The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 for Yasuhiro Konishi with leave quickly (but not speedy) renominate if independent sources aren't found and no consensus for Japan Karate-Do Ryobu-Kai with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yasuhiro Konishi[edit]

Yasuhiro Konishi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

All references on the article are self-referential to the subject's claimed martial art style, and in most cases are identical to each other in URL and content. I also feel that Japan Karate-Do Ryobu-Kai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) should also be included in this AFD for similar reasons. If the actions of Pbelleisle (talk · contribs) continue, there may be a third related article that I believe should also be included, located at either Shindo Jinen Ryu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) or Shindō jinen-ryū (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). There is no third party media relating to these subjects that are used as references, so it's a pretty clear cut case that this is again some karateka who believes that the school he belongs to requires mention on Wikipedia. —Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:52, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep 21,400 Google hits for "Yasuhiro Konishi karate", including videos, images, websites and articles. 78,600 Google results for "Japan Karate-Do Ryobu-Kai". Additionally, as the author, I've added further third-party sourcing to both the Yasuhiro Konishi and Japan Karate-Do Ryobu-Kai articles, but also thought it might be helpful to summarize a few items. First, here are some notes on the sources used and references cited in the article:

Hope this helps keep the Konishi article in place, as well as that for Japan Karate-Do Ryobu-Kai. In regard to the latter, I believe it would make sense to leave the Shindo Jinen Ryu page as a simple redirect, but change that redirect to point to the Japan Karate-Do Ryobu-Kai page, which I have also strengthened considerably.

Finally, I am certainly sensitive to the number of martials arts whose practitioners have an over-inflated sense of importance about what they do. These entries, however, are genuinely different. Major elements of karate literally would not look as they do today - either organizationally or content-wise - without the influence of Yasuhiro Konishi, and both JKR and Shindo Jinen Ryu remain vital and important pieces of the current martial arts scene around the world. Thank you for your consideration. Pbelleisle (talk) 21:05, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Article seems to be well sourced and pass notability criteria. Astudent0 (talk) 17:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Subject appears notable and article appears sourced. Papaursa (talk) 00:35, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As a kid his name for me and a few friends was a karate chop. You went 'whack' and said Konishi. I can't remember why, didn't seem strange at the time...Szzuk (talk) 18:50, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• comment - The proposers rationale seems well planted in policy and the Keep rationalles don't seems to really erxplain whjy they think this is independently notable or comments that it "appears sourced" - make no investigation of independent notability as required at wiki. I was going to close this as no consensus to delete - although four users have commented Keep I am still more in support of the nominators rationale - also thousands of Google search returns is imo meaningless unless you actually present some of them that are independent and reliable as per wiki guidelines. The last keep comment from Ssuk is uncountable in policy. Off2riorob (talk) 21:37, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was KEEP. postdlf (talk) 19:34, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Seven Network slogans[edit]

List of Seven Network slogans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

WP:NOTDIRECTORY NYMets2000 (talk) 16:13, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 18:10, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Canley (talk) 05:07, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 16:29, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:05, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Not actually seeing the problem. Seven is one of Australia's three major commercial networks and has a lengthy history, the list is verifiable, and a list such as this would be too long to include in its parent article. Orderinchaos 19:43, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:31, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Keep, expand to Seven Network marketing - Agree with Orderinchaos: the marketing program of a major media entity in the English speaking world is notable. The WP:NOTDIRECTORY policy cited by the nominator states "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as (but not limited to) quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional)." But the list here is of stuff very closely related. The policy only prohibits things "loosely associated". As a compromise, perhaps the article could be expanded to address all aspects of marketing, thus rename to Seven Network marketing, and add prose and detail. --Noleander (talk) 05:31, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Sibling article was kept - see also similar article List of Network Ten slogans and its AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Network Ten slogans, which resulted in Keep. Consistency would suggest that this also be kept. --Noleander (talk) 05:35, 24 July 2011 (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. Courcelles 00:05, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Elena Gibson[edit]

Elena Gibson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

BLP for a pole dancer with several unsourced qualifications. Does not appear to fulfill WP:ARTIST. Sources only seem to come from organizations she is a part of or from schools she is teaching at, and are not sufficiently independent. Only notable achievement is winning the "Miss Pole Dance UK" in 2005, which is good, but isn't sufficient for WP:ARTIST. I conducted a search to look for sources, many of which (unsurprisingly) were videos of her performances:

• a photoshoot posted on a blog
• she is cited as a "favorite dancer" of another pole dancer in this interview - still not in-depth
• she competed in the Miss Pole Dance World competition, but was disqualified for what was judged to be stripping- But this is reported by the school that she works at.

Interesting character, but there's a distinct lack of independent sources to provide evidence of notability per WP:ARTIST. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 23:27, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Appears to have started off as a vanity article. All references are to websites of at-most questionable reliability. One of the so-called references actually refutes a claim in the achievement section, instead of confirming it. At least one reference points to a youtube video. Etc, etc, etc. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 12:40, 28 July 2011 (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:45, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

International Escort Awards[edit]

International Escort Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Not notable. For-profit "award" ceremony staged by an online advertising service to promote its customers. No significant news coverage; the only source that isn't one-shot "news of the weird" type coverage comes from Michael Musto'd gossip column -- and he turns out to be a presenter at the "ceremony." Lots of promotional blogging that borders on advertising, though. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:22, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Non-notable & unencyclopedic article. Keb25 (talk) 18:24, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Nom's opinions are, to all intents and purposes, consensus with regards to Pr0n articles. No need beyond pure bureaucratic formality for a discussion. Dekkappai (talk) 18:48, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep just because it's pornography and may be vanity press doesn't mean it's not notable. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:27, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Delete Promotion of some dudes company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gotti gotta beat down (talk • contribs) 23:45, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This is marginally notable. However, the sources are suspect: There are two Village Voice sources, which is a significant newspaper, but one link was to a blog, and the other was to a column that was unrelated to this award. Other sources are the company (Rentboy) promoting its own awards show. So, unless more/better sources are found, this is a very minor awards ceremony, and should be deleted. --Noleander (talk) 20:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable and promotional. NYyankees51 (talk) 19:56, 26 July 2011 (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 the nominator and the lone delete !voter are correct. Currently this "article" is nothing but a duplicate of the category but theoritically that can be fixed through normal editing. We can revisit this issue in a few months if that isn't done. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of alternative rock artists[edit]

List of alternative rock artists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

An unsourced (WP:V) plain alphabetic list, entirely redundant to Category:Alternative rock musicians (which is more useful because it has subcategories). Now I know that in principle the existence of a category is not a reason to delete the corresponding list, because a list can contain information that a category cannot, but this list has been expressly set up and formatted to duplicate the category. And given that it's existed in this form since 2004, we can assume that nobody is interested in changing that and rewriting it in a form that is not a hand-coded duplicate of a category.  Sandstein  22:41, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Just because an article is poorly sourced isn't a reason to delete it. And some of the artists are sourced as alternative rock on their own pages, which I think is preferable to having a massive reference section in this article anyway. –CWenger (^ • @) 01:28, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Amorphous and uncompletable list. May have an in-links function that outweighs the futility of the general concept. Alternative to what? "Alternative Rock" is a catch-all phrase, not a concrete genre like punk rock, country, or blues. Carrite (talk) 06:03, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Perfectly fine list with clear inclusion criteria. The arguement about it having a category is redundant, per WP:CLN. Maybe this list can be cleaned up to add in a table with country, years active, etc? Lugnuts (talk) 07:53, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - As Sandstein says, it is acceptable to have both Category and List for one topic, but they should both add some value. The guideline Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates explicitly says: "Accordingly, these methods [categories and lists] should not be considered in conflict with each other. Rather, they are synergistic." However, the List does not take advantage of its list-ness: it should have some note next to each musician, or (better yet) a footnote justifying the inclusion. Absent that, the Category is sufficient. --Noleander (talk) 20:34, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Perfectly good topic for a list (aside from the general problem of actually defining 'alternative rock', but that's another debate) - it could no doubt be improved, but the talk page would be a good place to raise those issues.--Michig (talk) 20:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. As one of the editors who helps police this one, I see both sides of the argument. There are some suggestions for clean-up above, but I would add that references for bands could be enforced, rather than just mentions in articles. There would have to be a clean up and pruning first, as finding references for all the existing bands is not a job I for one, much fancy spending my time on. I would also suggest sub-division into sub-genres, but that might create more debates. Sometimes these things make a list more manageable.--SabreBD (talk) 09:25, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with need for references. List articles are not exempt from the WP:Verifiability requirement, and in theory an editor could prune this list severely based on WP:CHALLENGE and WP:Burden. --Noleander (talk) 14:07, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Topic is notable. The problem is not the topic but that lists are treated very differently then main articles. Another words specific guidelines need to issued (or reissued) about the topics discussed above and other issues such as notability. Specifically regarding genres in lists and in main articles more specific guidelines need to be issued how much of an artists material need to be in the genre before we can call then that. Edkollin (talk) 22:56, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -(currently a) valueless list, its a cat without the benefits of the cat tree and the demand that a cat requires for inclusion - to add the cat there must be the cited confirmation in the article content. Off2riorob (talk) 21:47, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and improve. Advantage should be taken of the list format to add some context, such as years of activity. I do not see how this is not subject to the same inclusion criteria as the category, so it certainly does no harm. DGG ( talk ) 23:00, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  DGG'S correct in what he says, my delete vote comment is an opine from the position that no one has done the work and no one may ever do it, that he is suggesting will turn the article into something of added value. I am moving to neutral. Off2riorob (talk) 23:16, 30 July 2011 (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. Courcelles 00:05, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yechiel Jacobson[edit]

Yechiel Jacobson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Subject is a noted speaker in Israel but fails WP:BIO due to lack of secondary coverage. The page is a poor translation from the Hebrew ("Most of his time he devotes to work with youth that date hair loss"?) and has been unreferenced since its inception. A PROD was deleted by the page creator without addressing the issue of no BLP references. Yoninah (talk) 22:34, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. —Yoninah (talk) 22:34, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Nothing on GS, GB, GN. Also, the article is gobbledygook. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:01, 24 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete. Entirely unsourced, appears to be some sort of an automated translation, and is essentially unreadable. Google searching does not yield anything substantial to indicate notability under either of WP:GNG, WP:BIO or WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 00:11, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Apparently, the subject's name was transliterated into English, which is why nothing can be found for him. His name is really Yechiel Yaakovson, and he is quoted by many sources in this Google search. But the page as it stands now is gobblygook, as Xxanthippe so aptly put it. Yoninah (talk) 12:43, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but there are no cites on GS. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:24, 24 July 2011 (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. Courcelles 00:06, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Malone[edit]

Laura Malone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 21:59, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete-no hits on Google or Google news. It appears her role in Another World (TV series), which seems to be her most important claim to notability, was minor at best. Puchiko (Talk-email) 22:27, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Simply not notable. Owen (talk) 21:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:RS (no usable sources at all), WP:ENT. Richwales (talk · contribs) 05:01, 29 July 2011 (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. Courcelles 00:06, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gramoz Kurtaj[edit]

Gramoz Kurtaj (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(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 by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:38, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:38, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:38, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:38, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 21:44, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non notable player fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Warburton1368 (talk) 21:46, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 05:40, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:07, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tajik people[edit]

Tajik people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Tajiks are ethnic Persians and speak Persian only with a different accent and there is already a page called Persian people. It's not only offensive to the ethnic integrity of the Persian people, to divide them based on nationality, but such a move can be viewed as being unnecessary and politically motivated. Keeping this page would be like creating seperate pages for ethnic Germans who became stuck in Polish, Hungarian, and Swiss national territories after the first world war. I'm sure the locals in those regions also refer to them by a different name? Remember, Tajik = Persian, Tajik meaning Persian in the Turkic languages, and throughout history the neighbouring Turkic-populations would refer to us by that word. And you must understand that borders with countries such as Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Tajikistan were made in the last 100 years. Also, in terms of language 'Tajik' cannot even be categorized as a dialect, because in truth, it's actually an accent. The difference is so small, and is much like the differences between American and Canadian accents. Except here, we're not talking about nationalities, were talking about an ethnic group which was separated through political procedures in the last 100 years. Overall, this page is an attack on the ethnic integrity of Persians and lacks any intellectual value whatsoever. Xythianos (talk) 21:11, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG keep - Look at the sources, and the heavy consensus that the Tajiks are a distinct people, if not too different culturally. Governments, academics, and reporters always note the Tajiks as different from Iranian Persians, if simply for their different histories or even geography. The article should not be deleted on the basis of personal opinions. Furthermore, unlike Iranian Persians, who all come from a similar background and have a similar, Tajiks display a wide range of phenotypes and have a wide range of historic backgrounds. hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 21:22, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep per Member. The nominator seems to offer nothing more than a personal opinion that this is somehow offensive, in the face of a great deal of literature stating this is a distinct people. This looks like SNOW to me. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 21:52, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tajikistan-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Uzbekistan-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep Numerous reliable sources are available. Nominator's contention that this is an attack page is not supported by anything. Edward321 (talk) 03:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep and trout the nominator. LiteralKa (talk) 07:27, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep and invite the nom to read a few of our policies, specifically on notability, neutral point of view, and what AFD is for. No point trouting an editor with fewer than 100 edits. Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:43, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Would someone please speedy keep this pov AfD? Dougweller (talk) 07:55, 24 July 2011 (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. Courcelles 00:06, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Egzon Canaj[edit]

Egzon Canaj (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(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 by creator without providing any reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:54, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:54, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:54, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:54, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 20:06, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 20:34, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unsourced BLP. Only source names him twice in several paragraphs, a passing mention. No sources upon which to base a keep outcome. Online sources consist of mirrors to this page and his social networking pages. BusterD (talk) 13:58, 30 July 2011 (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.

Aheri, Papua New Guinea[edit]

The result was withdrawn. Phil Bridger has supplied a reliable source from the country itself, so I see no reason (as nominator and so far the only 'delete' vote) to keep this open. Orderinchaos 20:10, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aheri, Papua New Guinea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Was originally PRODded for the reason: "an irredeemable stub with no content and no likelihood of any content being added". Its creator removed the PROD. I can find no evidence of the place's existence beyond its listing in a database which is not a reliable source and is known to contain many suspect entries. Orderinchaos 19:35, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It's listed in the GEOnet Names Server, which makes it a verified populated place. Per precedent, all verified populated places are notable. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 05:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can we prove that the place actually exists? That database contains *numerous* errors, I could point to around two dozen in my own city if you have the time and patience. It's not a reliable source. Orderinchaos 04:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep ample precedent that all verified populated places are notable; nominations of these for deletion is disruptive. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The place is not verified. Orderinchaos 04:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as a verifiable populated place. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:02, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. nomination withdrawn DGG ( talk ) 23:02, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Knight's Bridge[edit]

Knight's Bridge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I prodded this in February, saying "No indication of notability--ordinary bridge crossing an ordinary road like thousands in the state." The prod was contested with the reason that "I would think that bridges would be inherently notable". There is no guideline for the inherent notability of bridges. Also the contestor may have assumed the bridge was something like this, while what is actually at the site can be seen in this Street View. Performing my due diligence as nominator via Google is complicated by the road named after the bridge, but I cannot find any evidence that this structure passes WP:GNG. The previous wooden structure may have been notable [1], [2], but the current structure is not. Valfontis (talk) 18:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. —Valfontis (talk) 18:26, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: like Valfontis said, this bridge blatantly fails WP:GNG. There isn't significant coverage in reliable sources, and even to the extent that the article needs original research just to provide basic information about the bridge. A Wikipedia article about a notable topic needs to have citations to reliable sources and no original research. Jsayre64 (talk) 19:21, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- per Valfontis' Google search linked above, the original 70-year-old covered bridge was clearly notable, and sourceable. I'm sure an Oregon-based editor could get hold of the books and journals listed there and write a decent stub, if not more. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:13, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm willing to withdraw my nomination if someone completely retools the article and proves by adding cited information that the former structure, a wooden covered bridge destroyed in 1947, passes GNG. Since right now the completely uncited article is about the current strip-of-asphalt bridge, my nomination still stands. Valfontis (talk) 20:32, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note also that content about a long-gone structure might be better merged into, say, the Molalla River article. Valfontis (talk) 20:36, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The current article, and basic research, says the current bridge probably isn't notable and the previous bridge probably isn't either. I suggest deletion with no bias against recreation of a well-sourced article. tedder (talk) 00:18, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fully support tedder's suggestion of recreation without bias as long as it is well-sourced. Valfontis (talk) 01:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Replace, which is to say, Delete and rewrite with content about the former bridge. I spent 8-10 minutes searching but could turn up nothing useful about the former bridge online. —EncMstr (talk) 20:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Google book search for "Knight's Bridge" and "Oregon" shows ample results. [3] Its listed in Bridges in Oregon: List of Bridges on the National Register of Historic Places in Oregon [4]. I guess someone should update the article List of bridges on the National Register of Historic Places in Oregon. Anyway, any site that is considered historical on the National Register is clearly notable. Dream Focus 03:44, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The source you have showing it on the NRHP is not reliable; it's just a copy of a wikipedia entry I think. You need to find a better one.--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:29, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• (edit conflict) Actually, we keep that list very up to date. And as an amateur architectural historian, I specialize in NRHP articles so I would never nominate an NRHP article for deletion. Look again--that book you found is a compilation of Wikipedia articles about bridges with a misleading title. See Books LLC. As for the Google Books search I did in my nomination that you reiterated, a list of hits does not prove something is notable, though I admit the former bridge mentioned in the 10 hits that appear to be good ones (the rest are false positives or more of those scraped content books), might be notable. However, the current article is about a newer bridge in a nearby location, that does not appear to have any Google hits at all. I'd be happy to see some. Valfontis (talk) 04:31, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - lacks the significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources needed to pass the GNG. I'll happily change my opinion should acceptable sources come up. Yaksar (let's chat) 04:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• If the older bridge does show notability, it should probably be created at this title.--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:42, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Besides my above suggestion of merging any info on the old bridge in the Molalla River article, another place to put it would be List of Oregon covered bridges. We could certainly add a "Former bridges" section, much like in the NRHP article. Valfontis (talk) 19:23, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Both options seem perfectly acceptable to me.--Yaksar (let's chat) 23:10, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Since there is agreement the historical bridge was notable, and the article was mostly about it anyway, with just one sentence about the current one, I have edited the article to be primarily about the historical one. [5] Thus the problem is solved. Dream Focus 23:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, no, I don't think that's how it works. First off, you didn't really make it about the original there. Second of all, the discussion seems to be trending towards including it in one of the two articles Valfontis suggested.--Yaksar (let's chat) 23:57, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• It's a good start, but the notability issues (see WP:GNG) have not been addressed yet. And anyway, I don't see a clear consensus about the notability of the old bridge, which is not what this AfD is about, but I'll let the closing admin judge that. Valfontis (talk) 01:17, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Dream Focus' improvements. There appears to be a whole chapter about this bridge in this book and more coverage in this book that even the visible snippet shows more than a "passing mention." This meets WP:GNG better than a lot of similar topics I've come across.--Oakshade (talk) 20:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually both of those are journals, not books. I'm not getting the sense that there's an entire chapter devoted to this subject in the Oregon Historical Quarterly Vol. 61, No. 2 (the book cited in the article is actually a reprint of this material), since "A Century of Oregon Covered Bridges" is a chapter within the journal. How do you get that sense? I think these are just passing mentions, but I suppose since no one else appears to be interested in going to the library, I may just do so today and find out. Valfontis (talk) 22:07, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• In fact, a "journal", provided there is editorial oversight as there is Oregon Historical Quarterly is a reliable source per WP:SOURCES. The scope of the coverage is well beyond a "passing mention" even by the previews. --Oakshade (talk) 23:26, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm well aware OHQ is a reliable source. Highly reliable. I was just clarifying that the hits mentioned weren't in books. It was not a comparison of the relative reliability of books vs. journals. I'm still not seeing more than a passing mention though--I don't know how you're getting that from the snippets, but I'll let you know what I find later this weekend. Cheers. Valfontis (talk) 23:50, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I guess we disagree. Even just from the snippets I've learned that the original Knights Bridge was built in 1876 to replace the old Jocelyn Bridge, was contracted to A. S. Miller & Sons, condemned to vehicular traffic as it was replaced in 1940 and it was preserved as a foot bridge until it was demolished in 1946. I know all of this from the just the sources previews. I admit I'm a great researcher, but even I couldn't get all of this information if the bridge was simply a "passing mention" in a source. And I just noticed that this source literally calls it "notable." --Oakshade (talk) 02:20, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• At this point, the topic of the article has changed completely, and so it's a bit more confusing. It seems, however, that at the very least we'd want this to be merged, not deleted, so maybe we should close this discussion and start a merge discussion on the talk page?--Yaksar (let's chat) 06:25, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• It didn't change. The information about both bridges was there at the time it was nominated for deletion. [6] No need to merge if there is proof its notable enough to stand on its own. Dream Focus 19:18, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Unfortunately my two lengthy replies were munged by an ec and since I'm at the library and have to get off the computer, I'll just say--I'm withdrawing my nomination. More later, Valfontis (talk) 19:26, 30 July 2011 (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 Remote backup service. Courcelles 14:24, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cloud backup[edit]

Cloud backup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Advert with notability, verifiability, conflict of interest and various other issues. Hence:

• Delete or merge with remote backup service -- samj _in^out 17:42, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with remote backup service. Cloud backup is a form of remote backup. Marokwitz (talk) 19:33, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with remote backup service. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:14, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge A mere subtype of remote backup service. --Cybercobra (talk) 03:00, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with remote backup service. Calling it "cloud" is marketing, what matters is it's off-site. Everything else is an implementation detail. SteveLoughran (talk) 18:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete seems a marketing neologism, just another combination of trendy but meaningless "cloud" with another term. Not much real info to merge. W Nowicki (talk) 22:51, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Remote backup service. Current article fails per WP:RS (most of the article is completely unreferenced). Richwales (talk · contribs) 23:33, 28 July 2011 (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 doesn't seem to be a consensus that this isn't already adequately covered in the main article Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:47, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Liverpool F.C. strip[edit]

Liverpool F.C. strip (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

The page is not notable in the slightest, majority of the information is in the parent article Liverpool F.C.. NapHit (talk) 15:55, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 16:15, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Wikipedia is not a gallery of images of kits or crests, and what prose there is could, and should, be included on the Liverpool F.C. main page - no need for this content fork. GiantSnowman 16:18, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Liverpool F.C.#Colours and crest. There's no reason why this information can't be included in the main Liverpool article and this page turned into a redirect. – PeeJay 16:31, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • most of the information is already in the article, the prose about the crest has no references and I can't find anything in my books to support what is in the article. Personally I think it should be deleted, with a redirect to the parent article NapHit (talk) 16:38, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • What I meant to say was that we should merge any relevant content to the main article. I definitely do not think the whole article should just be copied and pasted over. – PeeJay 16:44, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I was initially hopeful that someone would have published sources on the history of Liverpool kits or similar, but I can find no such sources. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 16:42, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • there is this on the official website but that only talks about the kit and that be included in the main article. NapHit (talk) 16:50, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed, there's a big difference between the club publishing its own history of its kits and someone writing a book about them. – PeeJay 18:03, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, I think I might have been a little hasty with my delete recommendation. There are so many sources about Liverpool F.C. and its history and trivia (for example [7][8][9]) that I find it hard to imagine that none of them cover the strip in any detail. I want to find a specific example before I think of changing to keep, though, and none of those books are viewable online. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 15:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - We should also take a look at Arsenal F.C. strip, which performs a similar function for Arsenal F.C. – PeeJay 16:44, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:NOTGALLERY. The subject is well covered at Liverpool F.C.#Colours and crest. Argyle 4 Life^talk 18:33, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No need for content fork any info not already included in parent article could easily be included in it. Warburton1368 (talk) 21:48, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Keep all. I'm certainly no expert on football clubs or their Wikipedia pages, but I'm wondering why this page should be deleted. I do agree that sourcing should be improved, but in the case of truly historic sports teams I can see why such an article as Logos and uniforms of the New York Yankees or Logos and uniforms of the New York Giants would prove useful and appropriate inside an encyclopedia. Liverpool and Arsenal clubs fit the profile of historical. I think I'd rather see the crest and uniform sections eventually split off as these two have done, when the section gets overlong. BTW, what's "strip"? Is it more akin to uniform or to colours (in deference to my across-the-pond neighbors)? Is the term listed in a list of football terminology? I'm not familiar with the term, so I'm probably not alone. BusterD (talk) 18:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • First, "strip" refers to the uniform, including the team-specific elements of shirt, shorts and socks. Second, I agree that such an article as this may be useful in the future, but given the content of this article, I think merging it to the club's main article is the best option at this time. – PeeJay 10:25, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - If it gets deleted then we'd better add Cardiff City F.C. strip, Manchester City F.C. strip, and Parma F.C. strip to the list. Delusion23 (talk) 12:44, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there are a bunch of these, maybe we oughtn't delete hastily, but discuss the common practice. As I've described above, other sports editors have demonstrated the usefulness of this type of page. Still would like to see a wikidictionary link to "strip" BusterD (talk) 12:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Strip" is such a regional use, IMHO, each of these articles should be kept, sourced and moved to "Colours and crest of..." BusterD (talk) 13:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the general notability guideline is good enough for these articles. If we're dealing with really minor teams, then there won't be any reliable third-party sources on their strips, but for major teams those sources are very likely to exist. We can judge them on a case-by-case basis. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 15:36, 27 July 2011 (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. Courcelles 14:01, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Elena K. Lincoln[edit]

Elena K. Lincoln (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

A little known academic. Very little citability in GoogleScholar and GoogleBooks, almost nothing in WebOfScience and Scopus. No other evidence of passing WP:PROF or WP:BIO (no prestigious awards, journal editorships, named chair appointments, etc.) PROD was cotested by the article's creator. Nsk92 (talk) 13:57, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A simple google search shows few references to the person. Quiggers1P (talk) 15:33, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Nsk92 (talk) 16:06, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for lack of evidence of passing WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:36, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. 21 cites on GS. We normally require many hundreds. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:22, 27 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete per WP:BIO and lack of secondary coverage. Interestingly, there are plenty of court records on Google for a messy custody battle between "Elena Kourembana Lincoln" and her husband, Charles Edward Lincoln III. Yoninah (talk) 12:40, 28 July 2011 (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. -- DQ (t) (e) 05:23, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ashleigh Connor[edit]

Ashleigh Connor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Contested PROD. Connor fails WP:GNG, as well as WP:NFOOTBALL - the W-League, which she did play in, is not fully-professional. GiantSnowman 13:10, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 13:13, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Jenks24 (talk) 13:26, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Jenks24 (talk) 13:26, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Yes, the W-League isn't fully professional, so Connor doesn't meet WP:NFOOTY (though it is absurd that someone who plays one minute in the fourth tier of English men's football is automatically notable, while professional players in the W-League aren't because not every player in the league is professional). In any case, it's abundantly clear that Connor passes GNG, having received significant coverage in independent reliable sources. See for example The Sydney Morning Herald, Illawarra Mercury, ABC to name a few. But these are all related to her death, what about WP:BIO1E? Well see ABC, Australian FourFourTwo, Sports Australia, The Examiner, SportsAustralia, Australian FourFourTwo, Australian FourFourTwo, Newcastle Herald, The Sydney Morning Herald, all of which are from before her death. Also note that the article was not just created as a result of her death, but has existed since 2009, and that there is a German article on Connor and it's common knowledge that de.wiki takes a much tougher stance on notability than en.wiki. Jenks24 (talk) 13:51, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep W-League players have generally been considered notable. I would think that it is appropriate to extend notability to players in the highest level of women's football in each country (especially a country that is a World Cup quarter finalist and now 8 in the FIFA rankings) to avoid the systemic bias inherent in this encyclopedia's treatment of women's sport. Plus, what Jenks24 said. Did the nominator even look for a source? -- Mattinbgn (talk) 14:02, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - just because other players have articles, and other Wikipedias have an article on this woman, is not a reason for keeping. If we're going to say that "players in the highest level of women's football in each country" are inherently notable, then why not create articles on women who play in the top league of San Marino, Guam, Somalia etc. etc. To Jenks24 - thanks for finding the sources. Can you add them to the article please, and then I'll be happy to reconsider, and withdraw my nomination if needed. Regards. GiantSnowman 14:09, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I admit that de.wiki having an article is not a strong reason for keeping – it was more anecdotal and by no means the basis of my argument. However, I do find Mattinbgn's reasoning to be sound. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is meant to stop arguments like "But we have articles on all those Pokemon, so we should have an article on this". In other words, comparing apples and oranges. Mattinbgn is comparing apples with apples when he correctly states that many W-League players have articles and are generally considered to be notable (though this has yet to guidelineified). Jenks24 (talk) 05:20, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment In its current state i would say delete but if those sources are added then will pass GNG So i would keep. Warburton1368 (talk) 21:51, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources do not have to be added for the article for it to be kept. WP:N only requires that they must exist, which they do in this case. Jenks24 (talk) 05:20, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep- Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia. The aim of Wikipedia is to be the number one source of information. If we keep deleting articles, any new information that will be valuable in an article will have no article to go in. If we keep pages, more people visiting the page will add information they know and articles will expand.SRWikis (talk) 02:12, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. She played in the top tier of Australian women's football. This nomination is ludicrous. Rebecca (talk) 04:45, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Might need a bit of cleanup, but i see no reason to delete it.Trex21 (talk) 06:14, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - can anyone please point me to a notability guideline that mentions playing in "top level" is enough? Because the one that I've found and used, WP:NFOOTBALL, mentions "fully-professional league (as detailed here)", of which the W-League is NOT one. GiantSnowman 11:37, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think people might be referring to WP:ATHLETE, which - as I recall - says that someone who has played at the highest level of amateur sport could be considered notable. However, since there are fully professional women's football leagues in other countries, and Ashleigh Connor never played in one, I think she fails that criterion. – PeeJay 17:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL, because the W-League is not fully-professional. I'm not sure whether the news of her death is considered significant coverage or not, so as to pass WP:GNG. PeeJay, according to WP:ATHLETE, an athlete is notable if they have participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level, or if they pass WP:NFOOTY. The W-League is not an international competition, so Ashleigh is not considered notable. Kosm1fent ^{Won't you talk to me?} 19:34, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • A sentence in the first paragraph of WP:NSPORTS reads "Failing to meet the criteria in this guideline means that notability will need to be established in other ways (e.g. the general notability guideline, or other, topic-specific, notability guidelines)." (my bold) As long as Connor passes GNG, it does not matter whether she passes NFOOTBALL or not. Please have a look at the sources above (and in the article) and judge whether she passes the GNG. Jenks24 (talk) 05:20, 28 July 2011 (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 Deleted by Jimfbleak per G11, unambiguous advertising or promotion. Non-admin closure. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 17:00, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gcp certificate[edit]

Gcp certificate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This page was obviously made as an advertisement. The question is should it be deleted or the link removed? Thompson.matthew (talk) 12:08, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Obvious spam. I would have used speedy. Planetary Chaos Redux (talk) 12:14, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Then speedy shall be done. --Thompson.matthew (talk) 12:42, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (WP:SNOW). The article doesn't include unsubstantiated "hearsay and speculation" anymore; every statement is referenced with reliable sources. The motivation for the crime has already generated a lot of interest, and multiple sources have covered the attacker's profile in non-trivial manner. The nominator's rationale strong enough to initiate a discussion on merging this article with 2011 Norway attacks, but not strong enough to warrant a deletion. WP:BLP1E and WP:PERPETRATOR are guidelines (as opposed to gospel), best treated with common sense and necessary exceptions. The article can be re-nominated for deletion after a few weeks, if the coverage of the subject doesn't persist beyond contemporaneous news. utcursch | talk 15:45, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anders Behring Breivik[edit]

Anders Behring Breivik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Loaded with hearsay and speculation. Classic WP:BLP1E. Per WP:PERPETRATOR, "A living person accused of a crime is 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." ShipFan (talk) 11:57, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)).

• Outright deletion is not warranted, the incident and person are clearly very notable. But merge for now to 2011 Norway attacks#Alleged perpetrator. Per WP:BLP1E we do not have separate articles for people who are notable for one thing only (in this case, the attacks), unless they attract persistent coverage in reliable sources. This man will probably qualify for a separate article if and when he goes to trial, if not before, but right now it's too early to tell. As a practical matter, the information at 2011 Norway attacks#Alleged perpetrator is now essentially a duplicate of Anders Behring Breivik, and it is impractical to keep both versions up-to-date and error-free. That's why I propose to merge the content back for now and spin it out again as soon as it becomes too large, per WP:SS. (Others have pointed out, though, that a previous merger proposal did not obtain consensus).  Sandstein  12:03, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The event is notable but the person is not (yet). Only suspected, not actually convicted of any crime. ShipFan (talk) 12:05, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • You need to get over your imaginary "conviction" requirement. From your own link:

For perpetrators

The victim of the crime is a renowned national or international figure, including, but not limited to, politicians or celebrities.[9] The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event. Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role.[10]

• This has not yet seen "sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role". From your own link. ShipFan (talk) 12:34, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stian (talk) 12:26, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Because is a notabily article. Vitor Mazuco ^Talk! 12:07, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep. --Sloane (talk) 12:08, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Stupid nomination, the subject is a suspect in a major event, of course he is notable. WWGB (talk) 12:08, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please assume good faith. A suspect is not a conviction. See WP:PERPETRATOR. ShipFan (talk) 12:18, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Take a look at the comments here and reflect on your own actions. Good faith indeed. WWGB (talk) 12:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep Very unreasonable nom due to this persons immediate notability. SOXROX (talk) 12:10, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please assume good faith. A suspect is not a conviction. See WP:PERPETRATOR. ShipFan (talk) 12:18, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for the moment. Tidy up and discuss a merger in 2-3 weeks – then, we'll have more facts anyway, and with some days hindsight, we'll know what's important enough for all the Oslo/Utøya/Breivik-related articles. Min dypeste medfølelse. --Keimzelle (talk) 12:10, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - He is the prime and so far only suspect in the biggest (terrorist?) attack on European soil in decades. That fact alone makes him notable. Polozooza (talk) 12:13, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • A suspect is not a conviction See WP:PERPETRATOR. ShipFan (talk) 12:18, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • A conviction is not a requirement to satisfy notability. Stian (talk) 12:22, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • In which case the subject is only notable for one event. Fails WP:BLP1E. ShipFan (talk) 12:49, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep ridiculous nomination considering that the user did not even bother to read the article's talk page. Pre-existing consensus is leaning on wait for now. --hydrox (talk) 12:15, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please assume good faith. ShipFan (talk) 12:18, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge unless something truly notable (apart from 2011 attack) pops up, and this AfD is not going down with speedy close. I will just restate my very original conviction that this is one truly classical case of WP:BLP1E, ditto. --hydrox (talk) 14:51, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Defer any decision The actual situation should be clearer within a short time. ike9898 (talk) 12:14, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Clear precedent for keeping articles on mass murderers. Seung-Hui Cho, Timothy McVeigh, Hafiz Muhammad Saeed, etc. The very presence of this AFD nomination on a widely read article is putting Wikipedia in a bad light, and a speedy keep should therefore be considered. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:14, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • They confessed or were convicted. Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured.. ShipFan
    • A conviction is not a requirement to satisfy notability. Stian (talk) 12:22, 23 July 2011 (UTC) (talk) 12:18, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • In which case this is a clear WP:BLP1E. ShipFan (talk) 12:24, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • See Jared Lee Loughner. He hasn;t been convicted, and he nearly assassinated a memer of Congress! You saying HE shoun't have an article? Yup, because he hasn't confessed nor been convicted yet. Hmmmm, I think most would disagree. SOXROX (talk) 12:28, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • The person was arrested, more or less red-handed, at Utøya. There are no doubts about the actus reus expressed anywhere in the media, only the mens rea. The "serious consideration" has been given, but it does not mean that the consideration results in "no article" each and every time. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:30, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Doesn't matter. A suspect is not a conviction per WP:PERPETRATOR. ShipFan (talk) 12:38, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • There is nothing in WP:PERPETRATOR that says a conviction is an absolute requirement. Osama bin Laden was never "convicted" of anything either. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:43, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • Osama bin Laden was notable for more than one event. ShipFan (talk) 12:45, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                  • But this alleged "terrorist" is also notable for more than one event. There are two events. Kavas (talk) 12:50, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Obviously notable, extremely significant event. Stian (talk) 12:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The event is notable. The person fails to meet notability criteria. ShipFan (talk) 12:24, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, clear notability, well-cited. Askild (talk) 12:25, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, the person fails notability criteria at this stage. Being merely suspected of a crime is not sufficient criteria for inclusion. ShipFan (talk) 12:26, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:PERPETRATOR, which you like to cite, says an article is justified if the victim of the crime is a renowned national figure. Think the Prime Minister might qualify? It further states that if the execution is unusual -- which is obviously the case here -- or if this is a well-documented historic event -- which it isn't yet, but is obviously going to be -- then an article is justified. Again, read policies before citing them to back up your argument. WP:PERPETRATOR does not back up the point of view in favor of which you are citing it. Stian (talk) 12:40, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Last time I checked the Prime Minister was still alive, therefore is not a victim. "Obviously going to be" is crystal ballery. ShipFan (talk) 12:45, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep since the degree pf suspision is high in this case. Mange01 (talk) 12:27, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• WP:SNOW, can an adminstrator please step in? WWGB (talk) 12:32, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not SNOW. This needs to be examined objectively. ShipFan (talk) 12:37, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep, the subject is confirmed by the police and authorities as a suspect. Bjelleklang - talk 12:35, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which is not a conviction. See WP:PERPETRATOR. ShipFan (talk) 12:37, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: the subject of this article has not yet been identified as a suspect by any verifiable official source let alone charged with any crime. Too many people are trying to use Wikipedia to publish speculative commentary on current news events rather than as an encyclopedia of verified facts. 80.176.88.21 (talk) 12:35, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A suspect is not a conviction per WP:PERPETRATOR. Probably, he is the PERPETRATOR, but we should abide by the rule. The article material should be moved to 2011 Norway Attacks. Kavas (talk) 12:36, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• No to deletion. As listening to public opinion is important to prevent extremists and evil governments taking hold. Whether the discussion is generated by evil people or not, they cannot be simply ignored, even at the cost of letting them become famous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.16.68.201 (talk) 12:15, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to 2011 Norway attacks#Alleged perpetrator. This is obviously a very emotional issue for some but as things stand at the moment, in the absence of a confession or conviction, this fails notability. David B in Canberra (talk) 12:55, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge: As per David B in Canberra. Joyson Noel ^{Holla at me!} 12:58, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Keimzelle above Tere (talk) 12:59, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy merge Come on people, we have an established, effective way of dealing with topics of emergent notability. Innocent until proven guilty, non-notable until history proves otherwise. If you want to debate them, do so at the meta-level, not in AfD every single time. Skomorokh 13:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment "If you want to debate them, do so at the meta-level". Agreed. Kavas (talk) 13:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There has already been several discussons that has shown no consensus to merge. Rettetast (talk) 13:06, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A conviction is not an absolute requirement for notability WP:PERPETRATOR. And he is not only a suspect anymore as the police has issued an Indictment against him. There is also enough reliable sources out there to write an article, meny of whch stll has not been used here. The article needs editing, cleanup and more referencing. But deleting it is just silly. Rettetast (talk) 13:06, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • An indictment is a formal accusation, not a conviction. ShipFan (talk) 13:12, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • So what. A conviction is not a requirement for notability. Rettetast (talk) 13:16, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: He is and will be relevant and his name will be linked to the terrorist attacks from now on, whether he is convicted or not. In case of a conviction he is relevant, because he has committed this attrocious crime and will probably serve as an example for home-grown-non-muslim terrorism. If he is aquitted he is most certainly relevant for being in the centre of one of the most notable blunders in police investigations. He is named in news reports all over the world as the possible perpetrator. If he proves innocent, he will probably welcome a wp-article, saying that he didn't do what he was accused of. His name will serve as an example for the need to protect even strongly suspected suspects. Therefore, his relevance is definite. Everything els is a question of the content of the article, not its existance. Phlyz (talk) 13:08, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is crystal ballery at its worst. ShipFan (talk) 13:12, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. (Hopefully it goes without saying that if we can't keep, we will at least merge.) Breivik just took the world record for rampage killing by an amazing margin of >30, and he didn't even kill himself, so we'll be hearing from him for decades to come like the Unabomber.

As for Shipfan's objection (so repetitive I can read it in my mind's eye), Wikipedia is NOT a criminal court; we don't care about 'innocent until proven guilty'. Interesting how people are willing to appeal to tiny probabilities ('oh, he might not have done it, he's only a "suspect", we can't have an article on him!' Yeah, well, evolution is just a "theory". Beware scare-quotes.) when they aren't willing to equally arrogantly ignore the probabilities and dismiss cases of confessions - though false confessions are extremely common. And as for PERPETRATOR, it specifically says a split-out article is merited when the original article is big; 2011 Norway attacks is awful big already and is only going to grow even longer. 90 people do not get spectacularly murdered in a wealthy First World democracy without a lot of coverage; judging from every precedent like the VA Tech shootings, we will need to split out the shooter's biography - insisting that a split that will happen be delayed until the absolute last minute based on an extremist reading of a random guideline is POINTiness of the highest degree.

One final comment. People are comparing the obviousness of Breivik's guilt to Jared Loughner disfavorably on the basis that Loughner was arrested at the scene. Where, pray tell, do you think Breivik was arrested? --Gwern (contribs) 13:09 23 July 2011 (GMT)

• Comment Wikipedia has a rule similar to a Criminal Court: Do not start a page unless the suspect is proven guilty. Kavas (talk) 13:19, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. Clearly an example of WP:BLP1E, which is a BLP policy. Just a suspect who allegedly did what? The exact acts covered in the main article. Duplicative. Also, this sort of monsterous piece of human filth would be proud to have a Wikipedia page. 50.73.213.81 (talk) 13:11, 23 July 2011 (UTC) — 50.73.213.81 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WWGB (talk) 13:16, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: he was caught on the crime scene, and filmed by a NRK helicopter. The man will be a very important individual in Norwegian history, and in this event. He will be analyzed to the bone over the next weeks, and his trial will be the most important trial in my country since after the war. I cannot see how this fails to qualify him for page here. Knutsi (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:13, 23 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
• Merge Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡælˈeːrɛz/)^[1] 13:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Ridiculous nomination. At the very most the article should be merged. Mark Shaw (talk) 13:44, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• (edit conflict)} Keep whether or not he was or was not the perpetrator, that he has been so massively associated with the events by the media and by the authorities prominently publicising his being charged with the crimes, that he will be forever linked with them. Notability is thus clear. WP:BLP1E probably applies at this point, but the policy says "If the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial and well-documented [...] a separate biography may be appropriate.", and there is no doubting that Breivik's role within the event is significant. BLP1E does go on to say that "The significance of an event or individual is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources.", it's true that we can't be certain of this, but we can be as all-but certain that there will be extensive coverage of all aspects of his trial and much discussion between then and now (based on comparable past events). While I'm not familiar with the Norwegian legal system, court appearances would seem to fall under the "scheduled or expected" future events criteria of WP:CRYSTAL - there probably isn't a non-speculative article that could be written about that at present but we can be sufficiently certain they will happen (or that there will be significant comment if they don't) such that ongoing notability is pretty much guaranteed. Finally, WP:SPINOUT recommends breaking large articles into smaller chunks, and while the attacks article is not too long at present, it's quickly going to grow. Thryduulf (talk) 13:48, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 13:51, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 13:51, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 13:51, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 13:51, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep WP:BLP1E and WP:PERPETRATOR specifically exempt high profile events such as this. The perp guideline simply says to consider not creating articles on unconvicted criminals, it does not disallow it completely. Suspected criminals who receive significant international media attention for their role in historic events are an exception, in my opinion. Qrsdogg (talk) 13:52, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As per Gwern: "2011 Norway attacks is awful big already and is only going to grow even longer. 90 people do not get spectacularly murdered in a wealthy First World democracy without a lot of coverage; judging from every precedent like the VA Tech shootings, we will need to split out the shooter's biography - insisting that a split that will happen be delayed until the absolute last minute based on an extremist reading of a random guideline is WP:POINTiness of the highest degree." Boud (talk) 13:52, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment: i don't want my copy of Gwern's argument to be misunderstood as favouring the known demographic bias in en.wikipedia. This bias remains a problem, but deleting material related to en.WP-demographically favoured groups is not going to improve encyclopedic coverage of en.WP-demographically disfavoured groups. It would be good if poor-country massacres - e.g. drone-based killings in Afghanistan and Pakistan - were also covered encyclopedically. The difficulty constantly comes back to the issue of WP:RS. Anyway, that's another topic. Boud (talk) 14:40, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The attacks were extremely high profile and there is already ample rs to develop a biography. TFD (talk) 14:23, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• This is a notable individual that people want accurate information on. Period. - Cecropia (talk) 14:28, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. He is at least as notable as the Unabomber or Timothy Veigh. Trotskyist (talk) 14:35, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per WP:PERP; also WP:NOTNEWS – “breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information”, and that includes the note at the bottom of WP:PERP. ABB is a suspect and a target of speculation, not a convicted perpetrator. If you want to work on up-to-the-minute coverage, contribute to Wikinews. Ahruman (talk) 14:36, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Clearly notable after yesterday's unfortunate events. But perhaps a merge/redirect is apprporiate in the short term until more information becomes available. TheRetroGuy (talk) 14:37, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Supporting arguments above more than suffice.-- lowgenius -- My Talk Page 14:39, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Merge. Basically duplicated in 2011 Norway attacks anyway. A lot of the keep !votes do not seem to be able to make the distinction between the event and the person. Some of the !votes here are very uncivil and bordering on personal attacks against the nominator. This is an encyclopedia. We must remain cool, calm, dispassionate and detached from the subject. Thin Arthur (talk) 14:40, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There is an urgent need to accumulate knowledge about this horrendous crime, and specifically about the background and character of the people involved. Pcp071098. —Preceding undated comment added 14:46, 23 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep Already sufficient for an entry. The article will further expand with meaningful information as the suspect will stand for trial. I recommend trimming the chapter on the murderer in the attack entry. BTW I see no problem with the nomination. There are pros and cons for keeping this article and this kind of articles. A civil discussion can create a balance. gidonb (talk) 15:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Plenty of reliable references to justify the article. Even if he happens to be proven innocent in the future, there remains more than enough information for this article to stay. Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:09, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep BLP1E isn't meant for people known for very important events: that's why we have articles such as Seung-Hui Cho or Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold. Nyttend (talk) 15:15, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's an important event: Norway was hit by her own son. The media say he was willing to explain his reasons. If we don't want this to repeat, we need to hear his reasons and see them here, in the free encyclopedia. Hiding problems just leads to events like this.Thalarctos (talk) 15:17, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nobody is disputing that the event is important. The event already has an article: 2011 Norway attacks. ShipFan (talk) 15:29, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Removing the page would complicate finding relevant information on the suspected perpetrator. Furthermore. The article is currently very clear on the issue of guilt. I.E. Consequent in using alleged. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:35, 23 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep The deletion would at best be symbolic. I understand the reasoning, but I don't see any point in doing so. There are no indications that Behring Breivik won't stand trial, and even if he doesn't, it'll be notable enough that he was so obviously singled out as the perpetrator. Peter ^Isotalo 15:37, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Because the guy is guilty. Just look at his picture. 81.82.101.135 (talk) 15:40, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Wikipedia is not a court of law. While he is not convicted yet there can be no reasonably doubt for his de facto guilt and relevance. Especially when looking at notorious war criminals (who never got caught) or other amok killers (who killed themselves) (and hence never came on trial) the reasoning of this AdF becomes invalid. --Quassy_.DE 15:41, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy merge There is nothing in this article which isn't already in the main article on the attacks and he isn't notable for anything outside yesterday's events. 194.171.56.13 (talk) 15:42, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Common sense here, please?--EchetusXe 15:45, 23 July 2011 (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. Courcelles 14:00, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

International reactions to the 2011 Norway attacks[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)).

International reactions to the 2011 Norway attacks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I'm aware that we have several such articles, but I believe that they are at odds with WP:NOTNEWS. Wikipedia's job is not to reproduce what are (in such cases) routine and expected statements expressing condolences and condemnation in nearly identical terms. All of these statements can easily be summarized with little loss of relevant information in a paragraph in the main article, perhaps highlighting the more peculiar ones, such as the Libyan statement.  Sandstein  11:54, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree A paragraph of truly notable reactions will suffice. By the way, the link to this page appears red in the article for some reason. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡælˈeːrɛz/)^[1] 12:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree Definitely, as you said, the prominent or outstanding ones (such as the Libyan one) should be included in the main article, to illustrate it better; the large number of similar ones should simply be summarized, so as not to clutter the page; perhaps they should go to a separate page, as "a list of items". BTW, there was a very similar suggestion and a discussion regarding the Reactions to the death of Osama bin Laden... and now that "useless page" is ridiculously long (to be merged back), with hundreds of references. --95.103.188.193 (talk) 18:03, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are plenty of International reactions articles. The reason we have these articles is that the main article becomes too long if we keep International reactions section there. Kavas (talk) 12:44, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge back with 2011 Norway attacks. If the main article becomes too long, I would rather spin out the two attacks separately which are more notable and significant than the international reactions. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:49, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per WP:NOTNEWS. And just per common sense; most of these are not notable. EU, UN, NATO, neighboring countries, maybe English-speaking superpowers. Not Chile, Singapore or Lithuania. -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 13:34, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who's to say which countries are most important and are notable in term of Norway's relations? You may as well keep all of it or take out all the countries except supernational bodies.YuMaNuMa (talk) 13:54, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Classic case of WP:BIAS right here. I can't believe someone would say the views of other countries expressed in reliable sources are unimportant. Silverseren^C 22:43, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep a reaction list within the article of the event is only drawing attention away from main news story. Whilst a reaction section may be repetitive it is notable and rewriting it into a paragraphed format in the main article is not helping the section's repetitive nature. YuMaNuMa (talk) 13:54, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 14:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 14:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 14:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as WP:NOTPAPER. The section was spun off from the main article to accomodate the international reactions. The text is very well referenced. It is problematic to mention some of the reactions and redact some, because all are surely valueable. --hydrox (talk) 15:02, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Very well referenced article which is growing speedily and is informative and useful. Qwerta369 (talk) 15:27, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now; when this terrible incident is no longer a topical news story, start a centralised debate about whether such lists, in general, are appropriate for Wikipedia (either stand-alone or as sections of main articles), belong elsewhere (Wikinews; Wikisource) or should be done away with altogether. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:30, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I'm afraid this is a snowball; there's too much precedence with these kind of sections/articles. I'm really just glad it's not cluttering up the main article. Lampman (talk) 15:31, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's well referenced and I'd rather have this on a seperate page than just wasting space on the main article. --Veyneru (talk) 16:07, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I've seen lots of "international reactions" articles come up for deletion before, and the extent to which they were useful has varied depending on the event. In this case, there was no variation of opinion among the countries as to their reaction -- they all expressed condolences. And no countries are listed as having sent money or supplies or relief workers, because this wasn't the kind of disaster that required such aid. I just don't see a need for this list. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:13, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. If it becomes merged with the 2011 Norway Attacks article that particular article will be too long. Its better to have it as a separate page. --Philly boy92 (talk) 16:24, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge in to 2011 Norway attacks.82.27.19.246 (talk) 16:40, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Leaning Merge at the moment, without prejudice towards spinning it off again in the future. Have the reactions themselves received coverage? At this point I don't see the need for a separate article, but there may be eventually if such coverage emerges. Qrsdogg (talk) 16:51, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. Metropolitan90 brings up valid points though I do not think it should be deleted but rather merged with the 2011 Oslo attacks article. If there are way too many "extended condolences", then we should just keep it brief and mention that X number of governments have expressed condolences and such. - Fedayee (talk) 16:56, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Merge - This article is pretty pointless; no information can be gleamed from it, other than the fact that people throughout the world feel that shooting sprees are bad. Are we going to also start an article called International opinions on water's wetness? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.24.145.120 (talk) 17:27, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Definite Keep - The list is only likely to grow, as is the main article. International reactions to major terrorist attacks are certainly notable and worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, and if the list is merged into the main article that will greatly increase its length and decrease its navigability/readability. -Helvetica (talk) 17:43, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Death of Osama bin Laden is a good illustration of how the massive response to an important recent event can be better managed in separate articles that are later pared down in hindsight. Deleting this content would make it impossible to merge it later. causa sui (talk) 17:44, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per some very good arguments above. S_peakF_ree ^(talk) 17:54, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep well-sourced, notability well-established. It's not up to us to decide whether the news is spectacular enough. This should be based on whether RS cover it. Leifern (talk) 18:06, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Retaining only the "outstanding" responses, as some have said, is problematic. Who decides which responses are outstanding? WP:PAPER, and this is a much better place to keep the responses than cluttering up the main article. Bart133 ^{t c @} 18:35, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. ridiculous to delete. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 18:57, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A redundant list of "condolences" adds nothing of encyclopedic value to the project. 98.165.151.225 (talk) 19:28, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to parent page. Orderinchaos 19:36, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep They do not fall under NOTNEWS, they fall under WP:SPLIT, as they are too long to include in the main article. Thus, they were split onto their own page. This is a common practice and responses from various world government is encyclopedia and important in a number of ways (International climes, relationships between countries, reactions to reasons behind event, terrorism in this case). Silverseren^C 22:41, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge does not merit a separate article. Perhaps if it becomes more important. Prayerfortheworld (talk) 22:58, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Silver seren. The information is still incoming and such articles would be incomplete without decent coverage of international reaction. Brandmeister t 23:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with its parent article per User:Orderinchaos. Kiddie Techie (talk) 02:34, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Since all this condoling minutiae seems somehow important to some editors, at least it is better off being quarantined here rather than cluttering the main article. WWGB (talk) 02:38, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep with the future option to merge. This article preserves and presents content that is currently pertinent and appropriate. Once the news and reactions to this incident have developed and become clear, the context will be established to decide which of this information is actually important to understanding the event and its aftermath, so that it can be merged back into the main article. If we delete now, that information will not only be hid from current readers, but from future editors who will be able to judiciously use that information.
• Speedy Keep - precedent says "international reaction" articles are mostly kept if they are legitimate forks from articles that have become to big to include a full scope of the sources and reactions. Merge back to article is impractical, as it was forked out for a reason. Nominator needs to read WP:SPINOFF.--Cerejota (talk) 03:00, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep - as per `causa sui'. LiteralKa (talk) 03:09, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - It magtters not only how a country reacts, but who actualy reacts. It sends a political message. Keep it for ever, please. User: Coquimbano. 05:45, 24 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coquimbano (talk • contribs)
• Keep for now, reevaluate later when the dust have settled down. WegianWarrior (talk) 06:14, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Merge depending on whether the main article becomes too long for reading. A international reactions page listing the countries'/organizations' reactions separately is a must to ensure a Neutral POV rendering to the reactions section, which is highly unlikely if we editors paraphrase it into prose format. Batram (talk) 07:12, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — It is not the purpose of an encyclopædia to list a redundant and repetitive litany of condolences. The event itself is notable and deeply sad, but the list of reactions contributes nothing to Wikipedia. An encyclopædia is not a book of condolences or symapathy card to the shocked and stricken people of Norway. It is sufficient to state in the main article that many international reactions were supportive, and condolences were widely expressed. What more need one say about it? If a country said something that was geopolitically or diplomatically unusual or notable, that could be documented, but these international expressions are not notable enough in themselves to qualify for encyclopædic inclusion. The proposer is correct to say that these condolences are routine, expected, and nearly identical — that is to say: non-notable. — O'Dea (talk) 09:36, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep This is an historic event, especially for Norway but also internationally. The information on this page is too long to include on the main page, so this page should be kept instead. Michael5046 (talk) 11:07, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While "the information on this page is too long to include on the main page", it does not deserve its own article. It is sufficient to say that the international community offered condolences and support. An encyclopædia requires no further elaboration. — O'Dea (talk) 11:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Question Would this be acceptable content at Wikiquote? If so we should probably transwiki it there. 12:52, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

No, the expressions of condolence are pro-forma and non-notable. — O'Dea (talk) 15:24, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep of course. Many articles of this kind exist on Wikipedia so why delete this one? Also it's funny how these articles became separate because people were trying to delete that content so finally consensus was reached to split that content into separate articles and now we see merge, merge, merge here.--Avala (talk) 13:59, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Avala, as the Wikipedia:Other stuff exists policy says, "other stuff exists" is not a strong argument. There is no reason to suppose that any of the other, similar reaction article should exist either. They are all the same. Wikipedia policy ought to discourage them because of their non-notability. Also, the merge suggestion is not that all of this should be re-incorporated back into the main article, rather, this article should be summarized in the main article something like this, "The leaders of many countries expressed their condolences." That is all this article conveys, anyway, at unnecessary and repetitive length. — O'Dea (talk) 15:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Its been common policy to have a "reactions to current events in the last few months, though perhaps its should include domestic as well as international reactions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dudeman5685 (talk • contribs)

There is no such policy. — O'Dea (talk) 15:35, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Really? *Reactions to the death of Osama bin Laden, Reactions to the United States diplomatic cables leak, International reactions to the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy, International reactions to the 2011 Libyan civil war, International reactions to the 2011 Egyptian revolution. Seems like enough precedents to me. Though perhaps "international" should be used and domestic added. --Dudeman5685 (talk) 01:12, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Precedent does not equal policy. AIRcorn (talk) 01:26, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The main article says, "The European Union, NATO and governments around the world expressed their condemnation of the attack, condolences, and solidarity with Norway." That is all anyone needs to know. This "International reactions" is unnecessary when that sentence sums it up so usefully in the main article. All else is repetitive, redundant, and non-notable. — O'Dea (talk) 15:35, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, at best trim and merge. International reactions of sympathy to major tragedies are diplomatically pro forma, and don't merit an article. I'm struck by the distinction between this, essentially a list of condolences, and a true article [10]. And the capacity that Wikipedia has for unintended satire is evidenced by the inclusion of one foreign leader who tweeted his condolences. Still, given the article's length and copious sourcing I anticipate this will be kept--we could do worse, and often do. 99.0.82.226 (talk) 15:39, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, nothing really unique about these reactions to justify another article. NYyankees51 (talk) 20:05, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment Speaking of spin-offs, anyone want to weigh in on this one [11]? Once the doors open.... 99.0.82.226 (talk) 21:10, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• keep: International reactions is an important section for an incident, so it should not be deleted. If it is merged to the parent article, it will make the parent article more complex. Therefore, the best choice is to keep.--Coekon (talk) 22:53, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unencyclopaedic collection of sweet nothings, rhetorical soundbytes and quotefarm best summarised on the principal article. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 23:13, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Some here want to keep it, saying they like it but haven't given any substantive encyclopaedic reason. The existence of other similar articles may only demonstrate that other stuff exists. Here's something I posted earlier elsewhere which is equally applicable to this article:

  Don't you get a sense of déjà vu as you are working down those comments, and then fail to remember precisely who said what, because they are all so darn similar? Actually, I feel the best solution to this 'lack of substance' is to summarise. Then we give all the information, without boring the reader, and without needing to consider which country'e views needs to be given greater weight. You may have noticed that I had left a sentence dedicated to the Pakistani response, which is quite notable due to the historical tensions. The others are marginally so, and could easily be grouped. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 10:16, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

  Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 15:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Interesting, informative, well put together. Where else can we find such an exhaustive list? If I was interested in reading it, I'm assuming others would too; net benefit for Wikipedia to keep. -- œ^™ 23:18, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - I came to this article to read about the subject, so it had my interest. It is too expansive for the main article and has plenty of merit on its own. Manning (talk) 00:00, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - given the notability of the main article, and thus is potentially large size, there's not enough room in the main article to include every country's views.Wheatsing (talk) 01:25, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - In addition to my 'keep' above, I'd also like to point out that there are similar pages for international reactions to previous attacks: Reactions to the September 11 attacks, Response to the 2005 London bombings, Reactions to the 2004 Madrid train bombings. Michael5046 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

  For the three articles above, you need to read them to appreciate that they are substantially different in qualitative terms. Only the London article has an oversized section like the one here, but they all have a more encyclopaedic focus. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 15:58, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – Got bored of reading them after the first 5 or 6. Not of interest to English speakers, let the Norwegian Wikipedia cover it. Betty Logan (talk) 03:07, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Hmmm, I'm an English speaker, and I found it very interesting, which refutes your argument. I suspect it is generally unwise to attempt to speak for the entire English-speaking world in your comments. Manning (talk) 04:10, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Speak for yourself. Just because you have no interest doesn't reflect the general consensus of English speakers. Most other Wikipedia are tend to be a direct translation from the English Wikipedia anyways. YuMaNuMa (talk) 05:48, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Summarise the important points and merge. We are an encyclopedia not a directory or memorial site. The list is over detailed. This may be an appropriate level of coverage - while even this may be too much. The article as it stands is not doing a service to our readers, as it is not sifting through the material and picking out the important points - it is expecting our readers to work through a very long list of quotes and data which at around 4,000 words would take an average reader around 20-30 minutes to read, which is too long for the importance of the material. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:40, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep since the attacks have resulted in worldwide reactions in a lot of countries. I think the reactions together are notable enough for a separate article, and a lot of things have been said from presidents, prime ministers etc. HeyMid (contribs) 13:07, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - There is nothing notable about these comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8digits (talk • contribs) 14:26, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You may want to explain that if you want your !vote to carry more weight. HeyMid (contribs) 14:44, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Simply a database or list of quotes, most of which are identical, not really an article. In any case, it's not notable. Are there any sources that describe the reaction in detail? I suspect not because there really is nothing to say. Comparisons with other "response" articles, contrary to keep voters, only reinforce my point, because things actually happened with sources to document it. Christopher Connor (talk) 15:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - very important article on the international reactions for this event. numerous similar articles so no precedent for non-inclusion of this kind of articles either.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:38, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge data like this is best covered in context of the incident itself and in WP:DUE weight. Don't need to put unnecessary weight on all the punditry and various POVs. Dzlife (talk) 18:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is just a list of quotes that say basically the same thing. The list adds nothing beyond what the first sentence in the lead says and that is already in the main article. AIRcorn (talk) 02:34, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Given that the alleged killer alleges that the reaction was a key motivation, this is important. I suggest expanding to include the reaction of European far-right organizations (which are more varied and nuanced than that of national politicians). Merging back into the main article would make it too long and cumbersome. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:09, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is a major European event as evident by the number of European government statements and reponses. If we mrged it it would take up too much space. Definitely keep. Pass a Method talk 12:39, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep currently it's just a quotefarm, but when analysis is made - especially of the timing of Middle East responses, many made only after the perp was known not to be of Middle Eastern origin - it may be a quite informative article. Right now, the article - devoid of analysis - is about as informative as "water is wet"; but we judge articles not as they are but as they optimally could be. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:48, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is a massive event for Norway, which usually never suffers from this type of incident. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.88.31 (talk) 17:46, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above arguments. NorthernThunder (talk) 17:57, 28 July 2011 (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. Despite having a "references" section of external links to various blogs and forum posts, this article is an unsourced BLP. Also, both the creator and the editor who challenged the PROD have a conflict of interest. If we are to have an article (not a "profile", Wikipedia is not a directory) on this subject, it will need to be written by a neutral editor with no connection to the subject. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:33, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Smoothspinner[edit]

DJ Smoothspinner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Contested PROD; unnotable musician Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:48, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. All of the sourcing in the article is either self-published, non-reliable sources, or event listings. -- Whpq (talk) 16:28, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete the whole shebang. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:37, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? (15th November 1999)[edit]

Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? (15th November 1999) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

No indication of WP:notability. Only reference is a youtube video of the show. Contested prod. Part of a collection created by the same editor. noq (talk) 18:47, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following other articles:

Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? (20th November 2000) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Who Wants to Be a Millionaire (18th November 2006) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? (4th September 1998) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Steve Devlin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

While they include the first episode and the episode of the first million pound win, those events are covered in the main article and the episode article adds nothing to it. The Steve Devlin article is someone famouse for WP:ONEEVENT - and that not particularly significant - 4th person to win half a million. noq (talk) 18:59, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 19:17, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all Even the episode about the first winner isn't notable in its own right. Any useful content should be merged into the main article (I assume there's a section on who's won the big money). Lugnuts (talk) 08:31, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep November 2000 only. While the vast majority of these are routine episodes which spectacularly fail WP:GNG and Devlin is nowhere near meeting WP:BIO, this one episode did gain significant coverage from the media for having the first winner [12] [13] [14], for its high ratings [15] and for a claim that it was rigged [16]. There's more than enough fto justify an article here, and more content than could be held in the main article if it's fleshed out properly. Alzarian16 (talk) 20:03, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all—A game show episode is not notable. Any contestants who meet Wikipedia's notability criteria have their own pages, and the List of top prize winners on Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? article covers any wins for the top prize. Sottolacqua (talk) 14:56, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A game show episode is not notable." - why not? That's just your opinion, and not one that the reliable sources I linked to above seem to share. Is there any policy-based reason why a game show episode should be less notable than, say, science fiction episodes or animated comedy episodes, given that sources covering the episode in detail exist? Alzarian16 (talk) 19:20, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:EPISODE and WP:N detail the notability requirements needed for article inclusion. These episodes would be notable if they "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." However, no evidence is presented to suggest that this criteria has been met. The first three references are more appropriate for Judith Keppel's article or her listing in List of top prize winners on Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?, since each deals more with Keppel than the actual notability of the episode on which she appeared. Mentioning the episode received high ratings does not mean it is also a single notable episode. The last reference also relates more to Keppel than the actual episode. The fourth reference discusses ratings and it's higher rating than another show, but one episode achieving a higher rating than the finale of another program does not meet the notability requirements stressed in the other guidelines. Furthermore, none of the references you present are linked in the articles as they stand now. Additionally, the external links within each article feature user-uploaded copyrighted material, which is a violation of WP:YOUTUBE. Sottolacqua (talk) 20:14, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:EPISODE is a style guideline which points to WP:GNG, the more specific branch of WP:N that I'm guessing you were referring to. Signifcant coverage is defined there as follows: "Significant coverage means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." This at least meets that definition, and depending on interpretation, so would [17] (three fairly long paragraphs directly about the episode plus lots more about Keppel and the show in general) and this (covering the episode and events surrounding it). I should also point out the presence of this list of the questions on the Guardian website, which should aid with verifiability. To answer your last two points, yes the current article is poor, but if it's kept I'll add the sources and remove the YouTube links. Notability is not concerned with article content, as WP:NNC makes clear. Alzarian16 (talk) 21:34, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? (20th November 2000) and delete the rest. Most episodes are inconsequential but the 20th November 2000 is notable both for being the first £1 million win and the subsequent controversy. Plenty of sources to meet WP:GNG, and I have added some. Bridgeplayer (talk) 14:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment would it not be more appropriate to add to the controversy section of the main article - which does not mention this - rather than create a small article just for this. The £1 million win is documented in the main article anyway. noq (talk) 15:54, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Certainly adding a summary to the main article would be a good idea. However, since this episode article exists, my view is that there are sufficient sources around to meet notability requirements. I would add that when a publication such as The Economist draws social conclusions from a TV episode something notable is happening. Whether the material is better placed elsewhere is an editorial matter that is worth discussing but, since we are here, I see no sound grounds for deletion. Bridgeplayer (talk) 22:59, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Adding the controversy section to the main article means that there is nothing significant left on this article that is not already covered in the main article - so what purpose does this article then serve? noq (talk) 00:28, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment If that happens we can then review things but first we need to agree that this page is kept or else there will be nothing to merge! Bridgeplayer (talk) 03:19, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Well looking again it appears it is already covered at Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? (UK game show)#One Foot in the Grave so there is nothing that needs to be merged. Anyway, the idea that it could not have been added to the main article without keeping this article seems strange. noq (talk) 10:08, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I agree that I was rambling (obviously I shouldn't type when I'm tired :-)), so let me summarise. There is more in the article than the controversy; the article provides an integrated account of the episode. Whether the material should have been handled differently is an editorial matter outwith this AfD; it wasn't, an article has been written, so we are here. The episode is notable because it meets WP:GNG - there are reliable sources that address the subject directly and in detail. Consequently the page should be kept. Bridgeplayer (talk) 15:44, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  10:40, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Delete all. Individual episodes of game shows are generally not notable, and I don't see anything in these articles that convinces me otherwise. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:16, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:19, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, even the 2000 episode, which is covered adequately by the article on the winner--which mostly just repeats the same material in any case. DGG ( talk ) 23:35, 30 July 2011 (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. m,aking a redirect is an editorial function but the keep side havnn't adduced sufficient sorucing to overcome the delete arguiments based on GNG and inadequate sourcing. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:44, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thermal_cycling[edit]

Thermal_cycling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This entire article is written like an advertisment for a non-existent metal heat treatment known as "thermal cycling". However, anybody with a basic understand of materials science and metals can easily tell that virtually all of the content here is bogus. There are already articles written on heat treatment (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_treatment). Finally, this article does not contain a single citation or a reliable, listed source. I would be happy to discuss any of the claims made in this article. Mark48torpedo (talk) 03:25, 15 July 2011 (UTC) — Mark48torpedo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Keep 3 million Google hits for "+thermal +cycling" with the first page describing exactly this process sourced by laboratories.. say that this is a genuine article. It has nothing to do with advertisements - DeVerm (talk) 18:24, 15 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

That's irrelevant, do you know how many uses of the term "thermal cycling" there are? Think bicycles and PCR for starters.--Pontificalibus (talk) 21:01, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's sad to see that you didn't read my comment accurately as I definitely said that I found the exact same process described as what this article is about. To make this clear: it means that the article describes a process that does exist and is not a fantasy as stated by nom. I did write all this but seem to need to repeat it --DeVerm (talk) 04:03, 25 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Thermal cycling is actually a real phenomenon. Usually, it refers to damage caused to structures / machines / materials due to repeated changes in temperature (if materials with different thermal expansion coefficients are attached to each other, one will try to expand/contract more than the other when heated / cooled, causing stress and possible damage). However, the material treatment method this article refers to does not exist, as far as I am aware, and the actual effects that this article claims thermal cycling has are dubious from a material sciences standpoint. If somebody is willing to rewrite the article from scratch about the real phenomenon, keeping it is a good idea, but as the article stands, it contains no worthwhile content whatsoever. Mark48torpedo (talk) 21:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Come on Mark, I have a high forehead too :-) I mean what I wrote: that I see Google hits that are about the same process as described in this article. Here's an example: [Thermal Cycling] --DeVerm (talk) 23:50, 15 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
• I couldn't find any other results than the NitroFreeze firm which describes thermal cycling as a beneficial heat treatment process... do you have any other examples? For example, a third-party source which describes this process, not some company which claims this process works at the same time as providing it. The vast majority of what I found on Google was related to the problems caused by thermal cycling 128.100.148.113 (talk) 00:09, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The NitroFreeze link is what I posted just above your message. It shows that the AfD is incorrect because obviously the process as described in the article exists, contrary to what the AfD states --DeVerm (talk) 03:27, 19 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
• DeVerm, please find other evidence other than the NitroFreeze link that this process exists. A SINGLE website made by a company describing this process by a company which has a vested intest in praising this process to the heavens is not reliable evidence. There is no guarantee whatsoever that the process works as advertised, which is how this article is currently written. In addition, the description of the process on the Nitrofreeze website is completely unscientific (e.g. they describe removing stress from materials by reducing the temperature, which is absolutely absurd from a material sciences standpoint). At the moment, all of the content in this article is unverifiable.Mark48torpedo (talk) 04:40, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Mark, why would it up to me to find extra references? I have shown that the case you made for this AfD ("advertisment for a non-existent metal heat treatment") is not valid because it exists and is even being offered. --DeVerm (talk) 05:02, 25 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete I'm not an expert on the science being discussed in this article so I can't comment on content, but without proper citations there's no way to verify any of this information and therefore it has no place on Wikipedia since all encyclopedic content must be verifiable. Additionally the amount of "Google hits" a term gets is by no means a stand alone reason to keep an article Cshaase (talk) 18:30, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm as uninvolved with this article and the technology as you are but it only took me 30 seconds to verify it like I show in my remark above. --DeVerm (talk) 23:53, 15 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  10:37, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Comment Doesn't sound like an ad to me, it's simple, clear style might be in part why it is here in deletions. --User:Warrior777 (talk) 03:57, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The general topic is a valid and encyclopedic topic, though normally called simply Heat treating, for which we have a pretty good comprehensive article. However, this actual article is oriented around the specific process of thermal cycling though a very low temperature stage, usually with liquid nitrogen. We already have an article on it, Cryogenic treatment, which, though pretty sketchy and in need of referencing, is a more comprehensive basis for an adequate article. We could use a redirect, but the present article should probably be deleted first, and the redirect should be to the ordinary and general meaning, Heat treating. DGG ( talk ) 23:46, 30 July 2011 (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. Courcelles 13:53, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rehmat Aziz Chitrali[edit]

Rehmat Aziz Chitrali (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I checked almost all interwikis , it seems all articles created by one person which is the article owner himself, it seems that this person is not notable and somehow using wikipedia to promote his work Mardetanha ^talk 10:28, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete per lack of news coverage, which I didn't find any on both Yahoo! and Google. SwisterTwister talk 05:49, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wow! What an impressive bio. Too bad that none of the "references" actually mention him. And unless they were clairvoyant, I don't think that books published in the 1930s ("Further reading") mention him either. Blatant self-promotion. --Crusio (talk) 06:32, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No significant secondary sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:20, 27 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete. Subject fails WP:BIO, WP:SOAP, WP:SECONDARY and WP:INDY. Yoninah (talk) 08:43, 28 July 2011 (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. Courcelles 13:52, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Herpestes The Electrifying Filipino Martial Arts[edit]

Herpestes The Electrifying Filipino Martial Arts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

The author decided to remove a PROD so I will nominate it here. There's no reliable sources on this whatsoever so notability has not been found. KING OF WIKIPEDIA - GRIM LITTLEZ (talk) 10:05, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Nine pages of ghits for this title (without quotes) - virtually all forums, blogs, Youtube, Facebook etc. (Not LinkedIn or Aboutus, surprisingly.) Looks like a fair sized promotion campaign, or a lot of people talking about something only they know about. Not one reliable source. One Wikipedia article - on the Tagalog WP (but in English) - and that was unreferenced. Peridon (talk) 13:16, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BTW Herpestes is a genus of mongoose. A search for herpestes martial didn't reveal anything of interest in 10 pages, except for one blogger or forum poster referring to Herpestes as maybe really being some obscure Philippine martial art. Peridon (talk) 13:23, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete Frankly, I can't believe a speedy was denied on this. There's no real claims of notability and no sources. I found nothing to show notability or reliable sources. Papaursa (talk) 17:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I declined speedy because it's a 'way' not a club. If it had been a club, it would have gone. Peridon (talk) 19:39, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No sources or indication of notability. Astudent0 (talk) 12:55, 25 July 2011 (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. -- DQ (t) (e) 05:39, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dener Pacheco[edit]

Dener Pacheco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

He has just a few experience as an actor. He does not meet notability guidelines (the page was already deleted from pt.wiki, it.wiki, es.wiki, fi.wiki, he.wiki, ja.wiki for the same reasons) Lucas (talk) 09:28, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not notable. KING OF WIKIPEDIA - GRIM LITTLEZ (talk) 09:29, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete How other Wikipedia's conduct themselves is irrelevent to en.Wikipedia, as the standards set for notability or lack and sourcing or lack are all a bit different. So in looking to our own guidelines, we need to determine if 108 episodes of a notable Brazilian series meets our own WP:ENT... a guideline generally accepted as meaning multiple but different productions. Logically, and as the actor died of lung cancer, he will not be taking part in any more productions... and so his one (even 108 epiodes long) single production fails WP:ENT. HOWEVER, It may be possible for Portugese reading Wikipedians to show the seven years of coverage, coverage preceding his role by years and continuing after his demise,[18] is coverage in Brazil for things other than (but yes, including) his 108-episode role, which could then show the subject as meeting WP:GNG overall, even if failing WP:ENT. But in the absence, keeping this artcle could be seen as a violation of WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:56, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Dear Schmidt, how other Wikipedia's conduct themselves is not irrelevant in a debate (= decision making process): it must not - and cannot - be the element for which to decide the deletion or not, but it is not irrelevant; rather it often gives interesting information (please note that as sysop on it.wiki I am the first defender of the "wiki" independence: but independence is independence, "irrelevance" is another thing :-). In any case, as we can see he has had only a secundary role in the soap and for just one year: this is "not notable", in my humble opinion. --Lucas (talk) 10:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Our decisions and discussions here are to based upon the policies and guidelines set up to govern here. The point I was making is that other Wikipedias have far fewer articles, far fewer editors, and their standards of notability or lack are not ours. While yes, this article might or might not be kept when using the standards we use here, listing other discussions that do not use our standards is irrelevent to this discussion. But the editors of those non-English Wikipedias are always welcome to comment here and to discuss their views. I opined a delete, did I not? My own decision and comments are based upon the standards HERE... not elsewhere, nor are they to be influenced by what others may have done elsewhere by use of different standards. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:43, 28 July 2011 (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.   -- Lear's Fool 12:11, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bitfighter[edit]

Bitfighter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Computer game; article fails to establish notability (all but one reference are to the project website). Also nominating Zap! (video game) [19]; the two pages had been alternately redirects to each other in the past. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 09:11, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Marasmusine (talk) 14:21, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both - I could not locate any coverage - significant or otherwise - in any reliable sources. Fails verification policy and notability guidelines. I tagged it for maintenance back in February, so it has had it's chance. Marasmusine (talk) 14:24, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. Found pretty much the most minimal coverage imaginable -- "story" probably doesn't rise above the trivial-mention bar, and the only other RS coverage I found is an even more bare-bones mention from the same source. (Edit: modified to weak delete after seeing additional coverage noted below.) —chaos5023 (talk) 14:45, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is an ongoing debate. What would it take to get this entry to meet notability guidelines? It was included in Tom's Guide, which is a pretty notable source. It will soon have an official listing in the IANA directory, which is also notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.215.133.22 (talk) 16:08, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would take significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The Tom's Guide spot is actually pretty decent and may contribute to notability, though we don't have any consensus on whether Tom's Guide is a reliable source as yet (related site Tom's Games was previously discussed and no consensus formed one way or the other). Directory listings don't contribute to notability if they don't provide significant coverage or aren't independent (like if the material in the directory was supplied by first parties), and in any event things that haven't happened yet don't contribute to anything. I'm modifying my opinion to a weak delete considering the Tom's Guide coverage. —chaos5023 (talk) 20:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't so much dispute its reliability; however, the link says little more than that the game exists. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 20:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say that. It provides enough information to contribute usefully toward an article, which has always seemed like a natural threshold for trivial vs. substantial coverage to me. —chaos5023 (talk) 00:21, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point about events that haven't happened yet; I just noted that it is something in process that will contribute to the notability when it happens (and I seen written confirmation from IANA that it will happen). That will provide at least two external, reliable, independent sources that should contribute towards notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.215.133.22 (talk) 21:58, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really clear whether the IANA thing will contribute to notability. Can you link to some current entries in whatever directory it is that you're referring to? —chaos5023 (talk) 00:22, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Presumedly, this mens that Bitfighter will have an officially sanctioned port number. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 05:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even if we accept Tom's Guide as reliable, it is not significant coverage. At best, we can use it for verification in a broader topic. As for IANA, again, a listing in a directory is unlikely to be significant. For notability, I want to see some nice big fat reviews in magazines, books, or certain websites. Marasmusine (talk) 09:32, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zap! (computer game). - Mike Rosoft (talk) 18:59, 29 July 2011 (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. Courcelles 13:52, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Molotov21[edit]

Molotov21 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

No reliable third party sources. I spent a few mins checking for some yet no luck. KING OF WIKIPEDIA - GRIM LITTLEZ (talk) 08:58, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Lacks coverage that would establish notability. They exists as this mentions them. But I'm not surprised a music label that only formed in June 2011 has no significant coverage. -- 16:34, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

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. Courcelles 13:51, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Nash (entrepreneur)[edit]

Ted Nash (entrepreneur) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Just about nothing verifiable can be written about this individual, and his only claims of notability are the ill-conceived social website "LittleGossip" and the Facebook application "Fit or Fugly". - Mike Rosoft (talk) 08:52, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - LittleGossip was a popular site and Ted Nash's involvement was well known, nationwide. This article will be beneficial for people who are interested in the history behind the founder of a hugely popular Internet phenomenon, the article should be kept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.81.83 (talk) 18:45, 23 July 2011 (UTC) — 81.149.81.83 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• KeepTed Nash is notable not only for LittleGossip website. He is a young creative entrepreneur who cooperates with such company as Apple. Only the fact that he made his first steps as an entrepreneur at the age of twelve is worth to be written about. Maldives22— Maldives22 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Delete - reads like a hoax, and with various citations not backing up the claims (along with the WP:SPAs), I feel confident in that assessment. MikeWazowski (talk) 21:19, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Don't think it is a hoax, but there are possibly some false claims. There are multiple references to the LittleGossip debacle that includes a line or two on Ted Nash. LittleGossip was running only four days and was quickly sold by Nash after the uproar it caused. However, it was a minor event and most of the coverage is on the site and little on Nash. Fit or Fugly app has some press, but most goes to an "Ed" Nash and not Ted. A couple references have Ted, including a PR release that is everywhere. There is also another PR release on Ed that is also everywhere. Again, most everything is on the App and not on Mr. Nash. So, assuming the best, we have references on a website and an app that happens to included a couple lines on Nash. That is not enough to make Mr Nash notable. Bgwhite (talk) 07:13, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The article may be inaccurate in places, but it is not a hoax. However, the aforementioned link provides little coverage about Ted Nash, nor can I find anytime more significant, thus I conclude eh does not meet the inclusion criteria. -- Whpq (talk) 16:38, 28 July 2011 (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. Courcelles 13:51, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kayvon Zand[edit]

Kayvon Zand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable per WP:MUSICBIO and WP:NACTOR. Hasn't done anything notable per WP:GNG since the first AFD. No significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources, apart from brief coverage in two NY papers of one controversial show per WP:ONEEVENT. Gurt Posh (talk) 08:08, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Gurt Posh (talk) 08:10, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Passing mention for one event fails GNG and ONEEVENT. Mo ainm~Talk 09:39, 23 July 2011 (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. Courcelles 13:50, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BJFE Guitar Effects[edit]

BJFE Guitar Effects (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Basically an advert. No third party, notable, reliable sources. References consist of links to product owner's manuals, first person interview (promotional), other are blogs. In particular, the lists of products are not notable and what made me notice the article in the first place, but I cannot find anything reliable abiut the company, either. Kilmer-san (talk) 04:41, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 05:57, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I'm sure references from elsewhere (eg: product details in independent distributors or magazines) can be found. This page should be cleaned up, not deleted. --Ritchie333 (talk) 13:19, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:17, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

• delete It seems like an advert to me. even citations to other distributors wouldn't convince me that it wasn't. I'd think that the only kind of references that would make a product like this notable would be from popular culture, from histories of modern music, or from guidebooks for musicians, along the lines of the Marshall stack, an article that by contrast shows what's missing from this one. Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:43, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment One reason it may sound like an advert is that it is heavily plagiarised from this interview DuplicationDetector results Chaosdruid (talk) 19:25, 26 July 2011 (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. sourcing appears to be inadequate. if anyone wants to work on this or try to refashion a combioned article about teh company and the founder in one feel free to askf ro userfication Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:43, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

William Hines (Staffordshire potter)[edit]

William Hines (Staffordshire potter) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

No indication of WP:notability. Article creator and main editor has a WP:conflict of interest and appears to be documenting his wife's family history. noq (talk) 00:49, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. In addition: creator has a history of ignoring WP guidelines, asserting that "this person/entity is notable because it exists". Numerous editors have attempted to help him, have guided him to the relevant guideline pages and have indicated precisely what problems exist in his articles, to no avail. Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 00:58, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete yet another COI contribution. --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 01:41, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I don't think that Wm Hines meets the Wikipedia standard of notability on the evidence available. If we imagine a comparable businessman alive today it is unlikely that he would get in and there are no detailed biographical studies, no lasting fame for some technological or style innovation, or anything to raise him from the ranks of many successful businessmen of his time. Nevertheless, and at the risk of offending fellow editors, may I say that this does not seem to be a COI violation. 'Conflict of interest' is a legal term and has nothing to do with being interested in a topic as normally understood. WP:conflict of interest specifically encourages contributions from those with particular knowledge or enthusiasm. The author says that he has been researching his wife's ancestry, which gives him a knowledge of the subject, and the pottery long passed out of the hands of the Hines family. Aside from a very proper pride and interest in his wife I cannot see any possible motive which could be impugned. If we were apply the same COI criteria to criticise this article then we would bar everyone from writing about anywhere they had ever lived, any musician whose music they liked or disliked, and so forth. People are free to argue for that, but there is nothing in WP:COI to justify such a stance and Wikipedia would be a much inferior encyclopedia. --AJHingston (talk) 08:51, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You raise good points, AJ. I think in this case the COI issue was brought up because this particular editor contributes very little to Wikipedia beyond articles about his family members. He uploads dozens of family photos, cites "interview with Joe Blow conducted by me" as references, creates galleries on every single page he can to show off his ancestors' minutiae, etc. That's why it's been raised here, I think. Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 08:58, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Apologies for not being clearer and thanks for the explanation. --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 09:13, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I think it better not to refer to such cases as a COI conflict - the same behaviour can be found in music or sci-fi fans, for example. My sensitivity on the point is that I have noticed a tendency amongst a few people to shout COI to justify deletion or exclude contributions on topics with which the editor is associated when the guidelines actually permit or even encourage such activity, and that can give the impression that the COI guidelines are much wider in scope than they really are. Sorry if I seemed to be picking on you, but perhaps others will read this and consider. --AJHingston (talk) 10:07, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pushing articles about ones own family is a conflict of interest - see the section on close relationships at WP:COI, so I make no apologies for using the term. --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 10:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But this is somebody several generations distant and related only by marriage, and isn't either the normal use of the term nor is it analogous to the examples given in WP:COI. I genuinely think that trying to extend COI in these ways harms Wikipedia, because it discourages people from contributing on topics that they know about. You can say that they may not be dispassionate, and unable to take an objective view, but that is covered by POV. The big difficulty about family history articles is where the author is either unaware of the notability requirements or interprets them differently, but I would expect that many Wikipedia articles are contributed by people with a some relationship to the subject and all the better for it. --AJHingston (talk) 12:48, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The problem here is that the author is writing about a notable company through the biography of one of its founders rather than vice versa. Actually, I see just now that the article on the firm has been already deleted. This is very unfortunate, bad call... There are undoubtedly porcelain guidebooks out there that could be mustered to defend a piece on the company. Keep this article, rename it that, and source it out. Whether it is written by a distant relative is absolutely irrelevant. Carrite (talk) 15:01, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Do you know that there is something to establish notability for the company? Or are you assuming there will be? If good reliable sources can be found to establish notability of the company then an article could be written on it but this is not that. This article just says that the company existed and I'm not finding anything significant online noq (talk) 15:14, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. With due respect to others:

• Five reference books discuss this man. Other references are no doubt available (in distant pottery museums), but I shall leave this to others to investigate as I am so deterred by comments that all my work may be discarded.
• Innovators. I would suggest that Wikipedia should identify innovators such as William Hines.
• Distant relative. Carrite (above) says that Whether it is written by a distant relative is irrelevent. Family members (even distant ones by marriage like me) have the incentive and often the private information to contribute to Wikipedia. I perceive discouragement for this.
• Rapid deletion. Hours of work lost - further discouragement. Comment above deplores the rapid deletion of the article that I wrote about the firm Hines Brothers. Just to explain that I believe the logical Wikipedia split is three small articles:
  • The man William Hines (the innovator),
  • The firm Hines Bros (pottery manufacturers 1870s to 1900s), and
  • The premises Heron Cross Pottery (built by Hines and still operational today).Duncanogi (talk) 11:43, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment Discuss or mention? The references given seem to be to trivial mentions and not significant coverage. What do you mean by Innovator? Nothing in the article shows anything innovative. As for rapid deletion - the article was a copy of this one and deleted as such - it does not take hours to cut and paste from one article to another. You have not shown that any article should exist let alone that three almost identical ones should. I am sorry that your time has been wasted but the problems have been pointed out to you repeatedly. Private information is covered by WP:original research. noq (talk) 13:38, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Following Duncanogi’s logic, we should expect local governments not to enforce their building safety codes, because the shoddy contractor who put hours of work into putting up a house that didn’t meet regulations at all might get discouraged and stop building terrible houses. Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 07:47, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Significant figure in the history of the craft. The significance is proven by the inclusion in the standard reference books. DGG ( talk ) 23:48, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not seeing the significance - the references given appear to be trivial mentions and not significant coverage. noq (talk) 00:32, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:14, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Keep There is a notable topic here and deletion would be disruptive to the ordinary editing mandated by our editing policy. Warden (talk) 20:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm still not seeing any notability. There have been vague claims of innovation made in this debate but nothing specific that was innovative. He or his company have appeared in catalogues of the period but I have still not seen any evidence of substantial coverage. noq (talk) 01:50, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I'm not seeing independent "sources address[ing] the subject directly in detail", and so no notability. Sources appear to be ubiquitously primary (www.heroncrosspottery.co.uk, birth & marriage certificates, documentation of pottery marks, etc) or mere mentions (and in most cases mere-fail-to-mentions). I'm finding it difficult to find a third-party source that even mention the man (let alone discuss him for two consecutive sentences). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:59, 24 July 2011 (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. Courcelles 13:50, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Atticus Mitchell[edit]

Atticus Mitchell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Actor with questionable notability. Although Mitchell has appeared in two TV shows and one Disney movie, coverage of these is limited to the point where notability per WP:ACTOR or WP:GNG is not fulfilled. Sources I was able to find only mentioned the actor:

• this blog review mentioning his role
• another mention of his role in Hollywood Reporter

Although the actor's roles are verifiable, they are not notable as they have not received significant coverage in secondary sources. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 05:58, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:ENT. -Cntras (talk) 02:39, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no sources --Thompson.matthew (talk) 04:14, 24 July 2011 (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.