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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) JayJay^{What did I do?} 00:53, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lizzie Phelan[edit]

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

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

There is no sourcing I can find that indicates any sort of notability. Mentions noted in previous AfD were nearly all trivial. Being a journalist who writes articles is not sufficient for notability. Article is very poorly sourced and has been hit with recent egregious BLP violations. The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:56, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Are you seriously calling the New York Times, The Guardian or Syrian Arab News Agency trivial? Crtew (talk) 05:08, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Her claim to notability seems to come from the fact that she witnessed rebel atrocities during the anti-Gadaffi war, and that her reporting was criticized (by mainstream media) for being too favorable to his regime. There could be a higher number of sources, but those that do mention her don't do it trivially, and dedicate quite some space to the journalist. The potential for BLP violations is not a valid reason to delete an article, since it can happen to any article. This argument must be clarified to state why the article cannot remain, with vigorous policing, free of BLP violations. Shrigley (talk) 08:59, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• There is no indication of any meaningful criticism from mainstream media. All we have is a single journalist who runs a blog on the New York Times site criticizing her. I can tell you right now, after looking through every page of the Google News results and every page of the regular web results that what we have in the article presently is the best we've got. Nearly all the other sources that could even remotely be construed as reliable are opinionated rags making brief mentions of her reports as part of a broader criticism of the Libyan war, and those are not in large supply either.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:06, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep. In preface, I'm skeptical of any second nominations to delete but I looked at this one seriously. As evidence, I made efforts to edit the page, and in the process I have added facts, organization, links and filled in her infobox (see history) with this purpose. In conclusion, I have three to four reasons for my vote for keeping this, strongly. First, I cite WP:SIGCOV for both her New York Times and SANA interviews. She is the subject of the interviews, and they become as much about her as why she holds her opinions. Second, she has been a contributor to several newspapers and television stations, including Iranian Press TV and Russia Today, which are major media outlets. I've seen other journalists who have not won awards yet who remain in Wikipedia because they are contributors to major media outlets. The categories for TV and radio personalities would carry some of these. Third, just for the "controversy" she has created in her strong opinions (The Guardian called her controversial) and the response of British regulators to her work, IMHO, is enough for a keep. In addition to the British Office of Communications' need to label her work with the Russian media as biased, the same office dealt strongly by censoring Press TV, to which Phelan has contributed. Finally, I see a bias in the first nomination process and one that I hope will not creep up in this one. It is a bias against the alternative media. If the alternative media and blogs that covered Phelan were taken seriously, it would be unquestionable that this article is a keeper and that two nominations are excessive because they show extensive SIGCOV. The bias (WP:NPOV) that I see is that those who propose deletion want coverage or appearances to be in the mainstream media. That imposes a POV. A non-biased approach to this would admit that Phelan doesn't seek the acceptance of mainstream media, has a clear audience, and is widely known within that sphere. Yet she still gets attention from The Guardian and the New York Times. This makes her different. Although she is young and not a TV presenter, she strikes me as similar to an Amy Goodman in her alternative approach. I may not agree with Phelan or think she advocates the truth, but that should be beside the point in such a nomination, and I'm able to see that she has another side of the story to offer and is known for it. That's why I would vote strong keep and why I see this second nomination as a waste of effort. Crtew (talk) 05:03, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep! I don't know how accurate Phelan's reporting is, but I know from having lived in the Middle East that the mainstream media, including the New York Times, are shockingly biased and ignorant. Their reporters don't know the languages and so depend upon a tiny cadre of English speakers to provide their info. We desperately need alternative views such as those provided by Phelan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roger McKinney (talk • contribs) 19:49, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is an instance of an article I stumbled across... I had seen mention of this woman elsewhere, and wanted to find further information about her. As so often, her Wikipedia article (though not the best such) turned out the be the place to look. So this article did me a service, and I expect it does the same for others. Though her notability quotient is pretty low, it's sufficient I think for Wikipedia purposes. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:13, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Aside from the New York Times source, any coverage of her as far as I can tell has been in the context of noting her reporting for x news source on y event. This is trivial and routine coverage for a journalist and does not translate to notability.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:13, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Multiple New York Times interviews. You almost have to look at her as an academic/expert on a subject than a journalist if you want to exclude publications where she had authorship. Mkdw^talk 20:34, 4 January 2013 (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 WP:GNG argument is convincing, and not seriously addressed by most of the minority of "keep" opinions. On that basis, no need to examine the sockery issue more closely.  Sandstein  00:50, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Amirite[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)).

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

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

Unremarkable website. Fails WP:GNG. Sources appear to be mainly press releases or paid insertions. Contested speedy deletion. The appearance of a new account (User:James9210) and an IP (User:86.149.216.3) removing the speedy deletion template suggests that a closer look at the article creator might be advisable. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:51, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment "Unremarkable Website" is an opinion, and Wikipedia is not built on opinions. Also as I recall one is supposed to assume good faith. Meanie (talk) 03:47, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It also appears the user Delicious Carbuncle has a personal grudge against the article / site and has very limited activity on Wikipedia - only making a few contributions per year Craddock1 00:24, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
  • What "grudge" would that be? I'm curious. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:15, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• CommentFOR ADMIN'S EYES: As I have now seen you are not fit to be commenting on people's article's, let alone marking them for deletion http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=125

  Delicious Carbuncle has been blocked on Wikipedia before and this sort of behvaiour should not be tolerated.

  Furthermore your behaviour has been reported through the internet. A quick google search brought up many results: e.g here: http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=28826&st=40

  That MfD, of evidence/background content and diffs to be used on the RFCU regarding Delicious carbuncle and their interactions with several users was disturbingly derailed by Wikipedia Review editors who attempted to OUT the main author. This is a part of the behaviour that has been cited as problematic of Delicious carbuncle; that they use Wikipedia Review to essentially canvass offsite - especially when they don't get their way; and that they attempt to subdue and WP:Grief their perceived targets by publicly shaming and outing them. There was disagreement how intertwined the Wikipedia Review angle should be on the RFCU but this latest incident has helped clear up that Wikipedia Review is yet again being used to WP:Game Wikipedia, cause disruption and create WP:Drama on Wikipedia. It's sad but at least more and more editors are seeing how Wikipedia Review is used to erode collegial efforts and civility. IMHO, an RFCU must and will go forward but should not be compromised by rushing into it or being bullied by a website that seems to thrive on disrupting Wikipedia and enabling banned editors. -- Banjeboi 10:21, 28 March 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craddock1 (talk • contribs)

• Strong Keep - As an avid Amirite user myself I completely disagree. I want to also apologise for asking my brother James to create an account - I agree that was immature and it won't happen again. I am new to Wikipedia but would love to be more involved in the community. I have met Jimmy Wales and was greatly inspired too!

  I would also like to point out I have spent a considerable amount of time making the article up to Wikipedia Standards (around 12 hours), find references, resources, talking to users, editors and admins. I hope this is taken into account.

  Regarding the case:

  Amirite has received notable coverage as a fast growing startup similarly to other sites such as Formspring and Amen -

  please look them up on Wikipedia: Amen (website)  · Formspring

  The Amirite article was also approved by the Wikimedia Foundation Community Fellow User:SarahStierch

  Nearly a billion votes have been processed on Amirite which shows it is remarkable so I completely disagree with that statement. Press coverage reflects the site is notable and furthermore won the UK's largest investment competition.

  :Also featured in Urban dictionary: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=amirite

  Site has also been compared to twitter: http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/share-opinions-online-amiritenet-amirite/ - again showing it is notable

  http://www.killerstartups.com/startup-spotlight/amirite-post-your-opinion/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craddock1 (talk • contribs) 03:01, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Amirite.com (+ Amirite.net) also has 30 million backlinks indexed in google

  Site has over 100,000 twitter and facebook followers combined and was only released from Beta recently and 3 million pageviews per month, 700,000 posts, and 2 million comments. :Again this shows it is not 'unremarkable'.

  Please close the deletion case. Multiple unsigned comments by user:Craddock1 Craddock1 (talk) 01:02, 29 December 2012 (UTC)grouped and signed by User:Excirial[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:WEB. -bonadea contributions talk 01:01, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, (changed from k) clearly meets WP:GNG and it went through WP:AFC, where it was vetted by an experienced editor prior to being moved to mainspace. AfC editors are experienced, and do not approve articles that do not meet the minimum GNG standards. There should be a presumption of notability for articles that have been through the AfC process. GregJackP Boomer! 02:15, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. GregJackP Boomer! 02:32, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep - I have also heard of Amirite before and have seen it featured on various tech sites and saw a feature on CBS a while back. I believe Amirite has a high enough standing and reputation to be accepted. The article has also already been accepted by an AFC editor which shows it should be approved and the deletion case closed. Hdsmith7674 (talk) 03:06, 29 December 2012 (UTC)— Hdsmith7674 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • You have no edits at all outside this AFD, and your user and talk page. Special:Contributions/Hdsmith7674 I Googled about, and I don't see any mention on the CBS site about them. If you know of anyplace that would be considered a reliable source mentioning them, please post a link to it. Dream Focus 23:32, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, the only thing I can find with CBS is a press release posted at CBS Atlanta. GregJackP Boomer! 12:37, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Yes I am new to wikipedia and I came to it by typing Amirite into google since I wanted to read more about the site - I saw the article was marked for deletion so I wanted to have an input! Hdsmith7674 (talk) 14:31, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - Website meets WP:GNG after a look at sources, its clear it has been the subject of discussion in third party industry publications. The article needs some help stylistically, and it needs to come out of the orphanage, but it is generally well written and NPOV. Meanie (talk) 03:47, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• CommentOut of orphanage now and I've changed some more things in the article. Hopefully looks much better now! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craddock1 (talk • contribs) 06:36, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - I agree with the above and believe this entry also complies with WP:GNG and WP:WEB. Also agree that this has been vetted by an experienced editor. --NickAang 06:50, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep(edited to fix link) At the time of this article's nomination for deletion, there were references in the article. The Boston Globe is certainly a reliable site, and has a press release they wouldn't publish unless they considered them important. [1]. Others have mentioned CBS and whatnot. (update) MakeUseOf has 20 million hits a day, and is clearly a reliable source. I agree that the significant coverage they gave to this website [2] counts. I believe other sources exist, just hard to find a proper link to them all. Dream Focus 23:22, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps you should read the Boston Globe article. It isn't about the website. In fact, it doesn't even mention the website. I know you usually just vote keep for anything that on the ARS list, but if you are going to offer evidence, the least you could do is read it first. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:12, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are two links to the Boston website, I copied the wrong link, having multiple tabs open. The other one is a press release, which they wouldn't put up there unless they felt it was a significant website. Dream Focus 23:29, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • "The other one is a press release, which they wouldn't put up there unless they felt it was a significant website." You really are a great Wikipedian. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:30, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Do you believe a major newspaper would publish every press release they came across? Dream Focus 08:15, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • My mistake, some apparently do. All of the links in the article are press releases, or paid advertisements. Dream Focus 15:18, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*******One of the Globe Articles is an Article. Boatingfaster (talk) 18:53, 31 December 2012 (UTC) ********http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2011/05/15/amirite/ - specifically this one Boatingfaster (talk) 18:56, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, has received a good deal of coverage from multiple different sorts of references and secondary sources. — Cirt (talk) 21:01, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Craddock1. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:42, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Again Delicious Carbuncle demonstrating the grudge he has. The sockpuppet investigation has been closed since I admitted I was at fault as previously mentioned. It is as if Carbuncle has nothing better to do than creating this hostile environment which is not what Wikipedia is about. For your reference the only other account I am aware of is James. I have logged into my account from other IPs though due to traveling. I don't see how this is relevant though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craddock1 (talk • contribs) 01:37, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The sockpuppetry case has not been closed. This is the second time you have claimed that I have a "grudge" with this website. Can you elaborate? What is the supposed grudge? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:26, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Ill not take a vote in this matter. I just did some tidying work. So all of the references are now dated, etc. #greatnews. Bed time for me!!! BTW Im a Canadian so I cant not be friendly... Its against my makeup.Boatingfaster (talk) 03:51, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Whatever the outcome, this should be moved to Amirite (website) and an article should be written on the Amirite people of Trans-Jordan, which would be the primary topic for this term. bd2412 T 04:13, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment I dont think anyone will disagree with the move and a disambiguation link going both ways between the two. Boatingfaster (talk) 04:18, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't think it matters either way since Amirite is not a noun. I've just done about 3 hours of research on and off line and found no reference to people termed Amirite - are you sure you have spelt Amirite correctly?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Craddock1 (talk • contribs)
• Comment - I have done some reading want to invoke WP:SNOW - Good references in many places are present, the website is a high traffic area. The interest in this discussion by the number of people on here, in favor of keeping. If there are 32,000 articles on the internet talking about Amirite/Wikipedia then people are talking. If people are talking it further justifies WP:GNG. The WP:SNOW also fits with an article I read about WP not being a Bureaucracy, and it meets WP:SK rules, being that the nominator has failed to advance their argument. Boatingfaster (talk) 04:16, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• ATTENTION AfD CLOSING ADMIN - There are 2 SockPuppet investigations going on with many of the editors in this AfD discussion. Please do not close this AfD until all are identified/cleared of sock/meat puppetry. PeterWesco (talk) 07:23, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, the number of hits on Google is not an indication of notability - it would help to have some actual articles from verifiable and reliable sources. GregJackP Boomer! 12:41, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Looking through the article, I can only find one source that has a byline that is independent of the subject – [3]. Everything else is PR Buzz, PR Newswire etc., or a sponsored post by Amirite, i.e. press releases. In other words, the article lacks multiple independent third-party sources. It's also concerning for an article to be almost entirely based on PR material. Andreas JN466 13:36, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does killerstartups count as a reliable source? I see over a hundred Wikipedia articles reference it, but it doesn't have its own article here. Apparently anyone can submit things to it. [4] Dream Focus 15:22, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, after considering the evidence, I have struck my earlier !vote, and now believe the article should be deleted. As Jayen has noted, almost all of the references are PR sources, which are not considered reliable sources for notability. @DreamFocus, ifkillerstartups allows user content, then it would not normally be considered reliable, any more than IMDb. I am somewhat disappointed that this made it through AfC, although with the reference issues, I can see how it did. I still believe that an AfC-created article is due a presumption towards retention, although that presumption can be overcome, as in this case. GregJackP Boomer! 16:00, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Only some of the articles I have quoted are Press releases. This one for example is certainly not a paid release: http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/share-opinions-online-amiritenet-amirite/ Makeuseof is a very well known site with over 7 million monthly pageviews: MakeUseOf I don't think the killerstartups article is a paid release since it doesn't mention adversarial on it. Furthermore Amirite's twitter has over 62,000 followers which is significant: https://twitter.com/amiritecom And if you type Amirite.com and Amirite.net into google this brings more than 5 million results. This is significant — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craddock1 (talk • contribs) 16:39, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Killerstartups does not have to be a "paid release" to be unreliable as a source - it just has to be edited by users, which it is. The number of twitter followers or the number of google hits, in and of themselves does not make a site notable. Significant it may be, but until it meets WP notability standards, it doesn't matter. GregJackP Boomer! 17:02, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No significant coverage in reliable sources, just a bunch of "profiles" and press releases; more advertising created by a COI sockpuppet master. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:28, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Can you explain to me what is unreliable about the article? I just checked and the writer is a legitimate writer - there is no user written content

    http://home.techhustlers.com/twalops-social-transaction-platform-will-make-you-cash-and-its-free/

    http://www.killerstartups.com/startups-tools-and-guides/instagram-for-business/ - Instagram is a well known site too

    You are ignoring the other sources too: http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/share-opinions-online-amiritenet-amirite/ Makeuseof

    http://venturebeatprofiles.com/company/profile/amirite-net

    In addition Amirite came as a top 3 winner in the UK's Largest Investment Conference. I read about it in a printed paper (I think it was the Evening Standard) you can even email the chief judge of the event by scrolling down: http://www.techentrepreneursweek.com/ (For your reference Jimmy Wales was one of the judges) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craddock1 (talk • contribs) 17:11, 31 December 2012 (UTC) Craddock1 17:13, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Lifestyle section puff pieces, regardless of source, do not create notability. PeterWesco (talk) 02:01, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually any coverage in reliable sources does indicate notability. That's how it works. See WP:NOTABILITY and WP:GNG. Dream Focus 19:18, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the clarity. I was looking for the exact time to unleash a 1000 articles a week based on PR churn in lifestyle sections from around the USA. PeterWesco (talk) 20:01, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no need to be rude. However miserable you feel you should not take this out on other people. Take a deep breath and you will feel better Craddock1
      • MakeUseOf is a reliable source, and it does not just quote the PR release. The techentrepreneursweek seems to be a reliable source also. Dream Focus 20:12, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry, but I see no reason whatsoever yet to believe that MakeUseOf is a reliable source. Their article contains a ton of the typical fluff, but barely any reputable secondary sources testifying to their reputability. Drmies (talk) 03:34, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Two notable print magazines give them praise and they have over 20 million views a month. They have a staff of paid editors who generate their content. A lot of articles currently use them as a reference. You can ask on the reliable sources noticeboard if you sincerely doubt they are a reliable source. I think it should be pretty obvious. Dream Focus 07:19, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Being in a top 100 isn't that great, really (PC Magazine) and the other (Washington Post), gives them half a sentence, "...Makeuseof.com, which offers how-to's and cool Web sites and apps in everything from maps to productivity." That's not praise, BTW, it's a statement that the site exists. Their 20 million page views, that's what they claim themselves and besides, having lots of page views doesn't make something a reliable source. If it did, Wikipedia would be accepted as a source for Wikipedia. Drmies (talk) 21:01, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • My apologies if I offended anyone. Review the references and ignore anything that uses "EXCITING" and is WP:SELF (www.amirite.com). Lets go through them: KillerStartups.com is a blog that you submit your site to (http://www.killerstartups.com/submit-startup/), Yahoo Finance is a PRESS RELEASE, http://www.crunchbase.com/company/amirite is WP:SPIP added by Amirite, etc. Thus eliminating all of the sources as WP:BLOG, WP:PROMO, WP:SELF except for a Boston Globe piece in the lifestyle section. Should this article remain on a lifestyle blurb? My belief, as stated above, is: NO. We can continue to dispute value of crap references all day, but it should be clear that if there were any references we would not be at AfD and we would not be having a back and fourth over the one possible reference that might add a micron of notability. PeterWesco (talk) 20:27, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment ok I have thoroughly read this now. Wikipedia's rules on notability are:

  Keeping in mind that all articles must conform with the policy on verifiability to reliable sources, and that primary sources alone are not sufficient to establish notability; web-specific content[3] may be notable based on meeting ONE of the following criteria:M

  The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations[4] except for media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site.[5] or trivial coverage, such as: a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site, newspaper articles that simply report the times at which such content is updated or made available, and content descriptions in directories or online stores.

  The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization

  The website has won a significant award as I have mentioned above (judged by Jimmy Wales Jimmy Wales and Martin Warner Martin Warner and also has been the subject of MULTIPLE non-trivial published works. While I understand your concerns that it has not been published in millions of published works it has indeed attracted significant attention. I do not have time to go through the whole of the Internet but that fact that there are 5 million backlinks going to the Amirite.net and .com combined suggests there are other mentions too.

  If common sense prevails this article should definitely be kept Craddock1 23:43, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

• Furthermore the website satisfies at least one of the above as stated in the rules. If one is to look at things from an objective standpoint at the end of the day the question that must be asked is whether an article will benefit people, and whether the site is notable. Both of these are fulfilled. Craddock1 23:44, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
• In addition: 'When evaluating the notability of web content, please consider whether they have had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education'. Amirite.com clearly has had effects on society and all the other sub-topics since it provides a platform for a significant amount of people to express their opinions on anything. In a way it is similar to wikipedia but for opinions only. If you go to the stats page at the very bottom of Amirite's homepage you can see this 752,771 posts, 778,479,487 votes, 1,886,998 comments, 34,786 users. This demonstrates it effects people and allows them to express themselves. Craddock1 00:24, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
  • 1. . The site only has 80K backlinks (Not the 5M you state), from 585 domains, and all of those ramped up on Dec 1st. With 64000 of those backlinks coming from this site: top-site-list.com. I suspect this Wikipedia Article was part of the SEO plan as all of the banners on that site are now linking to the WikiPedia article. Trying to get the article to #1? Shall we look at the data together? 80000 backlinks with 64000 from one site all starting on Dec 1st, 2012 PeterWesco (talk) 00:26, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    2. . I have re-read it also, thanks for pasting it. Although, I must say, it is usually pasted in most every WP:PROMO/WP:SPIP AfD where the article lacks sources/notability. Your insistence on backlinks meaning anything is making believe you are "SEO God" as only SEO people (WP:PROMO WP:SPIP) would even bother using backlinks as a justification for notability. Shall we discuss "Page Rank" next? How about "likes" on Facebook? Twitter followers? As I said above, if the site actually had valid refs from WP:RS we would not be here. WP:SPIP sources, WP:BLOGS, etc. would be the complete opposite of what you pasted: The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations except for media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site. PeterWesco (talk) 00:26, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Thank you for that message. I just checked that site and cannot see one reference to the wikipedia article? I think you need to adjust your lenses. I just checked the resource you used 'ahrefs'. Those types of sites are known for their considerable inaccuracy and a 'quick fix'. The fact that you know of these sites and page rank and backlinks suggests you are familiar with S E O which I had never even heard of until know. I only knew what backlinks were because someone else mentioned these earlier and I looked them up. There is nothing wrong with advertising on other sites on top site list. All good sites do this. I am also not affiliated with Amirite which I'm sure you don't believe. I can send you my user account there though if you really want.

      As I said earlier we are only here because there are people like you out there in the world. If I didn't know any better I would think you tried to submit one of your sites on wikipedia which got rejected because it lacked notability. Its also funny how you ignore all the positive points I make but jump on any old rubbish you can find.Craddock1 00:38, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

      • Nice save by taking the banner down... Sadly you replaced it with an Amazon banner that links to: (spaced because Wikipedia does not like amazon links) http://www. amazon.com/ ?& tag=amiritecom-20&camp=216797&creative=394537&linkCode=ur1&adid=0T49QBXX12SQMC5K75Q3&&ref-refURL=http%3A%2F%2Fconspiracy.top-site-list.com%2F Shall we end this charade now or would you like to proceed down this road of you not being a backlink SEO "god"? PeterWesco (talk) 00:45, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fortunately, Google Cache has the banner: check it out
        • Comment Again this user has ignored my previous comment. I think he needs to get new glasses. For Admin's reference I am actually a student and can send you proof if you want. I and have no experience in backlinks - yet again PeterWesco talking rubbish and trying to discredit the article. I have checked the site and there is a banner to Amirite.com on the site which I don't see anything wrong with this. It even says Sign Up Now to Amirite.com on the banner!! You can't sign up to Amirite via Wikipedia!Craddock1 01:07, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
        • I also have a deep suspicion PeterWesco was an Amirite.com user that got banned and hence his deep hatred towards Amirite. I am an avid user and vaguely remember that name. I will do some further research into this.Craddock1 00:58, 2 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craddock1 (talk • contribs)
          • Comical I will consider this discussion ended. Good luck on your WP:SPIP WP:PAID PeterWesco (talk) 01:07, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment GUYS MY SUSPICION IS CONFIRMED!!!!!!!! I just sent a message to an Admin on Amirite and this is what they said: Yes I remember that Peter fellow. He got banned a while back for breaching Amirite's rules and posting offensive material: http://amirite.com/user/PeterWesco/suspended — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craddock1 (talk • contribs) 01:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes, because when I am trolling un-notable sites run by WP:PAID crews looking for WP:SPIP I often use the same username as I use on Wikipedia. It makes complete sense. Comical though, it shows you are admitting defeat. PeterWesco (talk) 01:19, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment @Craddock1. First, no one, especially not the admins, care about the users that are weighing in on this AfD, other than if they are socks. This is about the article, not personalities, so please assume good faith and lay off the negative comments about other editors' motivations or background. I would especially be careful about the latter, as WP has a strict policy about outing. What happens off-wiki is not relevant to this discussion. The notability (or lack thereof) of the article is what is at issue.

            What you need to concentrate on is reliable and verifiable sources. Backlinks don't count, nor do self-published accounts, such as press releases.

            If the article has won a significant award, then a reliable source, and likely multiple reliable sources should cover it. The fact that Jimbo was a judge is not significant as far as notability. If you doubt that, ask him on his talkpage - Jimbo actually reads it and responds. Focus on the article, not editors. GregJackP Boomer! 02:43, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

            • Comment I read that it won this award a while back but I can't find yet since it was printer in a newspaper - I think the Evening Standard (London Paper). I will do further research and also see if I can find any more articles of which I am sure there are but I believe I have supplied enough. Regarding what you say about good faith: This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious evidence to the contrary. Craddock1 02:53, 2 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craddock1 (talk • contribs)
              • Comment - what evidence to the contrary? The only thing I have seen from any of the editors that are arguing for deletion is that they disagree with your position, which is not evidence of bad faith. Again, please lay off of the negative comments. GregJackP Boomer! 04:02, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails to meet WP:GNG. Press releases, user-submitted content, and multiple citations of the same hyped-up material reproduced on different sources don't establish notability. If the website/social network becomes genuinely notable, independent reliable sources meeting the necessary requirements will appear - but for now, they aren't in evidence. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:01, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable, and note that it is not the only business using that name, so if it were kept it should be renamed. As far as I can tell from searches Amirite.com is not notable. As far as I can see, the purpose of the Wikipedia article is to bring the website to people's attention in the hopes of making the website notable. It is worth noting that "Amirite" is also used as a brand-name by a number of companies - one company sells Amirite rucksacks, another sells Amirite furniture; there is also an Amirite.net with joke pictures. If this article were to be retained, the article should be renamed Amirite.com, to distinguish from other businesses using Amirite as a brand-name.--Toddy1 (talk) 07:43, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Pashute has pointed out that Amirite.com and Amirite.net are the same website. This does not invalidate the point that more than one business uses "Amirite" as a brand-name. I stand by the argument that were this article to be retained, it should be renamed. I would not be in the least surprised if part of the purpose of having a Wikipedia article on Amirite was to try to claim the brand-name for the website. By its nature, a website gets more hits than a real-world product - but that does not make it more notable in the real world. Remember, no good evidence of notability has been presented for any of them.--Toddy1 (talk) 14:45, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Doesn't pass GNG.—Ryulong (琉竜) 09:02, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 09:57, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alexa mark it as one of the 100,000 top traffic sites (rated about 57000'th5000 place) That's definitely not bad. Although it gives info for Amirite.net, and not .com, by looking at it, I see it is the same website. Amirite?
  • When users mention the website in fora requests AGAINST the website like this on Yahoo Answers,
  • or just look for alternatives while mentioning this website among others sites like here in chacha forums
  • or give it a low rating in a list of similar sites like this you can infer two things: that the site is well known, and that the listing has been made independently of the website owner, so IMHO it can and should be considered as evidence although it has been mentioned by users in a forum. -- פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 09:57, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per reasons given above and by OP. Fails GNG. – Richard BB 10:04, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, WP:GNG. The Alexa argument is pretty weak as "top 57k" is very little anyway and we usually consider such arguments as "this topic has N Google hits" irrelevant. Max Semenik (talk) 10:17, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I meant Alexa 5000 sorry. That is very good. And it IS relevant. See for example the table in twitter. Its not n google hits, the number indicates entries!! פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 11:27, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Now go and read Wikipedia:Search engine test#Alexa ratings. Entries in Wikipedia are determined by degrees and kinds of documented, published, knowledge, not by fleeting and biased measurements of WWW popularity. Uncle G (talk) 13:10, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per reasons stated above. Also, Alexa argument is somewhat flawed - other than it being in the 'top 5k' (nothing special) - there's an assumption that being on Alexa, means there is notability. -- MST☆R ^{(Happy New Year!)} 11:32, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with MelbourneStar that the Alexa argument is flawed. WP:WEB says "High-traffic websites are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability." It does not say that having "high-traffic" makes a website notable.--Toddy1 (talk) 13:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • • OK, I agree about the Alexa argument, but what do you say about my latest edits.
      • after removing all the seemingly PR sources).
      • what do you say about UrbanLegends.com,
      • what about the parody website
      • what about the requests by web developers for creating a clone of amirite.net.
    • Also, User:toddy1 wrote that amirite.net is a different site altogether dealing with jokes. It seems he got it all wrong. Take a look at the two websites. They are the same. The jokes are the style of users on the website.
    • Last but not least, (ok, I hope the readers are able to take a joke, without throwing away my former issues) the Amirite website has actually saved peoples lives!! See here פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 13:40, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:WEB. Also yet another thinly veiled advertisment/promo piece masquerading as an article with manufactured "coverage". As others have said press releases, user-submitted content, and multiple citations of the same promotional nonsense on other sites do not establilsh notabilty. ukexpat (talk) 14:58, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ukexpat - obviously you have not looked at the article recently.

All the "multiple citations of same promotional nonsense" have been removed.

So its actually a question of being truthful. Is this a notable website? IMHO, at least in its old form as Amirite.net, it is. And for the reasons I showed in the now edited article. פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 19:31, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• CHECK USER RESULTS Closing admin please note the results of this SPI: here PeterWesco (talk) 15:16, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So who's left on the Keep list? or was the creation itself done by a sock puppet? (and if so this is a lost case)

If still applicable, and there's anyone left who still wants to discuss this at all, could someone please answer my two cents about the notability through mention on urbanlegends.com and through other indirect indicators of usage totally independent of the site owners, authors and paid puppets? פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 19:52, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The other 'indirect indicators' of notability are not useful. We need 3rd party reliable sources that have significant coverage of the subject. Without that, it is not notable. Jujutacular (talk) 21:34, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

Ok summary till now, as far as I understand:

a. About Craddock1:

• user:Craddock1 (talk) created the page.
• Investigation by user:PeterWesco found a double with James, but Craddock1 explained it as his brother.
  • The investigation concludes that there may be some ties between Craddock1 and the other group of sock-puppets but has not come up with evidence, so it is left as two separate and unrelated groups. From the talk page it seems that Craddock1 is NOT behaving like a troll.
• Craddock has been banned from further activity because of various bad behavior here and elsewhere.
  • In particular craddock1 had claimed that the pro-deletion users had an ax to grind against the Amirite website.
  • He furthermore had done some serious accusations, while disclosing personal facts about some of the wikipedia users, irrelevant to the discussion, and acting aggressively in other ways.
• Craddoc1 has appologized and promised to stop activity on this page and this entry. but,
• Craddoc1 has asked to delete the content of the page, and all other copies of it, since it's been "hijacked" in his eyes.
  • Since I have done most of the editing lately, I'm probably to blame as the "hijacker".

b. Delete requests:

• Users calling for deletion (at least 5) found the original references in the article to have been either a strong dependency on their citing - being of promotional type, or being non-editorial user entered material, and so losing the power of proving notability.
• Most of the users claim that the article was created and edited as part of a coordinated and paid for promotion job by the website owners or promoters. These include at least one user who formerly voted KEEP.

c. Keep requests:

• The prize of 3rd place in the http://www.techentrepreneursweek.com/ according to Craddoc1 has not been discussed here further afaik.
• The mention of web terms in UrbanLegends.com that have originated from usage in Amirite.net has also been set down as of not enough importance.
• Their are only two genuine wp users left who wish to KEEP. Myself and the the colorful dreamer, and following all this, especially the last clause of the Delete Requests, I'm out of here. But leaving my KEEP, if its worth anything. I still think the site is noteworthy. I must say I enjoy their hangman game when waiting for things to compile, and as I pointed out before, the site saved some people's lives. Anyway: let it go...

So: As I know how it feels when someone changes my work extensively, I am now revoking anything I did. I'm also removing the copied article from my personal space. I invite anyone who wishes to have it as it is now in my user space, to write so on my talk page, or email me at my wp username on gmail. I'm saving a copy at home. פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 00:56, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Another attempt at desperately trying to manufacture notability for an unknown company, and the socks are not helping. In fact, the coverage that's there at the moment is, at best, routine for the tech rags that cover startups. Fails WP:GNG and WP:WEB. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CommentAll the valid resources have been removed from the article by someone. For Admin's eyes - please see article history. I have also proof they won that competition. I have also found multiple articles online from notable sources. Furthermore this competition was judgeed by leading Venture Capital firms such as such as Accel, Doughty Hanson, Index Ventures and Fidelity Growth Partners. If the following pages are permitted to have wikipedia pages I see no reason as to not allow Amirite to have a page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amen_(website), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herotopia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formspring Many of the points above are invalid since they do not realize Amirite.com and Amirite.net are the same site. Furthermore my recent research invalidates all of the deletes request stating no notable and third party sourcesCraddock1 (talk) 04:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]

comment - Thanks for the heads up. I just PROD'd: Herotopia PeterWesco (talk) 08:21, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The point that Amirite.com and Amirite.net are said to be the same website was noted. Though it is strange that the article did not mention it clearly. However this does not invalidate the point that other companies use the "word" as a brand name (e.g. a company selling rucksacks and a company selling furniture). If Craddock has really found evidence of notability, please could he/she add it to the article, complete with citations to reliable sources. By the way I just deleted the citation to Boston Globe article from 15 May 2011 because it does not mention the company, and so is not relevant to the article.--Toddy1 (talk) 18:45, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- Please see WP:OTHERSTUFF. Just because other articles exist that doesn't mean this one is justified. – Richard BB 09:34, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as non-notable. --Nouniquenames 04:35, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Appears to be a self-promotion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• DeleteNon-notable. All the references are ≠ WP:RS. And would an administrator please consider removing the personal attacks on User:Delicious carbuncle? Gtwfan52 (talk) 20:37, 4 January 2013 (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 WP:WITHDRAWN. (non-admin closure) Mkdw^talk 21:48, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A Guide to Human Conduct[edit]

A Guide to Human Conduct (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I withdraw my nomination as it seems the book is notable Shrikanthv (talk) 11:51, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

does not meet wiki notability Shrikanthv (talk) 23:29, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• article creator's comment: This book of Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar aka Shrii Shrii Anandamurti, written on 1957 and translated in various languages, is considered to be the ethical point of reference for many tantra and yoga praticioners. It has a particular relevance for the rational explanation given by the author on Yama and Niyama and other principles as foundations of the intuitional practices (Sadhana).--Cornelius383 (talk) 14:51, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: This book meets the WP notability criteria on three grounds: (3) The book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a notable motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement. (4) The book is the subject of instruction at multiple elementary schools, secondary schools, colleges/universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country. (5) The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable. --Abhidevananda (talk) 16:43, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Withdrawn by nominator, no delete !votes. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Life And Philosophy Of Swami Vivekananda[edit]

Life And Philosophy Of Swami Vivekananda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

As Nominator i Withdraw my AFD Shrikanthv (talk) 13:02, 4 January 2013 (UTC) Does not meet wiki notablity criteria Shrikanthv (talk) 23:24, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• article creator's comment: this book of Banhatti is most probably the best (or one of the best) research works on Swami Vivekananda. Google Scholar, Google Books etc show this book has been cited in other research works! --Tito Dutta (talk) 23:43, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep - I have heard of "Life And Philosophy Of Swami Vivekananda" before. I didn't read but I have seen it on various sites. The book covers the life, personality, ideas of Swami Vivekananda. Contains his own speeches and writings as well as accounts left by his disciples. It seems to add new informations on the life and thinkings of this giant of modern India and I really don't see any reason to delete this article.--Cornelius383 (talk) 15:06, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Certainly, Swami Vivekananda is notable. As such, it is my opinion that any reliable third-party book that examines his life and philosophy should be deemed to meet the broad notability criteria of Wikipedia. Perhaps this won't be the most frequented article on Wikipedia, but it still enhances Wikipedia to have a short article describing a significant book about a personality of Vivekananda's stature. --Abhidevananda (talk) 17:02, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• For Wikipedia, notability is NOT INHERITED. This book needs to have independent reviews to be considered notable. LK (talk) 03:58, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

comment : please note that the main idea of moving this to AFD was to find if it is really notable according to wikipedia, is saying "probably the best" and supposedly seen in many sites would amount to be notablity ? , if any body come up with any other source of notablity interms of citation in newspaper or other authors, I will with draw AFD. Shrikanthv (talk) 22:37, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• article creator's comment (continued) These books might had been reviewed in newspapers. But, note these books were published in 1995. So, it is useless to search those reviews in world wide web because Indian news archives don't go back to that time. It is unfortunate that in few/many AFD discussion this point is not noted. Lack of online/digital format news, magazine reviews does not necessarily mean they did not get any coverages/reviews. This can be searched manually which is of course a damn difficult job. Google Scholars and Google Books will give some hints that this book is regularly cited in/by other scholarly books, research papers. --Tito Dutta (talk) 12:56, 4 January 2013 (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) 23:03, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Areopagus Lodge[edit]

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

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

No apparent notability, most local masonic lodges are not notable
kcylsnavS{^screech_harrass} 22:49, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Week Delete: It is true that most local level Masonic lodges are not considered notable (per WP:ORG). However, there are exceptions. Areopagus was apparently the first Masonic lodge created in Brazil, so there is definitely a potential for considering it notable. The question is whether there are sources that can be used to substantiate that potential... sources that discuss this particular chapter of the Freemasons in some depth. Google Books hits on two sources... but both only mention it in passing (while talking about something else). That is not really enough to satisfy WP:ORG. That said, since this is a Brazilian lodge, there might be sources in Portuguese that are not coming up on Google books (we need someone to check on that). Without such sources, the article is (unfortunately) a valid deletion candidate. Blueboar (talk) 13:14, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. "No apparent notability" is contradicted by its claim that it's the oldest lodge in Brazil. Mind boggling that this can be considered. JASpencer (talk) 17:51, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let's start with the basics... are there any sources to support the claim that Areopagus Lodge actually was the first Masonic lodge in Brazil? Blueboar (talk) 22:04, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They are in Portuguese, but there are sources that support the claim. More importantly (and more clear cut) there are also sources to support the fact that it was involved in an attempted coup to secede from the Portuguese empire and despite being disbanded that its members would continue to be a thorn in the Imperial side. JASpencer (talk) 16:52, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please add these sources to the article. (I do assume good faith... but I would like to find a neutral party who reads Portuguese to verify what you say about the sources). Blueboar (talk) 02:32, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Nominator's Rationale: An organization is not notabale just because it lays claim to some fact, true or not, that would support notability. Notability must be (1) supported by unrelated third party sources independent of the organization that are (2) cited in the article. RiverStyx23{^talk_email} 17:29, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you trying to vote twice? You nominated the article under one name and put in a "Delete" vote under another. JASpencer (talk) 18:52, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still me. The account was renamed. RiverStyx23{^talk_email} 19:10, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but you're not supposed to vote once you've nominated. That's seen as double voting. although in this case almost certainly innocent, it looks particularly dodgy if you've changed your name. Besides there are actually sources in both Portuguese and English that are independent of the body cited in the article after you put in that comment. JASpencer (talk) 19:19, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you; I didn't know that. But just so everyone's clear, "double voting" is a misnomer, as is the implication of an infraction or violation of some kind that is implied by assuming my innocense (which I nevertheless appreciate). The policy, of which I am now more fully aware, says, "Nominations already imply a recommendation to delete the article, unless the nominator specifically says otherwise, and to avoid confusion nominators should refrain from explicitly indicating this recommendation again in the bulleted list of recommendations."

Do you want me to cross out that vote for you?

They are not "votes," they are indications of consensus. RiverStyx23{^talk_email} 22:42, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further Comment: Agree with Blueboar, below. Having been seriously and rather nastily (IMO) slapped around by the presumed owner of an article - to which I was adding widely- and well-known, easily verifiable true information - for not supporting my additions with notable, verifiable third party sources, I see the usefulness of requiring these up front. It avoids a lot of wasted time discussing basic en.Wiki policies (noting however that the policy is verifiability of a source not notability). RiverStyx23{_submarine^target} 01:44, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, appears notable, and I'm sure more Portuguese-language sources will be found to substantiate this.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:54, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• COMMENT - could we not assume the existence of sources, please (this is a pet peeve of mine). If sources actually do exist, that is one thing (we can then examine the sources and see if they actually support the claims made in the article)... but we should not keep articles based on an assumption that they do (or should) exist. Blueboar (talk) 00:48, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While it's perfectly OK to say "If this is so notable it should have sources by now" it is also perfectly fine to say that "this article doesn't seem to have sources because of x" and Sarek quite reasonably put forward the idea that the sources were in Portuguese. There is already a presumption against poorly sourced articles and this works quite well. Taking it from a presumption to an inflexible law would mean that we would be deleting a lot of useful or interesting topics simply out of cultural bias. JASpencer (talk) 08:56, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources not in English must nevertheless be verifiable. See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English_sources. RiverStyx23{_submarine^target} 13:27, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is easy enough to settle... I have asked for a Portuguese reader to examine the source (see: WP:RSN#Determination on reliability of Portuguese source needed) Blueboar (talk) 22:03, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I have evaluated the Portuguese source, and although published by Masons it seems reliable. There doesn't appear to be any reason to doubt its veracity or neutrality. μηδείς (talk) 19:28, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Changing my opinion to week Keep, based on examination of the source at RSN. As noted there, not all the sources are reliable, but the one making the claim that the lodge is the oldest in Brazil is. The article needs work, and could definitely use better sourcing... but there is now (barely) enough for me to flip over to the Keep side of the fence. Blueboar (talk) 13:01, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome, to the Dark Side.  :) μηδείς (talk) 20:03, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It is a good article with a lot of great sources (these seem very reliable). The argument of the article is interesting and useful for wikipedia. Samuel petan (talk) 19:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#G4 JohnCD (talk) 16:18, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nosratollah khakian[edit]

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

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

Non-notable per WP:BIO. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:23, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Do not delete- This article is wrong and should be removed from the candidate eliminated because someone is famous and reputable sourcesDariush47 (talk) 11:46, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• keep- This is not a problem and should be in Wikipedia. Thank you2.185.210.236 (talk) 15:25, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Does not seem to pass notability requirements under WP:PROF or WP:BIO.--Eric Yurken (talk) 15:54, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete G4 as re-creation of article deleted following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nosratallah Khakian. Good heavens, the AFD only closed a week ago. Ray^Talk 16:03, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Dankof[edit]

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

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

Subject of article fails to meet the criteria set forth for journalists in Wikipedia:Notability (people)/WP:CREATIVE. Unable to find significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Location (talk) 22:19, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not notable, just another minor WP:FRINGE of the sort PressTV can never get enough of. Frizzmaz (talk) 16:45, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unable to find sufficient coverage in reliable secondary sources. There is some note of him on the ADL [5] [6] and SPLC websites [7] [8], but these are not the best RS and there is still minimal coverage. Plot Spoiler (talk) 21:30, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ivaylo Chochev[edit]

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

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that the Bulgarian Second Division is fully pro, a supposition not supported by reliable sources. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:56, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This prove that Bulgarian 2nd dev and bulgarian cup are Fully proffesional,so the player is profesional player. K.belev (talk) 00:19, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia by it's own standards is not a reliable source. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:00, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.pfl.bg/b-pfg - Then read the official BFL site ;) B group is profesional league K.belev (talk) 17:41, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The link does not explicitly say that the league is fully pro, and the name by itself is insufficient. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:41, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Can be restored if he makes a league debut for CSKA Sofia. Govvy (talk) 23:37, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 13:41, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the article is about a footballer who hasn't played in a fully pro league or represented his country at senior level, which means that the article fails WP:NFOOTY. Also fails WP:GNG due to lack of coverage in reliable sources. No prejudice against recreation when one of the criteria is met. Mentoz86 (talk) 21:57, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Faroese constitutional referendum[edit]

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

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

This article was proposed for deletion for the second time, so I bring this here. I agree with the nominator, however, there no evidence that this is scheduled for a vote, being debated, or even a possibility. The 2010 referendum was an idea in 2008 but went nowhere. Hekerui (talk) 21:08, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Seemingly never going to happen. If the idea is ever resurrected, it can easily be restored. Number 57 21:21, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A High Beam search for Faroe Islands constitution (not exact phrase) yielded 24 results, some not on point. The only hit during the past two years is not on point. This appears to be a dead issue, speculative at best. Donner60 (talk) 07:32, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Probably right, yes. —Nightstallion 09:59, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - not notable. It may have been notable if it happened, but it didn't. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 22:43, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 23:03, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decade of Darkness[edit]

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

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

This article relies on one reference that mentions the titular quote upon which the whole article text hangs, the remainder is a clear WP:COATRACK to put forward a large number of unsourced and highly selectively biased complaints as a criticism of one particular past national government. This article is essentially a Blog entry. The one ref cited is actually a very balanced treatment of the topic, but with the coatrack text removed the article would be just two sentences and is thus not suitable as a Wikipedia article. - Ahunt (talk) 20:53, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Per Ahunt; also fails WP:NAD and WP:NOTADVOCATE. Rostz (talk) 21:14, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Article is clearly bias and poorly sourced. When I first saw the page, I initially tagged it for speedy deletion, but then I decided to give the author a chance to improve it, which he did not. JDDJS (talk) 21:20, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Military History, under whose scope this article falls, has been informed of the existence of this deletion discussion. - Ahunt (talk) 00:35, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Rick Hillier if there is a section there that qualifies as wp material and is well sourced. The term may be sought by some readers and that is where it started.--Canoe1967 (talk) 05:45, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse ferret. There is also a book, song, etc with the same name. We may need a dab page in the future. A dab page would work now with 3 redlinks and definitions in case they make it to article status. Dab rules seem to allow that.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:33, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. This is clear-cut POV pushing. Nick-D (talk) 07:54, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Nick-D (talk) 10:24, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete POV-based neologism. Resolute 15:33, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NEO and WP:COAT. I believe there is an important article to be written on the historic and sweeping austerity measures taken by Chretien-Martin in the mid-1990s, including their impact on military spending, as well as all other areas of federal spending. But this article is not it, as outlined above. And I don't see much in the way of NPOV content to merge into the articles on Chretien, Martin or the Canadian military. I for one don't favour a redirect to the Hillier article (which makes no mention of this specific term, at present). Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:33, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - for the multiple above reasons. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 01:32, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT Delete This is ridiculous harassment in a blatant attempt to cover up the previous Liberal government's disastrous decade in office. The Decade of Darkness happened; whether that term and time period gets an article with that name, or something else which more completely describes the Liberals' decade in office, this Decade of Darkness happened, and it is historical and relevant and necessary to acknowledge. ARMY101 (talk) 21:37, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• — Note to closing admin: ARMY101 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:08, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I think I made it more neutral and removed the POV tag. It is far easier to source now as well.--Canoe1967 (talk) 05:47, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - still a neologism without widespread usage. Parsecboy (talk) 13:54, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I can't find any evidence that the term "decade of darkness" is widely used in this way. Chrétien's term as Prime Minister is notable, but if it is to have its own Wikipedia entry, it should have a neutral title, like the current PM: see Premiership of Stephen Harper. This isn't about harassment or a cover-up or even about bias - to me this one hinges on notability; the expression "decade of darkness" doesn't meet notability standards. Dawn Bard (talk) 16:15, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Jean Chretien; the subject does not appear to be notable in and of itself, and thus fails WP:GNG. That being said, as its primary subject is actually about the Canadian Government under Prime Minister Chretien. If it is an alternate name, the article should be replaced by a redirect, as I understand is the standard procedure.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:01, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tricky It was actually the Cretien/Martin era. Cretien retired and the reins went to Martin. An article on the Eras of the Canadian Budget may pass an acid test.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:37, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Or we could create Liberals are horrible people, and redirect to it. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:36, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. History of the Liberal Party of Canada has a section that it could be mentioned in from a re-direct.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:44, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There are lots of references out there for those interested in building wikipedia rather than deleting it. With one simple google these additional refs turned up:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/cdnmilitary/chat-hillier.html

http://www.thestar.com/news/article/182858--general-draws-liberal-fire

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2011/08/19/dnd-budget-cuts_n_931664.html

Keep in mind that every time an artcle is deleted from wikipedia scores of wannabe editors also disappear. Ottawahitech (talk) 14:45, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment Not wanting editors to leave is not a reason to keep an article. Refs might appear but it does not change the bias nature of the article. JDDJS (talk) 22:56, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - clearly doesn't comply with WP:NPOV. Shritwod (talk) 23:17, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I just added a section to History of the Liberal Party of Canada including an anchor in case a re-direct is made to that article.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:23, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I've removed it per WP:COAT. I'm sorry, I had meant to reply to you here more promptly, Canoe1967. I object to adding Mr. Hillier's WP:NEO term for that decade to the main article on the history of the Liberal Party of Canada, as you have done. just as much as I object to the article under discussion here. Please try to get consensus for this addition at Talk:History of the Liberal Party of Canada before adding it again. (If a redirect is merited, the target should be the Hillier bio article imo). And again, my apologies for not registering my objection more promptly. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all. I was just being bold and that gets slapped down sometimes. I wonder if it woke up some polarized watchers of that article. Should we bold Mr. Hillier's article the same way to rattle some more chains?--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:43, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I do agree that it should be added to Hillier bio article. And again, I wouldn't object to a redirect there. So if you wish to go ahead, I'd have no objections at all. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:24, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Does anyone else want to go that route so we can close this AfD? I haven't got time to add it but anyone can just paste my text from the deleted LPC section I made.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:40, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since this AFD should be closed today I would rather see it run its course and if the article is deleted then you can later create a redirect if you see fit, to remove the POV text from the system, rather than leave it for later revert. I would caution that the term "Decade of Darkness" has many multiple meanings, though and it will probably end up as a disambiguation page in the long run. - Ahunt (talk) 11:17, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disciplined Agile Delivery[edit]

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

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

Proposed deletion removed by creator. Referenced to the system's official website and its creator; the only independent reference is completely irrelevant. Fails to establish notability. According to User:FreeRangeFrog, the "term [was] coined by a company/person/author that is not widely used in the industry; article is essentially a promotional piece for a book." [9] - Mike Rosoft (talk) 20:30, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete My PROD was actually in error since it was the second one, however my rationale holds: Term coined by a company/person/author that is not widely used in the industry; article is essentially a promotional piece for a book. It's also an ad for a website. WP:COI issues aside (the author of the article is the same that runs the blog/website linked to from the article), the term itself fails WP:GNG. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:PROMO and WP:GNG PianoDan (talk) 13:08, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — Yash ^[talk] 03:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Friction[edit]

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

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

Relentlessly promotional and when I try to strip out the promotion, I just can't convinced myself that we need an article on this person. He's mentioned in the media by virtue of being a DJ for the BBC, but do we truly need articles on all BBC disc jockeys? —Kww(talk) 20:22, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Generally speaking, I would say yes, we need articles on all disc jockeys on national BBC stations. There's plenty of coverage of him from a GNews search, and he won a gold Sony Award for his show with Nihal, so he's definitely notable. --Michig (talk) 06:30, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: We disagree a lot, but at least we usually are dealing with the same facts. Google News returns precisely 1 hit for "Bobby Friction"": http://bollyspice.com/52667/the-deols-talk-to-the-bbc-asian-network-in-an-intimate-in-conversation which reports that he interviewed somebody else. A standard Google Search returns a myriad of mirrors of our own article plus some BBC promotional material. What else are you seeing that I don't?—Kww(talk) 17:30, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • For example from the first few pages of archives: MTV, Sikh Times, Sunday Leader, The Guardian, The Sun, Sunday Observer, from GBooks: India Today, The Ashgate Research Companion to Popular Musicology. From a Google search: Metro, The Guardian. And then we have tens of BBC articles to use for verifying basic facts. Not an exhaustive search, but there's plenty out there. --Michig (talk) 17:49, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • What a delightful user interface: "At any time" doesn't include "in archives" on Google News. OK, more news than I saw. Still a fairly minor personality, and I will hold my opinion that the current contents of the article are bad enough to justify deletion so that someone else can start from scratch.—Kww(talk) 18:20, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, the Google interface keeps getting less intuitive. I don't see major issues requiring a rewrite, just copyediting and better sourcing. --Michig (talk) 19:19, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. In December 2012 he appeared on an edition of Celebrity Mastermind, so it would appear that he has some claim to being regarded as a celeb and hence is of sufficient importance to merit the article staying put. I would agree that the article is too promotional in its current form, but that does not mean that a properly rewritten article about the man shouldn't be on Wikipedia. I vote to keep it Martyn Smith (talk) 19:14, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Plenty of GNews coverage, plus a major award for his show. I'd say he is notable. — sparklism ^hey! 09:01, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I agree with Michig. Furthermore, per WP:ANYBIO he has been the recipient of multiple awards. Mkdw^talk 07:52, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksandar Kolev[edit]

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

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

Footballer who fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Oleola (talk) 19:40, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:42, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league, and has not received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:42, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Govvy (talk) 00:24, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 13:41, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the article is about a footballer who hasn't played in a fully pro league or represented his country at senior level, which means that the article fails WP:NFOOTY. Also fails WP:GNG due to lack of coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 21:58, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:22, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wey Valley Radio[edit]

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

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

Internal school radio station. No indication of notability, and IMHO notability is extremely unlikely. TexasAndroid (talk) 19:37, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no notability at all. noq (talk) 19:50, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Delta FM (and nuke all content for this article) - there was a more significant radio station with this name in Hampshire, England, which is mentioned there (and which I confused with this one) --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:18, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as not notable. GregJackP Boomer! 00:36, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- possibly after merging with Wey Valley School. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:42, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Merge and delete" cannot be done as such an action results in the merged content being a WP:COPYVIO. If a merge is conducted the page content was merged from must be retained (as a redirect) for attribution. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:36, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 03:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cristian Guerrero[edit]

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

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

Non-notable career minor league baseball player. He is the cousin of Vladimir Guerrero and did achieve the feat of 5 home runs in consecutive plate appearances, but none of that seems to have manifested itself in significant coverage independent of the subject. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:28, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:28, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Non-notable minor league baseball player. Never played a MLB game, therefore not entitled to a preromsumption of notability per WP:NBASEBALL. Insufficient depth of coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources to satisfy the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:44, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Aside from coverage in baseball publications such as Baseball America, Ballpark Digest, and Seamheads, I also found feature stories in the Connecticut Post, Fredericksburg Lance-Star (May 29, 2005) and San Bernardino Sun (July 11, 2003). The nominator supported keeping Zech Zinicola, whose page was kept just yesterday, so this seems like an odd AfD. Guerrero has more news coverage and a fairly notable pro baseball record to his name, plus the MLB family ties. It's also likely that Guerrero has been covered in Spanish-language outlets in his native Dominican Republic. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 00:16, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I found the coverage of Zinicola, but I didn't find significant coverage on Guerrero. Can you please provide some links? If they're the same that HBWS provided in the first AfD, I don't think those are sufficient. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:56, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, same feature stories as the first AfD (I didn't notice until now), plus a bunch of additional stories in Baseball America (top prospects, indy coverage, etc.), Seamheads, this article at Ballpark Digest, etc. I don't understand how you deemed Zech Zinicola to be notable based on a story in the L.A. Times and a story in the Fredericksburg Lance-Star but you don't consider Guerrero to be notable despite stories in Baseball America, Ballpark Digest, and the very same Fredericksburg Lance-Star. Personally, I'm in favor of a tighter interpretation of WP:GNG, but there's no way--none at all--that Guerrero is less notable than Zinicola. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 19:09, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Baseball America, Seamheads and Ballpark Digest are trade papers, which do not receive quite the same stature as a publication like the LA Times or Fredericksburg Lance-Star, which does indeed contribute towards Guerrero's notability since that article does describe Guerrero in some depth. Simply put I accept that this is a borderline case and my viewing of it is that while Zinicola passed by a little, Guerrero fails by a little. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:16, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• If the above are discounted as "trade papers," then it seems the same should be true for MiLB.com, which is basically an in-house p.r. operation for Minor League Baseball (and which you used as two of the main sources in support of keeping Zinicola's page). You're also totally ignoring the fact that Guerrero has likely received extensive coverage in Spanish-language publications in his native Dominican Republic. I'm not trying to give you a hard time here; it just seems like you have inconsistent standards in these AfDs. Take away Zinicola's PED suspension and several articles about routine procedural moves (promotions, Rule 5), and he's about as non-notable as a MiLB player can get. Just about every minor leaguer in America has been featured in his hometown paper a time or two. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 20:12, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I think MLB.com and MiLB.com are a level above Baseball America etc. in level of coverage, but you makea good point about the Spanish language publications. I'm not taking this personally, I respect the arguments you are making, especially since our criteria should be as uniform as possible, even though we arbiters of notability are only human :) – Muboshgu (talk) 00:12, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete May become notable later, but is not at this time. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 18:55, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:28, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It's a close call but this guy seems to edge over the line for me based on the coverage and his unusual feet of hitting all those homers in a row.Spanneraol (talk) 14:55, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. My opinion has not changed since the article's last AFD. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 09:08, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:GNG. The refs are stats only, no editorial coverage.--Nixie9 (talk) 01:58, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker^talk 19:07, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Keep. The sources posted above as well as in the first AFD exist to establish the notability of the subject. It seems that he meets criterion 6 of WP:NBASEBALL based on the above sources. I would like to see a couple of examples of the spanish language sources that were mentioned above. The article needs to be sourced, but the sources do exist. The article is of very borderline notability, but I believe it is notable nonetheless. Tazerdadog (talk) 20:53, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:14, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Note: While sources are mentioned in the above discussion, they have yet to be added to the article - which, essentially, remains a UBLP. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:16, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• So fix it? Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 19:58, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I would - if I had the sources or if they were online. See the comment above by Bbny - they are print sources. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:37, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• That's what libraries are for. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:51, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• On the assumption that (1) the library would have it, or (2) the library could get it. My experience with our library here is that interlibrary loan requests are likely to be lolno'd. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:02, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not just for profit[edit]

Not just for profit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

WP:NEO. There is some third-party usage of the term, but those few sources actually identifying it as a term appear to be Wikimirrors [10] and/or possible copyvios [11], although I suspect the latter is a violation of WIkipedia's license, not the other way around. j⚛e decker^talk 18:47, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and it is an essay. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• delete as unreferenced essay. Mangoe (talk) 02:06, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Not sure why this was relisted, really. Courcelles 01:16, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Barry McNamee[edit]

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

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

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) 14:45, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:47, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:26, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – It's pretty clear he fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. – Michael (talk) 03:22, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 09:34, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ⋘HueSatLumAlt ? ❢⋙ 17:43, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Delete - the article is about a footballer who hasn't played in a fully pro league or represented his country at senior level, which means that the article fails WP:NFOOTY. Also fails WP:GNG due to lack of coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 21:22, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per the four other votes, it's all been said. C679 21:54, 3 January 2013 (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 01:17, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Matty Regan[edit]

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

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

PROD removed by Afghani nani (talk · contribs), the article creator, with no explanation given. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL as the subject has not "appeared... in a fully professional league" and WP:GNG as the article shows no evidence of the subject receiving "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Mattythewhite (talk) 13:20, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Mattythewhite (talk) 13:23, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:47, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:24, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 09:33, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ⋘HueSatLumAlt ? ❢⋙ 17:42, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Delete - the article is about a footballer who hasn't played in a fully pro league or represented his country at senior level, which means that the article fails WP:NFOOTY. Also fails WP:GNG due to lack of coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 21:21, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is to delete because the content consists only of unsourced plot summary and no sources are cited to establish the topic's notability.  Sandstein  00:59, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mobile Suit Gundam mobile weapons[edit]

List of Mobile Suit Gundam mobile weapons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

List of non-notable fictional weapons, does not pass notability criteria for lists. Claritas § 12:29, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • Please review Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mobile Suit Gundam SEED mobile weapons (2nd nomination) for a very similar case where no sources could be found. --Claritas § 12:31, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOTDIR, WP:NOTPLOT, and WP:NLIST - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOT#PLOT because Wikipedia articles aren't summary-only descriptions of fictional works. Needs something to describe out of universe context, namely why this is notable. But without third party sources, there's no way to WP:Verify notability, so this article can never meet our basic guidelines. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:46, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ⋘HueSatLumAlt ? ❢⋙ 17:38, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Keep - Per WP:LISTN, one way to judge the acceptability of lists is whether the subject as a whole has been covered in sources. I find it very unlikely that the subject of mobile weapons in Mobile Suit Gundam has not been covered in reliable sources, as the series is highly popular and successful, and the mobile weapons are of central importance to both the plot of the series and its popularity among fans. I understand that sources need to be found, but I would expect they are available and doubt that the nominator has actually looked for them (due to his nominating several related subjects, without seeming to really consider each one). I would think that checking the sources listed in other articles on the series, such as in the articles Mobile Suit Gundam, Gundam (mobile suit), and White Base, would be a good place to start (but I probably don't have time to check them myself, or even access to any that are non-online sources). In addition, several of the items in this list have their own articles, and it seems backwards to delete the list while leaving the articles on individual entries in place. Also, about the policies stated by other people above, I don't believe WP:NOTDIR has any relation to this list (it isn't a directory or any of the other things listed there). I also don't think WP:NLIST is relevant, since it seems to primarily be about people and doesn't agree with WP:LISTN, presumably because people are a special exception where due to WP:BLP concerns a standalone list of people should generally only contain entries that are each notable individually. For a subject other than people, each individual entry in the list need not be notable per WP:LISTN. WP:NOTPLOT is a more valid concern, but I think this list would be acceptable since it is a subtopic of the larger topic of Mobile Suit Gundam, and the larger topic is not covered in an only in-universe fashion. The mobile weapons are of central importance to the larger topic, so it seems reasonable to list them in a list (similar to how lists of characters in fictional works are regularly kept at AFD, even when they generally cover the subjects in an in-universe fashion). Calathan (talk) 22:54, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting this article will not effect the individual entries as there is a template for the series that covers them. I repeat wikipedia is not a fansite (per WP:NOTPLOT, and WP:FANCRUFT) the fact is that the sources are not present and have not been included for years in this article. Notability is also not Inherited here, yes Gundam is notable but there is no evidence that the mobile weapons in the show are for this series other than being plot info. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:33, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, have you checked for sources? I feel like this is being deleted because everyone is just too lasy to actually look at any of the potential sources. I know I probably can't complain because I myself am too lasy to look for sources, but this just seems like something that certainly should have sources out there, and it just surprises me that no one here is willing to find them. Calathan (talk) 02:29, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been around since 2009, that would give 3 years for editors to look for sources here. Now that does not mean they are not out there, but if there were plenty of sources like you say there are dont you think they would have been found by now? I will do my part and look for sources but please dont call people lazy including yourself, im sure you have done alot of great things for wikipedia just as alot of editors here have. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:46, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The record shows otherwise.  At an AfD for Base 30, about ten editors commented without anyone showing that they had searched for the word "trigesimal" on Google books.  Afd nominators have the primary responsibility to study a topic and prepare the community before investing the time of other people.  AfD nominations among other things must analyze the alternatives to deletion, review the "What links here", and check for articles on other Wikipedias.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:57, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per WP:NOTABILITY, particularly WP:FAILN. Oh yes, and per WP:NOTDIR, WP:FANCRUFT, WP:NOTPLOT, and WP:NLIST too. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 01:39, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'd like to see some proof that the nominator performed WP:BEFORE before nominating this for deletion. My understanding is that Claritas has been banned from making AfDs and they have apparently broken this ban. If this is the case, rather than discussing this AfD, we should be discussing blocking Claritas. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:05, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree on both points.  I discovered this thread because of a Claritas AfD nomination that is now at DRV.  Claritas' sockpuppets frequently made 2nd, 3rd, and 4th AfD nominations, which are near guarantees of community contention.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:44, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've found 29 recent AfD nominations, 8 of which were 2nd nominations.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:40, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • USer:Claritas is not under any current editing restrictions. Reyk _YO! 22:58, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • In requesting the unban, Claritas offered, "...I promise I can produce quality content in the future..." and "I have no interest in intentionally disrupting the project." [12].  In response to a concern about AfD participation, Claritas offered, "I'm here to write." [13]  Unscintillating (talk) 00:14, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • All of Claritas's recent AfDs found merit among a variety of users, unless there's proof he's been using sockpuppetry to vote in his own AfDs, I see no reason to label the actual nominations as disruptive. I also don't see how nominating potentially non-notable articles for deletion would be incompatible with the production of "quality content". On the contrary, I consider cleaning up the huge mess in articles about fiction as paving the way to quality content. Note that I'm not familiar with Claritas's case and am only responding to Unscintillating's words above.Folken de Fanel (talk) 01:30, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per the total absence of secondary sources. A search in GBooks yielded only wikipedia mirrors and a few mere mentions; not enough for a SAL. Fails WP:NLISTWP:LISTN, WP:NOTDIRWP:IINFO, WP:NOTPLOT etc.Folken de Fanel (talk) 01:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give you WP:NOTPLOT, but I thought I made it clear above that WP:NLIST and WP:NOTDIR don't apply to this article. WP:NLIST is about people, and seems specifically intended with BLP concerns in mind. That obviously doesn't apply to a list of fictional machines. WP:NOTDIR is about lists that read like phone books, catalogues, TV listings, or the like, or where there isn't much of an association between the entries. It is specifically about directories, i.e. pages serving to help someone look up a person/ business/show time/product/etc. in order to contact/be a customer of/watch/purchase/etc. something. Sorry to complain about that, but it just bugs me whenever I see someone referring to that policy when what they really mean is that they think the subject of the list isn't notable (if you think it fails WP:N then just say so, rather than referring to a policy that is about something else). Calathan (talk) 04:34, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Amended.Folken de Fanel (talk) 09:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:57, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indian cricket after 2011 ODI world cup[edit]

Indian cricket after 2011 ODI world cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

There is an existing article for this: India national cricket team. Why this duplicate article? Most likely a POV fork. Forgot to put name 17:18, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete agreed, unnecessary fluff. Harrias ^talk 18:00, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I've created 'Indian cricket after ODI world cup' article to just explain the performance and statastics of India after 2011 ODI world cup. In the article 'Indian national cricket team', it is not mentioned. If I merge this article in to that one, total article looks like focusing on Indian cricket after 2011 ODI world cup

Phani M (talk) 04:42, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. Also, what makes Indian cricket after the World Cup so significant that it requires its own stand alone article? Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 18:07, 1 January 2013 (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. A snow job for a very devious hoax. Kudos to ShelfSkewed for doing the digging that disproved this dissertation. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:21, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bicholim conflict[edit]

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

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

After careful consideration and some research, I have come to the conclusion that this article is a hoax—a clever and elaborate hoax, but a hoax nonetheless. An online search for "Bicholim conflict" or for many of the article's purported sources produces only results that can be traced back to the article itself. Take, for example, one of the article's major sources: Thompson, Mark, Mistrust between states, Oxford University Press, London 1996. No record at WorldCat. No mention at the OUP site. No used listings at Alibris or ABE. I can find no evidence anywhere that this book exists. Not being able to find any trace of an OUP book published within, say, the past 40 years? Ridiculous. If this book exists, then the original author of this WP article owns the only copy. I was similarly unsuccessful in tracking down Srinivasan Vasantakulan's Bharatiya Struggles (1000 AD – 1700 AD) (shown with an ISBN for a Swedish children's book) or David D'Souza's Roots of conflict in Portuguese Goa (also with an erroneous and unlikely ISBN). In addition, consider the comment by another editor on the article's talk page concerning the problems with the dates in the article. If I'm wrong about this, I'll look like a right idiot, but there are too many troubling things about this article to ignore. ShelfSkewed Talk 16:45, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. ShelfSkewed Talk 17:30, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ShelfSkewed Talk 17:30, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. ShelfSkewed Talk 17:30, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Congratulations must go to ShelfSkewed for his research here. In addition to the sources consulted by him I have cross-checked with Copac which is the primary UK academic index, and the only cited books which appear to exist are the two 19th century publications, that by Rule on the Inquisition and the 1886 Imperial Gazetteer, neither of which is claimed in the article to contain reference to the supposed conflict itself. One incorrect citation is par for published academic work, but for none of the supporting material to be traceable is fatal in the absense of any other evidence for the events described. --AJHingston (talk) 18:18, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete --- I would have beleived it, but the alleged sources are clearly a WP:HOAX, which makes me think the article is too. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:21, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per the brilliant research above, and purge the creator's edits on other pages, if any. Well-presented hoaxes are the most malicious. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 18:44, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • See also the concerns raised at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bicholim conflict/archive1, particularly those raised about the reliability of Bharatiya Conflicts, should it exist. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 19:15, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 22:05, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Following on from the excellent nomination statement, I searched for "Bharatiya Struggles" in the online catalogs of the National Library of India, British Libary and Library of Congress and none of these institutions had a record for such a book. As such, this appears to be a hoax. Nick-D (talk) 23:39, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. What a brilliant nomination. I have also not traced the relevant references and the historical chronology is wrong. If either Shivaji or the Maratha Empire were involved then 1640-41 is too early and too many dates are quoted in the article for a typo. I see the article creator linked to the article from History of Goa, here. This edit has not been questioned or reverted but the article has few watchers. However, there is no mention at Shivaji (and probably never has been) though a lot of edit warring was going on in that article over a relevant period in the later part of 2007.[14] Presuming it is a hoax, what an elaborate one. Thincat (talk) 23:45, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. It certainly does look suspicious. The editor who created the article has not done a lot of editing outside of that article and has not edited since 2007. Was it one of those journalistic tests? It is also galling that it is ranked as GA. I will see if we can get it speedily deleted but unfortunately the damage is done. It is mirrored and cached all over the internet. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:34, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I've declined the speedy delete- since it hasn't been detected for so long, it's obviously not a blatant or an obvious hoax, so it isn't eligible for G3. I'm sure it'll be deleted after this AfD though.--Slon02 (talk) 01:49, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was WP:WITHDRAWN. (non-admin closure) Mkdw^talk 00:13, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ottamthullal[edit]

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

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

Majority of content appears to have been copied and pasted from an external source. Freebirdthemonk 16:45, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Withdrawn. Freebirdthemonk^Howdy! 12:19, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep, as a matter of procedure. I think this discussion can be closed immediately. (You can just withdraw the nomination, and an administrator will close it.) The article history shows that it has grown from a much shorter version over the course of several years (since 2004, in fact). If some copyright violating material has been introduced along the way, only those revisions affected by this need to be deleted. Go to Wikipedia:Copyright problems instead to report this issue. And you need to show where this material came from. --Hegvald (talk) 17:42, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, agree with analysis by Hegvald (talk · contribs), above. — Cirt (talk) 21:02, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as I withdraw this NfD on the grounds that I cannot find copyrighted material within the work. I tried looking for copyrighted information (as a majority of the text appears to be from a story book or informational text), but have not been able to find anything similar. Since it is possible that I was wrong and the text is just written in a storybook style, I would like to withdraw this NfD and close discussion. Freebirdthemonk^Howdy! 12:16, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:57, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Libertad Green[edit]

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

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

No assertion of notability per WP:ENTERTAINER or WP:CREATIVE; no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. As can be seen from the edit history, there was a good deal of unsourced claims and promo, much of which appeared to be deliberate jokes or hoax. This article was already prodded and deleted once a few years ago, so thought it best to take this to AFD. Altered Walter (talk) 15:56, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Altered Walter (talk) 15:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Altered Walter (talk) 15:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• As an Entertainer, libertad Green has

1.Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions - starring, featured, principle - see tables

2.Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following - over 1.6 million views on her Hawaiian Hula dance video; a thumbnail of her appears whenever you "Google" "Hawaiian hula".

3.Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. Is one of few women to have portrayed the Biblical Queen Jezebel in a starring role in a film, recognized by the Dove Foundation.

William Mortensen Vaughan, U.S. Army Staff Sergeant (Retired) (talk) 18:04, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Purely promotional article full of spam "refs" written by the subject's husband. Harry the Dog WOOF 20:38, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Most of those refs don't actually mention the topic at all. InShaneee (talk) 04:01, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was : Redirected to Lists of universities and colleges by country#The Arab World. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 20:49, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Arab universities[edit]

List of Arab universities (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Redundant article. See Lists of universities and colleges by country#By region#The Arab World. Professorjohnas (talk) 14:16, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. The list already exists. Majoreditor (talk) 15:29, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Redundant. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:34, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and leave a redirect. Fork. Carrite (talk) 16:54, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:57, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orlando Brooke[edit]

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

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

Not a notable person

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 December 28. Snotbot  t • c »  13:02, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• This actor doesn't meet WP:ENT's criteria for notability. Delete. Majoreditor (talk) 15:34, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No significant coverage found (WP:GNG); roles to date to not satisfy WP:ENT.  Gong show 22:03, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOT YET (actors). This fellow's quite short career of un-named, charecter-descriptive-only roles (IE: Ticket Seller, Noisy Boy , Boy being bullied, Nutter, Jewish Prisoner) [15] fails WP:ENT, and his lack of any sort of coverage fails WP:GNG. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:25, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 01:38, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ulrich Ellison[edit]

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

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

Non-notable per WP:MUSICBIO. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:38, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I couldn't find any real indication that an encyclopedia article is appropriate. --Michig (talk) 09:57, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 09:37, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Delete. I found mentions on social networking sites and and concert listings, but no significant coverage in independent reliable sources; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO at this time.  Gong show 22:09, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:23, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Magic rocks[edit]

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

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

Not notable. Unreferenced. Just one example of many manufactures who sold crystal gardens which were in wide use before their alleged invention in 1940. This is simply an an advertisement with no notability. The process is much better described at Chemical garden which is just partially duplicated here.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   09:58, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, merely a commercial landgrab but as nom says already far better handled at Chemical garden. This could actually have been speedied A10 (duplicates existing article) but I guess we are where we are now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:49, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and clean, it's a product with significant real world distribution and a long history. Surely sources could be found. -- Zanimum (talk) 19:39, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's one of the "101 Greatest Baby Boomer Toys", according to a 2005 book. -- Zanimum (talk) 19:41, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, maybe, but that would apply far more to the generic Crystal Garden/Chemical Garden toys of which this is just one poorly-referenced brand: the long history is not this brand's at all. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:05, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:04, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:08, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I don't see any evidence of notability independent of other chemical gardens. If this article is not deleted, it should be merged into Chemical garden. Peacock (talk) 17:27, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 23:11, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 09:35, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Delete or merge I agree with Peacock. Miniapolis (talk) 23:58, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Chelmsford#Business and commerce. Deleted before redirecting. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:39, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Meadows Shopping Centre[edit]

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

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

From what I can tell, a non-notable shopping centre. We usually delete those as a speedy, but this one was declined. I searched on gnews and gbooks and ghits, and while it certainly does exist I could not find coverage or size sufficient to suggest this deserves an article. Epeefleche (talk) 06:59, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not notable. Chelmsford already mentions the shopping centre, so a merger isn't necessary. DoctorKubla (talk) 09:58, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No indication of wp:notability. Already mentioned in Chelmsford article. North8000 (talk) 13:04, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:12, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:12, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or redirect to Chelmsford#Business_and_commerce - Although the Chelmsford article mentions it as "The Meadows", I think a redirect may be appropriate. Google News archives found several results, from a body that was found near the shopping centre to usual fundraisers and other events including this fashion show. I also found a result here that mentions the centre's owner as of 2002 and this which supports the 1992 establishment. There isn't much for a separate article. SwisterTwister talk 20:28, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• REdirect as SwisterTwister. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:36, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:07, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 09:32, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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

The result was Redirect to the main iPod Touch Article. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 01:59, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

iPod Touch (original)[edit]

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

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

Article currently only contains duplicated information from the iPod Touch article and at the moment it's nothing more than a specification list from the back of a manual. Separate articles should be created if the main iPod Touch article becomes overloaded with specific but relevant information pertaining to each generation, however it not even approaching that - at the moment and I doubt it ever will due to the declining popularity of the device. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 08:59, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 December 28. Snotbot  t • c »  09:17, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Redirect to the main iPod Touch article, then delete Template:IPod Touch models. Why you didn't do this boldly is beyond me. 12:52, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I forgot that redirecting the article was an option. Well since I already opened up a nomination, I'll let it run its course for another 24 hours, if no one opposes, I'll redirect it back to the main iPod Touch article. Initially provided 24hours as I thought the editor who created the article would object with a reason but it seems that his account has been locked and is inaccessible throughout entire wikimedia network. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 12:59, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can now close this AfD, as you've redirected the article. I'm not surprised he's been locked out, to be honest. Lukeno94 (talk) 21:16, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:57, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Todd Murphey[edit]

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

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

On notability grounds - has not fought in any noteworthy MMA fights. Peter Rehse (talk) 09:08, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 09:08, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete - Fails WP:NMMA. --LlamaAl (talk) 17:17, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NMMA. --TreyGeek (talk) 23:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:57, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chenry Lewis[edit]

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

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

Article appears to be promotional in nature. Subject does not meet any of the notability requirements of WP:ATHLETE; is currently playing in a non-notable semi-pro league. Article has been tagged as an orphan for 3+ years. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 07:54, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not notable enough for an article. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 16:31, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not a free web hosting service.--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:43, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable college football player. Subject does not merit a presumption of notability per WP:NCOLLATH because he never received a major college award. Does not receive a presumption of notability per WP:NGRIDIRON because he never played in a regular season NFL or other major professional football game. Coverage is insufficient in to satisfy the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG; existing sources included in article are non-independent (team or league sites), non-reliable (fan blogs), or trivial (sports stats sites). Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:55, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete backup former college football player, some of the claims of notability doesn't involve him at all. Secret ^account 01:26, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Will userfy upon request. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:58, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Geria[edit]

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

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

He has not played a professional senior game at club or international level. Article fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 07:45, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 07:45, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Userfy - then move back into mainspace if he becomes notable. Lukeno94 (talk) 12:56, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 16:02, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL; can be easily restored if/when he becomes notable. GiantSnowman 16:03, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:38, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Govvy (talk) 23:34, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - the article is about a footballer who hasn't played in a fully pro league or represented his country at senior level, which means that the article fails WP:NFOOTY. Also fails WP:GNG due to lack of coverage in reliable sources. No prejudice against recreation once one of the criteria is met. Mentoz86 (talk) 21:56, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 09:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redecard[edit]

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

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

Deleted PROD per WP:PROD (previous AFD) PROD rationale by User talk:I am One of Many is This article appears to by promotional (advertising) with no third party independent references. Also, appears to be independent research. Illia Connell (talk) 06:50, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep User:Whpq cited various WP:RS articles about the firm in the previous AfD. Incorporating these would improve the article past the concerns expressed, but whether in or outside the article, the evidence of WP:CORPDEPTH notability exists. AllyD (talk) 09:39, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Step Up (soundtrack). (non-admin closure) — Yash ^[talk] 03:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Step Up (Samantha Jade song)[edit]

Step Up (Samantha Jade song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:NSONG. Not enough independent coverage for a stand alone article. Additionally, can content can easily be folded into the (currently short) article about the album Samantha Jade (album) LK (talk) 06:37, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Step Up (soundtrack). Charting quite low on secondary charts does not make the song notable. Anything worth saving can be merged into Samantha Jade or the soundtrack article per WP:NSONGS. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 01:10, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to Step Up (soundtrack). Unlike the last Samantha Jade Afd I just !voted on, this topic is not notable (not enough for a standalone article anyway). A minor chart appearance fails to address the issue of significant coverage in reliable sources. Till 01:12, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Step Up (soundtrack). — ΛΧΣ²¹ 03:33, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Step Up (soundtrack). The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:24, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Turn Around (Samantha Jade song)[edit]

Turn Around (Samantha Jade song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:NSONG. Not enough independent coverage for a stand alone article. Additionally, can content can easily be folded into the (currently short) article about the album Samantha Jade (album) LK (talk) 06:37, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/redirect. This one doesn't stand up to the GNG and a lack of coverage in reliable sources means it should not have a standalone article. Till 01:16, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to the parent album. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 03:32, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Step Up (soundtrack) - not enough to have a standalone article thus fails WP:NSONG. I don't see any trouble for a merge. — Yash ^[talk] 03:35, 4 January 2013 (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.