedic context, or consider adding it to Wikimedia Commons. If a picture comes from a public domain source on a website, then consider adding it to Wikipedia:Images with missing articles or Wikipedia:Public domain image resources." There is text with these images, and it's encyclopedic too. Tijfo098 (talk) 11:56, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, that is what I had in mind when I said the policy is "not entirely on point in this case". Cnilep (talk) 00:44, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep/merge: Though Wikipedia is not an image gallery, one might argue that these articles may be encyclopedic, since it would help those who are more visual learners. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 13:15, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep without any merging. These lists are useful to webmasters and desktop publishers, and have been improved over the years by typology project participants. They have links to particular font pages. --DThomsen8 (talk) 00:43, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you explain why you think this page is useful in a way that a list or lists would not be? Or is that not the basis for your "without any merging" suggestion? Cnilep (talk) 02:24, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - They are list articles, they just didn't have the word list in their name yet. They already said why it would be useful. Dream Focus 01:10, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "It's WP:USEFUL" is not an argument for keeping, still less for not merging. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:11, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all, including images, into List of typefaces. Nothing says we can't have an illustrated list. Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 00:52, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Would all of this fit in just one article though? Dream Focus 01:10, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename: This is a list, and thus should be titled List of sans serif typefaces. As a list, it clearly meets WP:LISTN. These typefaces have been treated as a group in multiple books, like this one and this one. The inclusion criteria are sufficiently clear and narrow from the title. Could be merged into List of typefaces if that seems more prudent, but given the potential size of this list it may be better to put a sampling of typefaces in the List of typefaces article and have separate ones for the various kinds of typefaces that are more comprehensive. --Batard0 (talk) 07:48, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 08:43, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a valid list. It certainly overlaps with List of typefaces but the extra detail provided makes it worthwhile. If it was just a gallery, I would say delete, but it's also useful for navigation and summarizes factual encyclopedic information. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:26, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment–In addition to the nominator's rationale, there were three arguments in favor of deletion made on 11 October. Since then there have been a variety of rationales for keeping the article, plus arguments surrounding merger, re-organization, or other clean-up. In my opinion, keeping this discussion open for another week is unlikely to produce much change in the balance of arguments for or against deletion. Cnilep (talk) 00:41, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - No prose, no sources. Both of these can and should be added to the list. Under WP:LISTPURP, the lists do seem to be a valuable information source. If these type of lists are limited to covering only those items listed in Category:Typefaces by style, I don't think there would be too much resistance. However, I think the entrenched WP:OWN removal of no references templates as purportedly justified by Wikipedia_talk:Typeface_list_collaboration#Samples_of_script_typefaces indicates it's time to delete and restart with new editors who are willing to develop these lists per Wikipedia:Core content policies. When you post something like:

*******************************************************************************
██████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
█████████████████PLEASE READ THE MESSAGE AT THE TALKPAGE OF THIS ARTICLE BEFORE EDITING███████████████
██████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
*******************************************************************************

in the edit box[21] and remove policy based templates without complying with them and justify your actions based on a two+ year old very limited discussion with a Typeface list task force, that's WP:OWN. Merge all would have the same effect as delete all. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 02:49, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 00:15, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Vito Perna[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The article was created by a blocked user and it does not pass WP:CRIME. Vic49 (talk) 23:27, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Vic49 (talk) 23:30, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Vic49 (talk) 23:30, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, possibly speedy delete (oops - can't be speedied since it survived a previous AFD) as a violation of WP:BLP. The article states as fact that the subject is guilty of various crimes, but the only source is an arrest warrant alleging the accusations. See WP:CRIME, "A living person accused of a crime is presumed not guilty unless and until this is decided by a court of law. Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured." --MelanieN (talk) 18:42, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Although Perna is presumed not guilty on the current charges, he has a history of convictions related to illegal gambling. Per the NJ.com story cited in the article, "Perna, a well-known bookmaker and the brother of the onetime New Jersey underboss for the Lucchese crime family, has been sentenced on criminal gambling charges at least a half-dozen times in the past 25 years. Most recently, the 61-year-old from East Hanover was sentenced to 15 months in a federal prison for running a gambling racket with his sons." Presumably, the guidelines in WP:CRIME are intended to avoid tainting people's reputations by tying them to crimes of which they may or may not be guilty. Since Perna has a history of involvement in crimes similar to those of which he's now accused, I don't think we have to be quite so solicitous about protecting his reputation. Ammodramus (talk) 17:40, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I've gone through the article and replaced assertions of fact with "alleged" and "purported" phrasings, and have found sources for every statement in the article. I removed a passage about prison smuggling that shouldn't have been in this article (according to the source, the accused wasn't the subject of the article, but one of his sons). I think it now meets BLP standards.

I don't think WP:CRIME is properly applied in this situation. It begins "A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial..." Perna is not known in connection with a single criminal event: he is alleged to be a higher-up in a major criminal organization. He's featured prominently enough in the NJ AG's press releases and the stories written about the bust of the allged gambling/extortion ring to create a reasonable presumption of notability. Ammodramus (talk) 18:53, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not pass WP:CRIME, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aandres31 (talk • contribs) 22:55, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 10:01, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Delete and merge with Lucchese crime family. Not every member, associate or affiliate of the mafia needs an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Byki (talk • contribs) 13:33, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Lucchese crime family per WP:CRIME: "A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person." The Lucchese crime family can clearly accommodate this material; once the body of information and citations about this person gets larger, it may warrant a separate article, but not yet. --Batard0 (talk) 07:35, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 08:43, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Batard0 - You make a good point, but the article has only been up for 3 months. I think more time is necceasry to determine wether it can be expanded more and kept. I give it a weak keep for now. --Ted87 (talk) 22:26, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - so that we can determine if the article can be expanded.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:40, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 00:26, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CraveOnline[edit]

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

Page seems to exist as primarily advertising. Virtually all sources in the article are simply information about product aquisitions rather than noteable coverage. Jtrainor (talk) 11:29, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As a side note, the page was created by a user who has virtually only edited this page, and has a duplication of the article as his userpage. Jtrainor (talk) 11:35, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - There are literally dozens of often popular websites out there. Even the already extensive list is incomplete. I'm personally well acquainted with: Something Awful (once a really, REALLY popular website and still might have the biggest forums on the Internet), ComingSoon, RPGamer, ShockTillYouDrop, Action Trip, N4G, Siliconera. The article should be rather renamed to Crave Online Media, and updated and rewritten more properly. --Niemti (talk) 13:01, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to CraveOnline Media, I could agree with some nominator's concerns about "being written like an advertisement", this is not a reason for deleting but for fixing/rewriting. Not only Craveonline has reliable coverage about it ([22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30]), but also many of their articles/interviews were cited by other very important and highly reliable sources ([31], [32], [33], [34], [35]). More, many of its websites appears to be independently notable (Something Awful, WrestleZone, Coming Soon, Sherdog, RPGamer). Cavarrone (talk) 08:21, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CraveOnline does not own somethingawful. It's owned only by Lowtax, the guy who runs it. CraveOnline's only association is having a link to it (and a lot of the other sites it claims as 'partners') on their website. It's just a content aggregator website with no real content of it's own. Jtrainor (talk) 10:05, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you are wrong. I read in the same websites "© 2012 All Rights Reserved. WrestleZone.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC.", "© 2012 All Rights Reserved. ComingSoon.net is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC." or "© 2010 All Rights Reserved. Sherdog.net is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC." Nor it is true that is just a content aggregator, otherwise you should explain why here USA Today says ""...owner Mark Cuban says in an interview with CraveOnline.com...", here Chicago Tribune mentions that a limited-edition collector's poster of Sopranos is available for free in the website, here MTV quotes a film review by the website, here The Belfast Telegraph says "According to CraveOnline.com...the star said", here TF1 quotes an interview of Ridley Scott with craveonline and so on. Cavarrone (talk) 12:18, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Self-correction: should be CraveOnline Media (not Crave Online Media). --Niemti (talk) 01:41, 30 September 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:50, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - 180+ hits, mostly press releases going back to at least August 31, 2005. Two years and 40 press releases after August 31, 2005, there's a mention in Athens News December 13, 2007: "If that's not enough, I'm also doing humor writing for CraveOnline." 40 more press releases and one year later, there is Back Stage May 22, 2008: "CraveOnline & Wrigley 5 Gum are seeking submissions for an online video contest." Then, CraveOnline is cited as the source for a Frozen Margarita recipe.Hawk Eye May 26, 2008. Forty more press releases and another year, and CraveOnline is cited as one of about twenty references at the end of the article Journal of Film and Video July 1, 2009, citing: "Topel, Fred. "Interview: Family Guy Creator Seth MacFarlane." CraveOnline.com. Craveonline Media, 6 Oct. 2008. Web. 8 Oct. 2008." Another two years pass with more press releases, then the article "Web network boosts Complex Media" in Crain's New York Business January 3, 2011 mentions, "Everybody is vying for the media buyers attention, said David Cohn, senior vice president of sales at CraveOnline, a young mens network owned by Evolve Media Corp." It's not until June 2011 - six years and about 140 press releases after the August 2005 first CraveOnline press release does the topic receive some coverage. In Charleston Daily Mail June 2, 2011, the article notes that a boxing referee is suing CraveOnline for claiming that he fixed a championship boxing match. The article in Hollywood Reporter August 15, 2011 quotes Iann Robinson of CraveOnline. Folio May 1, 2012 notes in brief how CraveOnline senior vice president left CraveOnline to become the executive vice president, digital sales and marketing of Vibe Media. Then, CraveOnline is cited as the source for a Baileys Summer Chill Smoothie recipe in a July 12, 2012 news article.[36] Last, Winnipeg Free Press October 5, 2012 quotes Fred Topel, CraveOnline, "Boy, it's nice to have Tim Burton back... A beautiful movie... it will be quite threatening to some grown-ups, but those are the best kinds of kids movies." That's about it. There is not enough Wikipedia reliable source material independent of the CraveOnline topic for a stand alone article per WP:GNG. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:13, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 10:05, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose and Keep - An article written like an advertisement is not reason enough to delete it. Corn cheese (talk) 00:41, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have to agree with Uzma Gamal on this one. I think it falls short of the WP:GNG guideline, and WP:CORPDEPTH. All of the sources cited by Cavarrone above amount to routine coverage, described as follows under WP:CORPDEPTH: "brief announcements of mergers or sales of part of the business" and "simple statements that a product line is being sold, changed, or discontinued". I found some other stories on court cases, but I don't think this rises to the level of significant coverage. --Batard0 (talk) 07:29, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have not just posted business news but also some sources that show how several articles, inteviews and activities of the website were cited and included in articles by Chicago Tribune, Usa Today, Belfast Telegraph and so on, showing a "real world impact" of the website. Surely the argument about the lack of indepht coverage about the website in itself is correct, such as it is for a great majority of popular websites, but I still don't think that Wikipedia is bureaucracy and here there are other signs of notability that IMHO should be taken into account, including the point that Crave Online owns a great number of other websites that passes more clearly the notability bar and that already have an article on Wikipedia. Cavarrone (talk) 07:45, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 08:43, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also only looking at ComingSoon.net, this single CraveOnline Media website (now a redirect to CraveOnline) is a leading source of information on the media in production, and as such has been cited in more than 5,500 Wikipedia articles (probably many more, not all are marked). --Niemti (talk) 09:51, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – Publisher seems to own some well established brands such as ComingSoon.net. Betty Logan (talk) 08:35, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Narendra Modi. MBisanz ^talk 22:12, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Narendra Modi's Google+ Hangout[edit]

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

I acknowledge that some speeches by politicians are notable (see Category:Speeches). So can interviews, through this seems much less common (see Category:Interviews). I guess it is not impossible for a live chat to be notable, but I couldn't find a single example on Wikipedia for a precedent, and in either case, this particular article does not strike me as a notable event. The event has generated some media coverage, but did it generate enough to make it notable? I have serious doubts about that, and I'd invite others to debate whether chats can be notable, and whether this one is. PS. I have no problem with the article being merged to Narendra Modi, I can see this as a valid section in his bio. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 18:03, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Narenda Modi TheLongTone (talk) 18:28, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article and add info to Narendra Modi, this is not notable and does not warrant a separate article Aurorion (talk) 20:13, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess deleting the article and adding the same info to another article is not possible for copyright reasons. Did you meant a merge? --Anbu121 (talk me) 08:40, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. But why would that be a copyright violation? I was not aware of this issue. Anyway, I did not vote as merge because I don't think this subject matter even deserves a full section in a WP article. Maybe 1-2 sentences at max. Aurorion (talk) 16:13, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to CC-BY-SA license, attribution must be given to the editor who provided the content. Usually, the revision history page takes care of this. But, when the info from one article (source) is added to another article (destination) and if the source article is deleted, the attribution to the editor who provided the content is also lost. When you merge the contents of the source article to the destination, the edit summary of the destination article should mention that the content is copied from the source article. This would retain the attribution to the editor inside the history of the redirect. After a merge has been performed, the content on the destination article can be copy edited or summarized or cut down by any one, but the redirect must not the deleted. --Anbu121 (talk me) 16:34, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can always copy the history of the page at the time to get attribution - attribution doesn't have to be done via link. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 10:46, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I see nothing notable about this article whatsoever. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 20:49, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Anbu121 (talk me) 22:55, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Anbu121 (talk me) 22:55, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Narendra Modi ~~Delete~~ per WP:NOT#NEWS. Politicians are involved in various meetings, events regularly. This one was hyped by the media just because of Google+. --Anbu121 (talk me) 00:10, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes! Delete. Just like all the Twitter account articles of celebs, this one also doesn't meet notability. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:07, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep It is obviously notable. This event received high coverage (NDTV, IBNLive, Times of India, Business Line, Indian Express, Hindustan Times, Zee News and many more). It received such an overwhelming response that Google+ just got crashed for 45 minutes. Google India, in its blog post, said that about 82,000 people from 116 countries saw that hangout. It will be really, in my opinion, sick to delete this article for notability concerns. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 10:36, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also noticed that the nominator's rational is highly based on WP:OTHERSTUFF. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 10:41, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That only applies to deletion !votes. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 21:42, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:33, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:33, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CommentThe argument is not about notability: it's aboutwhether the topic is worth its own article. Which, as my merge "vote" above indicates, I do not believeto be the case.TheLongTone (talk) 22:34, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per Aurorion. Not at all notable and doesn't need any mention. It is just something done by a politician and I cannot see how is this notable. In past we have seen all articles regarding Twitter accs' of celebs getting deleted. On comparing them to this, this article isn't even near to what we call WP:N. TheSpecialUser ^TSU 01:52, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How can you say that a event which got so much of coverage is not notable. In that case, 25% of our articles are also non-notable. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 06:42, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Also, we don't like articles about people's internet usage and stuff. This one had 182 references, and was still deleted. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 12:22, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete - per Anbu. AshLey ^Msg 10:22, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, my !vote is merge. I have striked out delete and switched to merge. --Anbu121 (talk me) 12:19, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know, but my immediate observation was against the existence of a silly article like this, and I found Anbu's reasoning to merge is apt for proposing its deletion. However, I have no objection in including the gist of this article in Narendra Modi. AshLey ^Msg 09:23, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Narendra Modi per WP:NOT#NEWS--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:29, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Merge per nom. --regentspark (comment) 15:56, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per earlier discussion. This clearly received media coverage, and there are reliable sources, but WP:NOTNEWS. --Batard0 (talk) 10:06, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 08:42, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and common sense. Press conferences, town hall meetings, interviews are not normally notable - I don't see anything to distinguish this from them except for the forum. Perhaps some information would be relevant to a future Political fora article, but it's not deserving of its own article. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 10:52, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Elis (band). MBisanz ^talk 04:15, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sandra Schleret[edit]

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

This article was already deleted after a proposed deletion, but it was recreated without the page history being restored, therefore most of the content of the article is not properly attributed. Furthermore, a search for reliable, secondary sources reveals an insufficient amount of significant coverage. This article fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines for musicians. Neelix (talk) 15:33, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of secondary sources to demonstrate notablity. SalHamton (talk) 17:54, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:14, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:14, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:58, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Unsurprisingly, Google News US provided several non-English sources, mostly German. The second page continues with German results but there is one English but minor mention here. I would appreciate it if a user fluent with German would determine if any of these sources are useful. Google News archives Austria provided one small mention (and dead link) that appears to be only an event listing. SwisterTwister talk 21:51, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The German news are about joining/leaving bands, e.g. statement to the press for leaving Elis, touring aso. Is this in-depth? Or writting one or two sentences to have a reason to post a picture with her? 'Not bad' looking women in metal usually have far more pictures than written text on the net. Checking [37], yes! Will pay my 5 € into the macho box later. --Ben Ben (talk) 21:07, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Ben Ben (talk) 21:52, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 00:14, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 08:41, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Elis (band). --Nlu (talk) 22:08, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 07:59, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strikeforce Challengers: Kennedy vs. Cummings[edit]

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

This sports event fails WP:NOTNEWSPAPER policy along with WP:EVENT and WP:SPORTSEVENT , there is no attempt in the actual article to demonstrate any lasting significance, the sources are from either before or immediately post the event and are just of the routine coverage type any sports event gets, they are either not independent or from MMA centric websources. Mt king ^(edits) 07:20, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DENY editor blocked by BWilkins
Keep as this one is actually notable. It was televised, featured named fighters, was from a major promotion, was covered in multiple press sources, etc. Please stop using the same copy and paste, lazy, boilerplate heading for every MMA related discussion. Enough is enough. National newspapers are independent of MMA centric websources. By this nomination's rationale, we would not cover SuperBowl games, because they receive the same "routine" coverage for every SuperBowl... --Mdtemp (school) (talk) 12:41, 22 October 2012 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Mdtemp (school) (talk • contribs) has made no other contributions outside this topic. Struck due to obvious attempt to imitate an editor (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:14, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply] Is this an attempt to mislead people and make them think this is my opinion? Mdtemp (talk) 20:58, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply] Then you should have no problem demonstrating the lasting effect of the event then, as the coverage is all WP:PRIMARYNEWS reports and policy is routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Mt king ^(edits) 19:35, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DENY editor blocked by BWilkins

Keep as this one is actually notable. It was televised, featured named fighters, was from a major promotion, was covered in multiple press sources, etc. Please stop using the same copy and paste, lazy, boilerplate heading for every MMA related discussion. Enough is enough. National newspapers are independent of MMA centric websources. By this nomination's rationale, we would not cover SuperBowl games, because they receive the same "routine" coverage for every SuperBowl... --Mdtemp (school) (talk) 12:41, 22 October 2012 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Mdtemp (school) (talk • contribs) has made no other contributions outside this topic. Struck due to obvious attempt to imitate an editor (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:14, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is this an attempt to mislead people and make them think this is my opinion? Mdtemp (talk) 20:58, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then you should have no problem demonstrating the lasting effect of the event then, as the coverage is all WP:PRIMARYNEWS reports and policy is routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Mt king ^(edits) 19:35, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article consists solely of fight results with only routine sports coverage. Unlike the Super Bowl, there were no champions determined at this event. Papaursa (talk) 00:59, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just routine coverage of a routine fight card. There's no indication of notability or non-routine coverage. Mdtemp (talk) 20:58, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Per Mtking.
LlamaAl (talk) 23:06, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:IAR as deleting factual information about a notable event serves no useful purpose and does not in anywise benefit anyone. As such this nomination violates WP:TROLL and WP:DICK. --BStudent0 (talk) 12:37, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- the "ignore all rules" is only half of the policy. it is based on the conditional "if it improves the encyclopedia". you are making a claim "that it doesnt hurt", but an unsupported claim like that is not sufficient. how does it actually improve the encyclopedia? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:48, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails WP:GNG significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:49, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep both. Michig (talk) 08:03, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Homophobia in the Black community[edit]

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

I'm a little on the fence about these two articles. Basically, they seem like coatrack articles with biased viewpoints about homophobia as a whole among certain races (and this nomination is coming from a pansexual black man). Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 07:12, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both as notable topics discussed in reliable sources, although my preferred solution is the one I suggested at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Racism in the LGBT community (3rd nomination); userspace it and work on an article focusing generally on queer people of color (such that we could acknowledge bias within particular communities but also the dual minority issue from without, information on qpoc cultures, observations from reliable sources if they're there that "homophobia in the white community" and "racism in the straight community" don't get singled out...) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:48, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm a little confused by what you said. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 16:49, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Can you elaborate? My opinion is that since reliable sources discuss homophobia in X community as a notable topic, the article should remain, but that I would prefer to merge, after a sort, both these and the LGBT racism article together into an article on queer people of color that would use the lens of the experience of a member of both communities, rather than "queers/blacks have bias, aren't they awful." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:41, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Now, that would make sense, but right now the articles still seem like coatracks to me. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 03:19, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If this article is supposed to have world-wide scope, as suggested by the lack of restriction in the title and by the response to my comment below, then this is in general not a dual minority issue. Most black people live in countries where they are in a majority. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:06, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree that a refinement of the scope would be helpful. It would be a great error to try to tie in, say, Uganda. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:04, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both these articles are in their infancy. They already have a ton of sources. And the topic of homophobia in communities of color are notable. Signed a Hispanic Arab Jewish Queer-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 21:53, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both. These articles are stubby but the subjects are certainly notable and sources abound. Insomesia (talk) 21:56, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both, educational, encyclopedic, good deal of secondary source coverage, high value for this project. — Cirt (talk) 00:34, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What project? Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 03:19, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies. Insomesia (talk) 10:16, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Actually, I meant Wikipedia. But that's also true. :) — Cirt (talk) 16:03, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If this article is kept then it certainly needs to be renamed. Most black people do not live in the US or the article's afterthought of the UK, so if there is such a thing as a worldwide black community, as implied by the article title, this article does not address that community. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:03, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This article is new and I'm positive will be expanded. We are not talking only about Blacks in the United States or the United Kingdom for that matter. I've found several sources. I'm just trying to figure out how to summarize them in the article.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 20:18, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - How about renaming it Homophobia in the black community in the western world?Dwanyewest (talk) 19:05, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- In reference to latinos how about Homphobia in the latino community in the United states if we to be specific? Dwanyewest (talk) 19:07, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with User:Roscelese - the article should be kept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by White Gay Man (talk • contribs) 05:40, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Keep both for the reasons given above. - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:50, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The articles appear to be poorly written coat-racks at the moment (no offense meant to anyone editing there). Still, the notable topic has been discussed by a wide variety of sources. They should be kept (both of them). 129.120.177.8 (talk) 19:51, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per WP:SNOW. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 13:14, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Destiny: The shadow of tear[edit]

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

WP:NOTABILITY. Fails WP:NFILM. Unreleased film, only 8 ghits, all user-editable sources. Nat Gertler (talk) 05:22, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's nothing out there to ultimately show that this film exists or is being planned, let alone that it's notable. What I can find is of the type that anyone can upload to the internet. I don't think that this is a hoax, just a non-notable student/indie production, one of thousands that get made each year that never achieve notability.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:41, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I couldn't find any sources to signify that the film is notable. I don't think that it's a hoax, though. Like Tokyogirl, I think that it's just an indie production. Ha dg er 06:26, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NFF/WP:NF. And I agree, it has that amdram feeling, doesn't it? Ubelowme _U ^Me 16:26, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete, nonexistent coverage in reliable sources, no notability whatsoever. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:44, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CRYSTAL at the very least. If it is an indie production than this may be a vanity edit but should the film ever reach WP:NOTABILITY then it can be restored. MarnetteD | Talk 02:09, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If the "upcoming" release date ever comes to pass, then this article can be revisited. Actors are redlinked. The asianfuse link is telling: "Production Credits: Producer: Add info here; Director: Add info here; Screenwriter: Add info here; Company Name: Angel Secret Gateway". Glrx (talk) 02:14, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above; in no way notable.--E8 (talk) 03:16, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
20-Mule Team Delete: Fails WP:CRYSTAL and WP:N at the irreductible minimum, and probably fails WP:COI, WP:NFT and WP:BULLSHIT as well. If this is anything beyond a young teenager's fantasy, scribbled on tattered loose-leaf pages, I wager we're talking about someone's camphone by way of production values. Ravenswing 05:09, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all of the above, and the release date of December 0. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 10:28, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and for all of the excellent reasons already given. Qworty (talk) 10:35, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Bitcoin. MBisanz ^talk 00:17, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bitcoin-Qt[edit]

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

No need for an article on every Bitcoin program. This software should be covered in the Bitcoin article, and used to be adequately covered there until a sockpuppeting Bitcoin forum ... character... went on a campaign to downplay its importance, even though it's the only complete and correct implementation of the Bitcoin system. Expect socks to try stacking this AFD. :( Gmaxwell (talk) 04:44, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't this article be treated in the same nature as BitTornado and other Bittorrent clients that are considered notable?--HowardStrong (talk) 04:42, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Other stuff exists, and moreover Bittorrent has also existed a lot longer and has many more well known and complete implementations. --Gmaxwell (talk) 04:45, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The basic function of Bitcoin clients are covered in Bitcoin along with their various incarnations, including Bitcoin-Qt. This article can just be deleted if me nor the Bitcoin-Qt/Bitcoind developer, Gmaxwell, wants it. --HowardStrong (talk) 04:49, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let me restate that Gmaxwell is a second-generation Bitcoin-Qt/Bitcoind developer. This may introduce a conflict-of-interest. --HowardStrong (talk) 04:54, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete --HowardStrong (talk) 05:11, 21 October 2012 (UTC) Keep --HowardStrong, 03:06, 27 October 2012 (UTC); diff[reply]

Keep I've found (and added to the references) a couple of independent sources which discuss Bitcoin-Qt in particular. Surely if several independent sources talk about it then it's notable enough to stay? Cliff12345 (talk) 23:03, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One of the references you added (‘Full disclosure: Bitcoin-Qt on Windows vulnerability, 21st October 2012’) links to a page of Gavin Andresen's blog. He is listed as one of the developers of Bitcoin-Qt, and I doubt that we can consider this an independent source. The other reference you added (‘Vulnerability Summary for CVE-2012-4682’) does not establish notability in my opinion as that's just an entry in the NIST ‘National Vulnerability Database’ that appears to repeat what is already said on the corresponding page of the Bitcoin wiki. I don't see how these can be considered ‘significant coverage’ of Bitcoin-Qt, anyway. — Tobias Bergemann (talk) 06:41, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is not surprising that a bitcoin client does not get much attention outside of the community of bitcoin users. I would not be surprised if every user of Bitcoin would also be aware of Bitcoin-Qt, and I am somewhat surprised that Bitcoin-Qt apparantly has not received ‘significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject’, to quote Wikipedia:Notability. This may be a case where it is just too early for this software to have an wikipedia entry. — Tobias Bergemann (talk) 06:52, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, fair enough, I didn't look at the references very carefully. If, as you say, it's too early for the software to be on Wikipedia, maybe we could move it to Wikipedia:Article Incubator for a while (and delete the article itself for now)? Cliff12345 (talk) 10:31, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see what beneficial purpose that would serve. The article will not be maintained— the software doesn't have a life outside of being part of the Bitcoin infrastructure. The Bitcoin article itself is not being competently maintained as it is now, it has a lot of serious technical inaccuracies (Which I am unable to correct so long as Atlas and his socks continue to edit the article). Creating more articles will just result in more incorrect information being spread. ::shrugs:: --Gmaxwell (talk) 04:00, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well if you really want to delete it then I'm not too bothered. I personally think that putting it in the incubator wouldn't do any harm and would save editors work in the future if it does become more notable (the incubator article could always be deleted if in a few years time it's been completely forgotten). Cliff12345 (talk) 11:17, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- - Oh by the way, who's Atlas? Cliff12345 (talk) 11:21, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - When searching Google for "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bitcoin-Qt", there appear to be off-wiki discussions about this AfD on a related forum. - SudoGhost 11:55, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - I see. Cliff12345 (talk) 22:28, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bitcoin, until QT client has enough reliable sources to stand on its own. --Breno ^talk 10:44, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article lacks independent reliable sources that discuss the subject with more than a trivial mention. Changelogs and blogspot blogs do not establish notability, and the only third-party source lists a vulnurability with bitcoind (which itself was deleted) and Bitcoin-Qt, but is a trivial mention that itself links to a primary source. - Sudo Ghost 09:50, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 00:21, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Patriotic Nigras[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fixing nomination for another editor (Olowe2011), I am neutral. His comments about deletion can be read here:

According to Section A7 Of the Criteria for Speedy deletion an article that is about "a real person, individual animal(s), organization or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant" is subject to speedy deletion. I cannot see how a group of internet trolls is a significant group of people that has any difference to anyone apart from those they disrupt online. This group conducts itself in many cases illegally however has had no major or notable effect on any online community otherwise it would have become duly noted by such organisations they conduct against. For example the group Anonymous I would consider to be worthy and within the guidelines of Section A7 as it has had a noticeable effect on a group or organisation that has expressed in media and relevant formats this, however is not reflected by this group. In comparison the "Patriotic Nigras" is a small, attention seeking group of people who are getting just that from an unnecessary article. comment added by olowe2011 (talk) 18:37, 12 October 2012

Mark Arsten (talk) 19:05, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help, I finally worked out where to put this. Getting around wikipedia is hard without fellow editors to help thank you very much and if you with you further contribute with a view on the removal of this article please feel free. Olowe2011 (talk) 19:13, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Any internet troll can get media coverage, that doesn't mean they are actually notable. Remember, the notability guidelines are just that—guidelines. In this case, I don't think the group has actually had enough of a cultural or historic impact to warrant a Wikipedia article. Kaldari (talk) 03:33, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Let it be... let it be. You can't erase history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.253.132.81 (talk) 03:28, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Their presence is verifiable, but not notable by WP:ORG. The article reads like a rap sheet of their antics and also has some WP:NPOV issues (mainly from WP:UNDUE) that I don't think will go away—this is a minor article's fourth AfD. The majority of the sources are not reliable and some are self-published. While I admire the attempt to document and memorialize this piece of Internet culture, now is not the time or place. czar · · 21:56, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - What I found: Significant coverage: New Scientist September 1, 2007. Less than significant coverage: The Telegraph March 15, 2007, New Scientist September 1, 2007, Guardian.co.uk June 23, 2011. The article has additional source so that together the topic meets WP:GNG. The close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patriotic Nigras (3rd nomination) by NAC User:X! (last edit 8 October 2012)[38] was: "The result was keep. It's clear that this group is notable, thanks to the given sources." The first three AfDs established the topic meet WP:GNG and not enough has changed since then that would suggest that the topic no longer meets WP:GNG. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:17, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:35, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As Kaldari correctly mentioned above any troll group can gain media coverage and self-publish articles and site them as sources. However, the key to this debate is the simple question to how much impact this group have on internet culture. When I read this article it seemed more of a publishing of feats and a description of an organisation rather than an educational resource. As czar also correctly mentioned above it reads like a rap sheet and correctly mentioned WP:NPOV. --Olowe2011 (talk) 21:49, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Is the nominator reading the same policies I am? This is sounding like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The article is well sourced with mainstream links. This is not a general run of the mill group of kids, but a group that caught international interest with some of their exploits. Article is well sourced. I am failing to see what policy is being violated here. Turlo Lomon (talk) 13:51, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I'm still undecided, but I'd like to point out that many of the sources only trivially address PN in particular. Macnewsworld only mentions it in passing once. Metro doesn't mention them at all. Sergecross73 msg me 22:28, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - I also DONTLIKEIT, but it does seem to be notable insofar as the current refs show coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Significant coverage is borderline but I'll err on the side of the three previous AfD outcomes. -Thibbs (talk) 14:20, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Metro as pointed out does not even mention Patriotic Nigras therefore is an irrelevant source. In response to the WP:IDONTLIKEIT claim It has nothing to do with personal dislike however, the article has irrelevant sources and does not really point out a notable cause or reason. As an encyclopedia it's worth pointing out that large groups based on single-virtual worlds are not added to Wikipedia because if that was the case we would have pages about World of Warcraft guilds and of the type. As stated before, is it worth asking yourself does the group have a viable and verifiable cultural impact. --Olowe2011 (talk) 16:20, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That doesn't make it unreliable. At best it makes it irrelevant. -Thibbs (talk) 16:38, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Any article relies on good sourcing, the sourcing is irrelevant yes. --Olowe2011 (talk) 11:25, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well that single source may be irrelevant (to the question of the group's notability), but the other 5 or 6 RSes clearly aren't irrelevant. Honestly I think your best argument is that the coverage is not significant enough to show notability. The reliability of the multiple RSes isn't an issue here. Neither is the irrelevance of a single source. -Thibbs (talk) 19:38, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - As another editor correctly pointed out above any trolling group can gain news coverage. Also I would like to point out that self written articles on other websites do not count as reliable sources. If you actually read the multiple RSes you might see that they do not point towards Patriotic Nigras as a group but highlight an act of disruptive behaviors in which basically having this article stands to be a sign to we did it however this doesn't fit under encyclopedic content. Regardless of this articles limited sources my point regarding if any popular online group could have a wikipedia article then we would see a lot of articles for large groups based within games. There is another article for a popular internet troll group called Anonymous which is clearly a notable article for it shows many sources, gives an overall and non rap sheet like material and describes numerous well known problems caused by the group in which had a major consequence for both government organisations ect. If you or the article contributor can actually come up with a reason people would like to be educated on this group or name an event in which this group have played a major cultural role then I might change my views on this however as for now I am against articles that have no significant impact on culture or anyone in general (for the sense of the word.) --Olowe2011 (talk) 11:06, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I recognize that you feel strongly about the issue, but as I said, the reliability of the multiple RSes present here is not an issue (we have GLS Conference, New Scientist x2, Wired x2 - these are all clearly reliable and they do cover the topic) and I think it actually harms your credibility to point to the one source that doesn't mention the group by name (and is intended to source a tangential issue in the article) and broadly proclaim that all of the sources are irrelevant because they fail to mention the topic. If you think that the coverage is not sufficient to establish notability then that alone may be a good reason to nominate for deletion, but the fact that the article's topic covers a troll group and that it highlights disruptive behavior, or the fact that any trolling group can gain news coverage isn't sufficient evidence on its own that the topic is nonencyclopedic. In fact the bit about news coverage sounds like an argument that it's likely to be encyclopedic by Wikipedia's standards. As others have brought up above, these kinds of arguments amount to nothing more than the familiar cry of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Keep your argument simple and policy-based. Insignificant coverage is potentially a fine argument on its own. No need to come up with reasons why the reliably-sourced content couldn't possibly be of interest to anybody. That's just asking to be refuted by someone else's personal experiences and an equally silly claim of WP:ILIKEIT. -Thibbs (talk) 12:27, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There are other RSes that cover this topic as well that aren't presented in the article or the foregoing discussion. There are a few pages that cover the group in Steven Johnson's The Best Technology Writing 2009 (Yale University Press, 2009; ISBN 9780300154108), and 16 more refs (mostly academic papers on internet culture) appear in Google Scholar. Boing Boing calls the group "an early iteration of Anonymous" so perhaps the argument could be made to merge, but deletion seems to be unnecessary and the fact of the matter is that the nomination rationale above is malformed and appears to be premised on the personal distaste of the nominator regarding the subject. There's no new argument here that wasn't made in the previous 3 noms and since the date that they closed the reliable sourcing has only grown more numerous. The nom points to Anonymous as an example of a very notable troll group, but the GNG makes no difference between very notable and only moderately notable. Clearly the reffing could be improved, but if it's notable then it's notable and deserves an article. -Thibbs (talk) 13:53, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - What you pointed out are not policies but guidelines therefore I will only quote them if they have relevance. My main point as I stated in my nomination itself in which is above if you care to read it is that the article is not about a notable organisation. Clearly the previous nominations reflect a view point from such other editors and that should be respected. Their presence is verifiable, but not notable by WP:ORG. This is an organisation with no indication of significance or importance. As I said before if you can tell me a time this group has had a cultural impact (and is verifiable) please enlighten me. I would also make clear this is not WP:IDONTLIKEIT as I have clearly expressed if you can give me some evidence this group is notable then I would change my mind. In summary I believe this article is not about a notable organisation according to the notability guidelines. As a note I am passionate about everything I have my head in. -Olowe2011Talk —Preceding undated comment added 14:14, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your claim that IDONTLIKEIT isn't the basis of your argument would have more footing if you didn't use POV terms like "small, attention seeking group of people" and subjective arguments like "I cannot see how a group of internet trolls is a significant group of people" in your deletion rationale. You can be a lot more persuasive by sticking strictly to the guidelines and policies without the colorful language. -Thibbs (talk) 15:55, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- - Yes, I've read your speedy delete nomination (wrong procedure for a speedy nom, by the way) and I don't understand your distinction between policy and guideline here. We're taking opposed views of this article's capacity to meet the Notability guideline, right? Does the article also violate one of Wikipedia's policies somehow? As far as notability is concerned, I think you're missing the fact that notability doesn't refer to real-world importance or to personal significance for any individual editor (e.g. Just because Whoopee cushion isn't as important in the real world as World War II doesn't mean it is a non-notable topic). Notability is defined by the presence of multiple reliable 3rd-party sources in which the topic is covered significantly. Again, (a) we have multiple sources, and (b) many of them are reliable. So this leaves you with one argument: that the coverage isn't significant. I think that's a debatable position and I'm inclined to side with the prior consensus considering that as I said the RS coverage of this group has only grown since the last AfD. -Thibbs (talk) 15:01, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment - As yet to see proof as to why this article is notable and poses a cultural impact to an overall consensus of people. (Just as a note I do not see how a group that effects users on Second Life can be considered an effect on internet culture.) -Olowe2011Talk —Preceding undated comment added 15:38, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - See WP:N. Topics covered by multiple reliable sources are presumed to be notable (be the reason cultural impact or anything else). The burden is on you to demonstrate that even though Wired and New Scientist and the GLS conference and Boing Boing and the 16 Google Scholar references and the Yale University Press book and the Telegraph and the Guardian cover the topic it somehow isn't notable. You can't just argue that this is an attention-seeking troll group and leave it at that. You also can't define cultural relevance according to your personal views. And you can't misrepresent the reliability or the relevance of the sources presented. -Thibbs (talk) 15:55, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment - The sources in which you have given demonstrate my point in lack of notability in the fact they quote one specific event in which occurred on Second Life towards prominent members in which them sources state that this group claims to have perpetrated. Can you explain how a group that are written about in a few news articles for an event they CLAIMED to have purported makes them anymore notable than a family that got into a few local news papers for eating the most hot dogs. Also if you read the article you might agree the majority of the article is actually un-supported by sources for example: "To further their aims on Second Life, the Patriotic Nigras developed a modified Second Life client called ShoopedLife that allowed them to bypass many of the hardware-banning methods typically used by Linden Lab to prevent persistent griefers from accessing Second Life. In July 2008, ShoopedLife was further modified to utilize the Lua code base to automate specific functions of the regular client. In December 2008, the main developer for ShoopedLife, "N3X15," left the Patriotic Nigras, effectively ending development of the client.[4]" is supposed to be supported by reference [4] in which you might notice is a deleted article. Even the first section of the article has only one media-based source as the second GLS Conference source does not link to anything referencing this group. Secondly, the statement made in the article is in no way represented or supported in the one media based source quoted. -Olowe2011Talk
        I think your equation of Wired, New Scientist, etc. to "a few local news papers" is a false one. Also I did read the article and I noted above that it needs improvement. That's not the same thing as saying it needs deletion. The article connected to the broken link you discovered can be found here, but it's irrelevant to a discussion of notability since it's an SPS and nobody is basing their keep !vote on that source. The first section is covered by Wired and New Scientist as well as GLS Conference which does in fact does cover the group for about 5 minutes starting at 14:30 in their presentation. The reffing isn't very thorough and certainly more refs could be added, so if this was an Articles for Improvement discussion then I'd agree 100%, but as an Articles for Deletion discussion I think it goes too far. -Thibbs (talk) 16:35, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment The article you linked me to was written by a member of this group and also is hosted on a self created article where the author has no credibility. And my recommendation for deletion is based on the fact the majority of the article is not relevantly sourced (state totally different things to what are actually written in the articles.) And as said before holds no evidence of notability to an overall consensus of people. -Olowe2011Talk —Preceding undated comment added 16:41, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        The article I linked you was the one you claimed had been deleted. As I suggested, it's an SPS and is appropriate for the article although it can't itself demonstrate notability (read WP:SELFPUB to understand why the author does have credibility). The article needs to be improved. That much is clear. It's certainly not clear that the "overall consensus of people" concludes that the multiple RSes aren't capable of demonstrating notability. If the topic has received significant coverage from multiple reliable sources then it's a notable topic regardless of the current state of the article. The article needs to be improved, not deleted. -Thibbs (talk) 17:01, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note I added some of the sources discussed above to the article and rearranged it a bit. I think it is pretty clear it passes GNG. Several of the RSes covered the topic in significant depth. -Thibbs (talk) 04:49, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Well done, The article now appears to have verifiable sourcing (also inc relevant), doesn't appear like a rap sheet and has a natural point of view. I think this change is satisfactory and unexpected. It provided me with more insight into the topic. I still am on the line if a group solely based on disrupting second life is classified as important or significant however in terms of the article content and how it is written I congratulate you. Good work. -Olowe2011Talk —Preceding undated comment added 12:01, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks. It could still use work of course, but I think the group is mainly important for its capacity to spark commentary by critics and internet culture writers rather than for its actions which are individually pretty juvenile nonsense. I tried to add something to that effect to the article. -Thibbs (talk) 14:11, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 00:17, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Chang[edit]

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

Non-notable blogger fails to meet WP:GNG. No significant coverage in reliable sources, just mere mentions in cited references. -- Wikipedical (talk) 04:48, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:29, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Finding no problems with the article as it is, and subject is notable in web tech video field as producer and host, and not as a blogger as mentioned by nominator. Nate • (chatter) 04:39, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Appears to pass WP:GNG. AuthorAuthor (talk) 05:21, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:25, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ten Minute Podcast[edit]

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

Bringing to AfD as proposed deletion was removed this week. Concern is that this podcast does not meet WP:WEB notability requirements at this time. Breno ^talk 04:47, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. SirAppleby (talk) 09:56, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:28, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless some credible sources that establish notability emerge. I simply haven't been able to find anything at all by news searching. Noir (talk) 05:46, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was unable to find any sources to signify the notability of Ten Minute Podcast. Ha dg er 06:30, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing on Google or Google books apart from some youtube videos. Technically this should be a G12 CSD but as already nominated for delete I wont change the article -Wikishagnik (talk) 00:37, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Digitel GSM. Michig (talk) 07:50, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Digitel Tower[edit]

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

Just a building, no evidence of notability; GNews and GBooks produce no results. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:23, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into the main article on Digitel. SirAppleby (talk) 09:58, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:28, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Digitel GSM - I appreciate that you searched with GNews and GBooks but, considering the tower is native to Venezuela, it's likely that sources would be Spanish especially news sources. I searched with Google News Venezuela and found one result here with the others being only reprints. I searched with Google Books Venezuela but found nothing useful. I would have agreed with a merge but there aren't any significant sources to confirm the establishment date and other information.SwisterTwister talk 20:16, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Mario_Lopez#Personal_life. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:31, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Courtney Mazza[edit]

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

Non-notable per WP:ENTERTAINER. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:31, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mario Lopez; notability is not inherited. Ubelowme _U ^Me 21:46, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:28, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mario Lopez - I agree, it seems she has never had a significant career and probably won't anytime soon due to marriage and family. Towards the bottom of my Google Books results, I found evidence of some her theatre work but it appears to be insufficient. As a result of this, I returned to Google News and typed "Swing" (one of her plays) and received this minor news article. I continued searching with "West Side Story" (another piece of work) and found additional results here (for which she won a 1996 Kelly Award nomination for "Actress in lead role"), here (also mentions her award) and here. Her career appears to have never been significant to support a separate article. Aside from her short career, the details about her family are listed at Mario Lopez's article. SwisterTwister talk 20:03, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 07:45, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LaVerne Y. Adekunle[edit]

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

Does not come close to meeting the criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (people). Zero significant coverage in reliable books or news media. Zero hits at Questia, ProQuest, General OneFile, and HighBeam. This is a self-published e-book author and motivational speaker who has a website and various social media self-promotions. If you look hard enough, you can dig up a few press releases. The various claims to notability and fame in the article don't check out, nor do the claimed connections with various celebrities. Notability is not inherited anyway. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:07, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I did a search and as was said above, there is no actual coverage for Adekunle. I found one mention of her in an article, but it looks to be a brief mention as far as I can tell. [39] Even if it isn't, this one article wouldn't come close to showing notability for her. There are a few press releases for her floating around, but there's nothing to back up any of the claims in the article and even if there was, none of those claims give notability. None of the awards are notable enough to keep on that basis alone and they aren't the type that would actually extend notability towards Adekunle even slightly. Getting an award from the publisher that you are paying to publish your book isn't really the type of thing that gives notability. Nor would be any awards from USA Books. As far as the other accomplishments go, receiving local awards doesn't really mean much if they're not notable by Wikipedia's standards and I notice that the only place that mentions the "O.T. Williams Award" is this specific Wikipedia page. Commendations from governors don't automatically give notability either and I also notice a lack of sources covering this anywhere and I can't help but wonder if this was a group award. Even considering the pre-internet barrier, such things usually get some mention somewhere if someone gets an individual award/commendation. As far as the "Who's Who" thing, it's not exactly the type of Who's Who that would give weight per Wikipedia's standards since it's the type of thing that people pay to get signed up for. In other words, it's the type of thing that's utterly meaningless as far as notability goes because it isn't earned- it's paid for. Given that the original editor has a name that hints that they might be Adekunle herself and that the entire article is an overly promotional mess, I'm going to say that this is just the latest attempt by someone to promote themselves on Wikipedia.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 03:50, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable self-published writer who abjectly fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:BK. The article is pure WP:ADVERT and a probable instance of WP:AUTO. Qworty (talk) 06:20, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Pierre Maury. MBisanz ^talk 00:17, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond Maury[edit]

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

"Appearing" in a study doesn't make this medieval weaver notable, unlike his son Pierre Maury, who is described as the "protagonist" of the book. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:54, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless there are third party sources that establish the notability of this fictional character, it cannot meet the WP:GNG. Vcessayist (talk) 01:16, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This is a real person. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:52, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure whether to keep, but if not kept, then merge and redirect to his son's article. No reason to delete good information completely. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:32, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Pierre Maury (although it might be more sensible to have an article about the book Montaillou and merge him there). He's not the subject of a book, and only if other historians have written about him would he be notable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:42, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 01:11, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Gongshow ^Talk 02:39, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect with/to Pierre Maury; definitely don't delete. A claim for notability could conceivably be made; he technically falls outside of the guidelines, I guess, but the person should still appear on WP in some way.

dci | TALK 06:08, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 00:20, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GoHands[edit]

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

Non-notable animation studio known only for its role in producing animes. I have not found any reliable sources, only a few comments related to the animes. Original CSD declined due to connected films. dci | TALK 00:59, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This studio has produced far more shows than the article indicates; see AnimeNewsNetwork's list. The "Produced Anime" and "Anime Film" sections are cruft and the article should probably just link to the exhaustive list instead. Whether or not that's sufficient to establish notability, I'm not sure. They are poorly represented in English news. On the other hand, they have produced a substantial amount of shows. Noir (talk) 05:58, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The list at Anime News Network does not list them as producing any anime that are not currently in the Wikipedia article. All the other titles listed there are things where they had minor roles, which were primarily produced by other companies. I think the list as it currently is in the Wikipedia article is much more useful, as it makes it easier to see what they actually produced. Calathan (talk) 15:34, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The main question is whether the company is listed on any of the major Japanese stock exchanges. It is a Kabushiki gaisha (according to the Japanese Wikipedia), meaning that it is a publicly traded company. However, I am having a hard time finding the listing. According to a link on the Japanese Wikipedia, it has some sort of connection to Satelight, but I cannot tell if that means that GoHands is a subsidiary of Satelight or if they are part of the same business corporation. —Farix (t | c) 17:42, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. ANN doesn't count. 1.112.77.29 (talk) 07:16, 22 October 2012 (UTC)— 1.112.77.29 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note, the above SPA account appear to have as main purpose voting delete in almost all the Japan-related AfDs. Cavarrone (talk) 08:45, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note, Investigation on this account is required. This account has been used only for Voting in Japan-related AfDs and nothing else.--Bumblezellio (talk) 02:51, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but only because they produced a lot of anime. They are actually in charge of animation of at least two anime, Princess Lover! and K. Sources are difficult to find for some reason (even in Japanese), but in practice we do tend to keep articles on animation studios. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:58, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not familiar with the notability/deletion policy regarding film/TV studios. They have apparently worked on anime that I (a casual fan) have heard of. But it was mentioned above that they should be listed on the Japanese stock exchanges. They do not appear on the Osaka Exchange in Japanese[40] or English[41], or the Tokyo one in Japanese or English[42] (don't know how to get the URL for my specific search). elvenscout742 (talk) 07:04, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Given the general lack of coverage found so far and that no one has been able to verify that it is listed on any of the Japanese stock exchanges. If I knew more about the link with Satelight, then I would have suggested a redirect. However, I haven't been able to verify a link beyond that now non-existent page on Satelight's website. —Farix (t | c) 01:06, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. I vote this because of the strong coverage they gained from the K Project anime and Mardock Scramble in Asia.--Bumblezellio (talk) 02:47, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The only way to judge an anime creation studio is based on their notable creations. Dream Focus 07:09, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Michig (talk) 07:40, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So Fresh: The Hits of Winter 2011[edit]

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

Not notable compilation album released on Australia. — ΛΧΣ21™ 03:47, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep being released in Australia is no reason to delete, nor is being a compilation album. The clue is that it is written on in independent sources, and is also part of a set, and should not be the odd one with no article. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:08, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If no sources are available to make sure it meets WP:NALBUMS, then it may be deleted. — ΛΧΣ21™ 12:59, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Zero wp:notability-suitable references, zero indication of wp:notability. North8000 (talk) 14:13, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep. Platinum album. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:20, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sources? — ΛΧΣ21™ 12:59, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[43] duffbeerforme (talk) 13:18, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. If you are able to find any chart position in Australia, it'll be great. — ΛΧΣ21™ 13:27, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per link provided by User:Duffbeerforme. Information on chart position would be good, but I consider it unlikely it'd get to platinum without charting. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:41, 20 October 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Delete What's there to write about compilation albums like this? I really doubt that this has ever been reviewed or received significant coverage, so notability isn't established. Nick-D (talk) 09:56, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 00:49, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per platinum certification. St Anselm (talk) 05:07, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Strange not to be able to show chart position, but reputable source for being a platinum seller. Doctorhawkes (talk) 07:50, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The ARIA chart shows it made it to position 4 on compilation chart, so I have included a reference. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:27, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 00:23, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kazuo Nagano[edit]

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

Contested PROD - no evidence of notability, Japanese-language article is entirely unreferenced. At most, this could perhaps be merged into List of unusual deaths, but does not deserve a standalone article. Giant Snowman 10:34, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep - what? Calling this non-notable is ethnocentric. Well know in these parts [44] and has sources besides. Not sure why this article was tagged? Cheers, Nesnad (talk) 16:18, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As stated in my nom, the Japanese-language article is entirely unsourced, and this one is barely. There is no evidence this individual meets WP:GNG. PS your accusations of ethnocentrism are entirely unfounded and violate civility guidelines - please strike. Giant Snowman 16:20, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Calling it uncivil is an attempt to make it so. I said it more as a statement of fact. By saying that no one knows this person, you were showing your own bias. So you are being ethnocentric. Fact. Not meant as a personal attack on your integrity as an individual of course. This guy was killed in front of the public and it is notable. It was in the news. Don't be dogmatic, please. I know that people usually stick to their guns on Wikipedia though, so I don't imagine you being open minded about this. Cheers, Nesnad (talk) 07:50, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a statement of fact at all, it's you getting uppity at the fact somebody has questioned the notability of an article you created. You also need to verify the notability using reliable sources. An unusual death does not confer notability. Giant Snowman 07:57, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uppity? As in "you should stay down there" that you say to an inferior? None the less, I forgot that I made this article (2007 is a long way down the hole) so I suppose I shouldn't argue for it too strongly. None the less, if a time magazine source and a news video source is not enough, what is enough? I am sorry if I sound abrasive, I am just frustrated by those that seek to delete instead of create. Nesnad (talk) 10:08, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Added another printed source to the article, multi-page article in a book printed in 1996 discussing Kazuo Nagano and his crimes. Wikipedia is a source of knowledge. I think that this subject is notable enough, with at a simple minimum of two sources that appeared in print, and most likely many others. I ask you to seek knowledge in order to add and create. A thirst for deleting valid content will serve none of us well. Cheers, Nesnad (talk) 10:30, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Chairman of a non-notable company. Only gained momentary media attention for a single event. --DAJF (talk) 01:20, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep The Japanese article not citing sources is not a reason for deletion from English Wikipedia, as Japanese Wikipedia apparently has different standards for sourcing and referencing. (One example would be [ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/日本文学 Japanese literature], which cites only two sources, one for another name for Japanese literature and the other for a dispute over the usage of that name.) A quick Googling revealed that the Heuston Chronicle covered this story when it happened [45], as did the Japan Times, which has the article displayed in a retrospective on its website [46]. I say weak keep in spite of all the reliable sources because it is essentially one old news story, but the existence of all this material seems to indicate that it was a [ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/豊田商事事件 national scandal] in Japan (sometime before I was born, so I don't remember). elvenscout742 (talk) 01:09, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is: do these sources constitute in-depth coverage of Kazuo Nagano to justify a biographical article on Wikipedia? I don't think so. --DAJF (talk) 02:58, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know it's kind of like Wikipedia:Other stuff exists, but there are many other biographical articles whose notability is not questioned, even though they discuss people who are only really notable for one thing that happened to them - in many cases, sadly, how they died. (The majority of articles in [en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Foreign_hostages_in_Iraq Category:Foreign hostages in Iraq] come to mind.) The fact is that extensive media coverage of a particular incident probably merits at least one article on it. I said "weak" keep because I would not be opposed to creating an article about the larger Toyota Shōji Affair (or some other appropriate, preferably attestible, transation), and merging this content into it. Japanese and Chinese Wikipedias both currently have such articles, it seems. elvenscout742 (talk) 05:30, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 00:48, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Weak case for notability. 1.112.77.29 (talk) 07:36, 22 October 2012 (UTC)— 1.112.77.29 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note, the above SPA account appear to have as main purpose voting delete in almost all the Japan-related AfDs. Cavarrone (talk) 08:46, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per reliable sources. and WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:10, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment I need to add this for the record: the argument for deletion seems to have been based solely on the lack of sources currently cited in the article in both English and Japanese. This person and the scandal he was at the heart of, and what happened to him, have received extensive media coverage, and a relative lack of recent sources in English is not a valid case for deletion (see WP:NTEMP). Whether Wikipedia policy justifies the article as it is currently titled, rather than as a section in a theoretical article on the Toyota Shōji scandal is still up in the air, but I say keep because of the precedent set in other independent articles devoted to people who are only notable for having been tragically killed in a particular fashion and those incidents having been covered in the media. The difference is that this person was killed as revenge for having swindled thousands of people out of a huge amount of money, and was already an infamous robber known throughout Japan before he was killed. elvenscout742 (talk) 04:54, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Recently learned how to use Google Books. "Kazuo Nagano" in English brings up 222 hits, and "永野一男" in Japanese brings up over 1,000. Most appear to be general works on unsolved crimes, unusual assassinations, media malpractice, etc., but at least one of those was the records of transactions of the Diet of Japan! elvenscout742 (talk) 05:29, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Virus latency. Consensus is for a merge, but as three of the four viruses listed here are already mentioned in the prose of the target article, merging in list form seems pointless. Any editor wishing to do so should feel free to mention the fourth (Cytomegalovirus) there. Michig (talk) 08:22, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of latent human viral infections[edit]

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

Poorly-maintained, uninformative. ~~Using categories would be a better solution.~~ Scray (talk) 15:23, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Using categories would be a better solution". Why? There's nothing to stop Wikipedia having both (see Wikipedia:CLT). A list like this could incorporate information such as typical latency periods, which a category cannot. And the category of latent viruses will be fuzzy at the edges, which a list/table can explain but a category cannot. If you were to argue that the list is very small and could be merged with Virus latency that might be a stronger argument, but maybe there are more that could be added. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:27, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's great feedback, and I only just learned of the prohibition against invoking categories in list deletion discussions. Thanks! -- Scray (talk) 17:23, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am not against this per se - but a list with ~~three~~ four known examples it not very useful. What do others think? Bearian (talk) 21:39, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 00:43, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to virus latency purely for size reasons. If it gains enough entries, it can be split back off again. postdlf (talk) 02:55, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above - it would appear that all of the entries except Cytomegalovirus are discussed within the text of virus latency already anyway. Noir (talk) 06:05, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I agree that merger as suggested would be better than keeping. -- Scray (talk) 13:45, 21 October 2012 (UTC) (proposer)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 07:36, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Freese[edit]

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

Fails Wikipedia:Notability. Sources consist of trivial coverage in reliable sources and Youtube videos. Hirolovesswords (talk) 13:54, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG and WP:NOTNEWS. Needs more than a few trivial mentions in the news to establish notability. Yes, he exists, and he's been at some campaign rallies. But you can't write a substantial and reliable article from that. We hold WP:BLPs to a high standard. Vcessayist (talk) 00:49, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:06, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep About 6 suitable references have at least a couple paragraphs on him. None cover him in substantial depth. RW notability appears to exist. North8000 (talk) 19:36, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with Vcessayist WP:NOT#NEWS and not WP:N despite many supporting references. Kooky2 (talk) 01:53, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 00:43, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He's just some guy walking around with a hat on. How can anyone be serious about retaining this? It should be speedied off the face of Wikipedia forever. Qworty (talk) 10:38, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:26, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prayer for the Unborn (Latitudes Session)[edit]

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

Non-notable musical release. No evidence of charting. No evidence of awards. No evidence of in depth coverage in independent sources. PROD removed by creator. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:13, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:09, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No wp:suitable references, the only reference that even discusses it is a (pre-release) sellinng site. Side note: it is no released yet. North8000 (talk) 19:29, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 00:42, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I haven't found any significant coverage and most of the links are simply blogs. Considering the date is October 29, I would have expected better attention but it may also be too soon. I would have suggested a redirect but there aren't any significant sources to support the release date. SwisterTwister talk 21:13, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:23, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Willow Tufano[edit]

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

Doesn't seem notable at all, is just "american's youngest landlord." Thine Antique Pen (talk) 19:31, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any source that claims that this 14-year-old is America's youngest landlord is obviously not performing any fact checking, so cannot be considered reliable. Many new-born babies inherit property, and so are landlords. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:00, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I take it you support deletion, then? Qworty (talk) 03:55, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I support the principle that we can contribute to deletion discussions without putting a one-word bolded summary in front of every comment. If more people did that then AfD might become a place for collegial discussion working towards consensus, rather than the battle between opposing camps that it now is. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:08, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this absurd piece of WP:ADVERT. So now kids are supposed to be notable because they might get a reality show? Spare me. It would be like saying she's notable for being named after a tree. Qworty (talk) 03:57, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:44, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

She's a part of the zeitgeist, and if the basic criteria is "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," then regardless of the disputed source raised by Phil above, consider the following rather reputable sources that cover the subject:
- Column: Forgetting our frugal roots, USA today^[1]
- Foreclosed Home Bought by Teen - ABC News^[2]
- Florida teen landlord turns foreclosure crisis into opportunity - CBS Evening News -- ^[3]
- I'll also add that I'm new to this and am sorry for what seems to be a miscalibration of my approach to putting articles on Wikipedia. Devdoot (talk) 00:01, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - All of this adds up to nothing more than WP:BLP1E. She's completely non-notable per WP guidelines. Qworty (talk) 01:48, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - There are two waves of news stories. First, in April, as a 14-year-old landlord. I would argue the second event that led to a second wave of coverage was purchase of a second house this month ("Florida Teen Buys Second Home, Eyes Reality Show", Good Morning America, ABC News, Oct 16^[4])Devdoot (talk) 20:51, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 00:41, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A clear case of WP:BLP1E, and unencylopedic. --Michig (talk) 08:16, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:23, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Riley Costello (actor)[edit]

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

Actor who doesn't meet the requirements of WP:NACTOR. No evidence of multiple notable roles, no awards etc. References are mostly just cast lists which just mention the subject. Tassedethe (talk) 21:18, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Roles in three recent Broadway productions, and one notable regional production. The sources here are the same sources as you find on similar articles. Playbill, Broadway World, New York Times, and IBDB. -Aaron Booth (talk) 21:36, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Two of the Broadway roles were as understudy. The regional production role was "paperboy". There is a single named role listed. Tassedethe (talk) 22:14, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It never matters what's in other articles. Read WP:OTHERCRAP. Qworty (talk) 00:20, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for abjectly failing WP:ENTERTAINER. Qworty (talk) 00:21, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:55, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Added a few more citations as well as a few more credits. -Aaron Booth (talk) 21:07, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Therefore it does now have multiple roles in notable productions, and now does pass WP:ENTERTAINER. -Aaron Booth (talk) 21:21, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 00:36, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No major roles. No significant coverage. --Michig (talk) 08:12, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:31, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rainman[edit]

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

Contains no sources or reputable information. Danny247 (talk) 21:39, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SOWHAT. I mean, WP:GNG. And WP:42 of course. Qworty (talk) 00:18, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:58, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:58, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Google News provided several results and Google Books also provided results but nearly all of them are minor and insignificant for this article. I'm not an expert with software so I wouldn't if they are sufficient. SwisterTwister talk 02:40, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 00:35, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and then redirect to Rain Man. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:06, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Michig (talk) 07:32, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Level Up! Games[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:CORP. The article is wholly unsourced, it looks like an advertisment. Mediran ^{talk|contribs} 00:34, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw I would like to withdraw this nomination for deletion due to the article's improvement and to the reasons and statements presented by the participants in this nom. Mediran ^{talk|contribs} 09:58, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article has a couple of sources now, but they don't do much for me. It still doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:CORP, and it looks a bit too muck like an advertisement to me as well. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:49, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak ~~delete~~ keep. Fails WP:COMPANY as it is. It's possible that this is a notable regional SE Asian distributor though. But it needs more refs. I was able to find [47] [48] [49]. There's probably more. Tijfo098 (talk) 15:12, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed !vote per extra sources found below. Tijfo098 (talk) 15:56, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Tijfo098 15:14, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Keep Please look at the Google news archive results for a moment before trying to delete an article. MMOSITE says they are the NO.1 game publisher in Philippines. [50] Other news coverage in reliable sources exist. Dream Focus 15:51, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MMOsite is listed as unreliable at WP:VG/S. czar · · 17:36, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two people had a brief discussion two years ago and said they both felt it was unreliable. [51] 63 articles currently reference it though. [52] So a lot more editors find it reliable I suppose. Dream Focus 23:26, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, more realistically, 63 articles were never source-checked, right? Because no one has challenged their determination. Textbook WP:UNRELIABLE czar · · 01:06, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) czar · · 17:15, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:ORG and GNG. They carry some known brands, but notability is not inherited. Unless someone can pull foreign language RS that I can't find, I'm afraid there's little hope for notability backup here. czar · · 17:45, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I am surprised by this nomination. Their games are all over the place, and all over the world. Article should be renamed to Level Up International, which is the current name of the company. So, what kind of references are actually out there? [53] - Level Up listed as top Philippine website - before you discount the blog, you might want to read who this guy is. [54] interview with CEO (and ton more articles about LU on the site), [55]. [56] fortinet case study, [57] about the company (not 3rd party). The problem I am experiencing is the extremely common usage of "level up" found on the internet. [58] securities regulatory report, [59] more companies buying parts of it out, etc. There is a TON of articles out there. They do require some digging because 1) the company is based in Philippines, and 2) the name is exceptionally common. Turlo Lomon (talk) 19:36, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I read "who the guy is"—am I missing something? None of those sources are listed as reliable. At the very least, they need individual discussions before they're counted as establishing notability. It's missing all WP:CORPDEPTH. czar · · 16:42, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: I was referring to "He’s also a guest blogger at GMANews.tv and included in T3 Magazine‘s list of influential people in the Philippine techbiz." If an award winning news station has him as a guest, and an international magazine says we should listen to him - then maybe we should. YugaTech is already established as a WP:RS. Turlo Lomon (talk) 13:14, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Turlo Lomon's findings. Given the immense business impact of online games and the issue with finding sources under the correct business names this seems to be more of a clean-up issue. Insomesia (talk) 10:22, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Turlo. Although some portions of the text appear to be marketing Hyperbole, e.g. "With nearly eight years and a pioneer in the market, The Level Up! Games Brazil (sometimes abbreviated as LUG! Brazil) has...". I'd like to see these parts rewritten or removed to bring it back to WP:NPOV. Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 12:02, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename to Level Up! International. I've added some cites from three major Philippine newspapers to show notability in the Philippines.--Lenticel ^(talk) 03:09, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Although I can edit the Philippine part of the article, I really have difficulty in accessing Brazilian cites. Any help from our Portuguese-speaking editors would be quite helpful.--Lenticel ^(talk) 03:20, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but move to Level Up! International, as that's the company's current name. Plenty of significant coverage in reliable sources. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:04, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Michig (talk) 07:28, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brizzly[edit]

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

The article notability is questionable. It appears to have had some coverage in 2009, but nothing sustainable since then. Nothing on Google News, Newsbank, Trove or Google Books which supports article notability. LauraHale (talk) 23:15, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per GNG and WP:ADVERT. Qworty (talk) 00:00, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, for now: This is similar to the other one you nominated for deletion, and I said borderline keep for that one. For this one, I see less, but I still can't bring myself to vote delete for this since there was some minor coverage at one point. WP:NTEMP might apply, especially since, seeing that this was ceased, there'd be nothing new to report. Go Phightins! (talk) 00:25, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There's plenty of source information Brizzly CEO Shoots Down Foursquare Acq-Hire Speculation (July 5, 2010), AOL wants to get more social with Brizzly acquisition (September 15, 2010), AOL Acquires Thing Labs and Brizzly (September 28, 2010), TheFlyOnTheWall.com March 2, 2012. Those are just the ones with Brizzly in the title. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 03:13, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:09, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 00:32, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is more at Business Week. Strangely enough, the article doesn't mention the startup company which produced the software, Thing Labs. There is mention of Brizzly, connected to the acquisition by AOL, in Wall Street Journal online. There is more recent coverage in PC World. These are all RSes for business and technology news. There is some interesting coverage in Mac World: the company people rebranded an iPhone Twitter app as Brizzly, bringing it within the scope of the article's content. Mac World is also an RS for technology news. Churn and change (talk) 04:36, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, bordering on a merge with the AOL article. The product was covered widely by secondary sources, as has been demonstrated, but it's currently defunct after the AOL acquisition. Although it was in beta, it was never given an official release, so I'm not too sure about lasting significance.--xanchester (t) 06:00, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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