< 29 December	31 December >

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:21, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Allen (philosopher)[edit]

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

Contested PROD, really no indication of notability. JayJay^{What did I do?} 23:59, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No indication of meeting WP:PROF or anything like it. He doesn't seem to have published any major works, nor does he seem to be cited often (unless none of the works that cite him are known to the omniscient Google). הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 00:46, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
His works are listed in the The Oxford Handbook of Free Will and he is well known amongst free will specialists. He regularly presents his work and comments at APA (American Philosophical Association) meetings. 66% of all professors are adjuncts -Anthony.robert.allen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthony.robert.allen (talk • contribs) 01:27, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
1. Please make sure you've read WP:PROF.
2. Then, please provide citations that support the relevant claims.
Then, we (well, I, at least) will gladly change our minds. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 01:44, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 10:14, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a link to the citations: http://books.google.com/books?id=AeGC8k8xAOwC&q=Robert+Allen#v=snippet&q=Robert%20Allen&f=false I intend to update the article in my sandbox. My father asked me to create the article because someone from his high school listed him (my father) as a notable alumni on the high school's wikipedia article. Anthony.robert.allen (talk) 03:26, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- הסרפד asked for sources that are about the subject, and that therefore support the biography, rather than sources that are by the subject, which don't provide support for a biography. And when your father asked you should have pointed to User:Uncle G/On notability#Writing about subjects close to you and responded by asking "Where's an already-published third-party biography of you?". You'd be able to answer הסרפד's question, and point to it, if you had. Uncle G (talk) 08:46, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROF. Anthony, your motives were pure, but the notability guidelines for academics are far more strict than for (say) entertainers. Garamond Lethe 04:03, 6 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 redirect to Robopocalypse#Film_adaptation. MBisanz ^talk 02:22, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Robopocalypse (2014 film)[edit]

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

Per WP:NFF, films which have not commenced principal photography are not considered notable. Articles about films should not be started until principal photograph has commenced and this is confirmed by reliable sources. Thus, this article should be deleted. Bob Re-born (talk) 22:23, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment But it's got Steven Spielberg. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 22:37, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. When A-listers are involved, there's enough media coverage[1][2][3] to support an article. WP:GNG tops WP:NFF. Redirect per Tokyogirl. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:57, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral/Redirect to Robopocalypse#Film_adaptation. I'm not going to argue if the article is kept, but right now I don't entirely feel that there's enough here to merit it remaining a separate article. Everything that is currently in this article is summed up in the movie subsection of the book's article. Filming hasn't yet started and no one has been officially confirmed as starring in the film, which is probably why filming hasn't started yet. There is a lot of chatter so far, but they all say the same thing: Spielberg will direct the film, Goddard and a few others have been signed for screenwriting and other "behind the camera" type jobs, and that no stars have been officially confirmed. It's just a little too soon, although it's one of those things that is almost guaranteed to become notable. However "guaranteed" is a funny thing since a lot can happen between now and its release. We can't guarantee that Spielberg won't shelve the film or that one of a million other things won't happen to set back the film's progress. Notability isn't inherited by Spielberg directing the film and technically, there isn't really a film, not yet anyway. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:04, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article has 8 references that should be enough to put notability out of the question as well as having official sources with official information there for this page is notable and fits Wikipedia's Deletion Policy. (H.Brian Griffin (talk) 14:54, 31 December 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Have a look at WP:NFF and make a case as to why we should make an exception to the guideline for this article. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:31, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Robopocalypse#Film adaptation per the notability guidelines for future films because filming has not started and is not guaranteed to. When it does, we can have a stand-alone film article for the ages. However, Spielberg's name is not ensuring—he took a very long time to ultimately produce Lincoln and has yet to do anything about Jurassic Park IV despite talking about it for over a decade. In addition, if we were to have a film at some point, the article should be at Robopocalypse (film) and not here. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:53, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Others may be interested in a related AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1906 (film) (5th nomination) for 1906 (film), also a planned film by a well-known director, though coverage is a bit different in this case. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Robopocalypse#Film adaptation. Clearly fails WP:NFF, which also states "The assumption should also not be made that because a film is likely to be a high-profile release it will be immune to setbacks—there is no "sure thing" production". --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:47, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 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 Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) JayJay^{What did I do?} 03:01, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cherokee moon ceremonies[edit]

No sources, possible hoax, 8 years since last AfD when it was kept because it was too new with the provision "lets see how it evolves". It hasn't evolved. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:03, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Interestingly, the related article Cherokee calendar has just been deleted as a ((db-g3)) blatant hoax. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 00:50, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Another note: The names of the moons and their etymologies, however, seem to be confirmed by many sources (with varying spellings), see, for example The Cherokee by Raymond Bial; so I suggest that if this is a hoax, the page be renamed Cherokee calendar, and stubbed down to a list of the months for the time being. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 01:00, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But Raymond Bial is a photographer not an ethnographer. Are they repeated in any works by people who have a reason to know anything about Cherokee culture? I can see it is repeated in a lot of New Agey sites, but nothing that seems to have any legtitimate connection to Cherokee culture.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:04, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See also Beginning Cherokee (a dictionary: search for the English names of the months); Western Cherokee Nation of Arkansas & Missouri (again, search for the English names); Anthropological Papers (by the Smithsonian, 1966; search for the Cherokee names). There is nothing particularly New-Agey about any of these, I think.

No that seems legitimate. Would still be more of a list of words than an article, and WP:NOTDICTIONARY would apply.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:48, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I've found the article's original reference in the revision history, and I've restored it. On the one hand, the author is Joseph Bruchac, who, from his article, seems to be somewhat of an authority; on the other hand, it is a children's audiobook. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 02:56, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, yes. Bruchac is Abenaki I believe, but he would not misrepresent the beliefs of another Native group. I should probably withdraw this nomination, thanks for the research work. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:59, 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. postdlf (talk) 05:51, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Basement (2014)[edit]

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

I can't find sufficient independent references for this film. The production company isn't notable, nor does the film feature notable actors or is a product of noted filmmakers. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 21:25, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and if at all notable WP:TOOSOON JayJay^{What did I do?} 21:39, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFF. At best WP:TOOSOON when this is indicated as a 2014 release. AllyD (talk) 22:28, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Definitely too soon and detailed searches at Google News produced nothing relevant. A blog entry at the AspinWall website mentions Shaun Mazerall wrote the film this year so it is obviously not finished. It can't be guaranteed that this film will receive coverage as it seems to be independent. I vote delete with no prejudice towards a future notable article, SwisterTwister talk 22:45, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This film just isn't notable at this point in time and I'll admit it's unlikely to ever become notable. Sometimes the homemade/indie films can surprise you, but generally the odds are perpetually stacked against these movies. There is no coverage of this film and it doesn't help that on the talk page an IP asserts that the film's producer wants information withheld on the film. However, with that said, I don't have a problem with the film being userfied if the original editor wants to go that route. He can continue to work on it until it passes notability guidelines, although considering that he appears to be one of the people involved with the movie, I recommend that he gets someone from WP:FILM to assist him.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:36, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of general notability. I concur with Tokyogirl179's assessment. No issue with revisiting this topic if film is produced and released with some attention. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:51, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not satisfy WP:NFILM and does not seem to have enough sources to meet GNG if at all. Mkdw ^talk 20:36, 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. postdlf (talk) 05:50, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ben-Jamin Newham[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

It's obvious that the BLP is not a appropriate target for inclusion, however I'm requesting a specific no-speedy AfD so that we can use CSD:G4 on future re-creations (as the creator has threatened to do) Hasteur (talk) 21:16, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I originally deleted this article as CSD, but restored it by request of uninvolved editor. The article has no reliable references (IMDb only) and no assertion of notability. Has been speedied under a slightly different title on two previous occasions.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:31, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and possibly salt for six months or so - I consider the comments at the first nomination to be blatant attacks, we should resolve this with respect. I understand this user is unfamiliar with Wikipedia procedures but that is not an excuse to behave that way. I found this which lists quite a bit of work under "acting", "model" and "dancing" but I haven't found any reliable third-party sources aside from this (website for a Michael Jackson tribute show in which Ben stars) and this (blog for a theatre production, Fools In Progress). He seems to be talented and has achieved good work and I am sure he will receive additional work possibly enough for an article but there must be reliable third-party sources to establish notability. I'm voting delete with absolutely no prejudice towards a future notable article. In response to the author's comment about Sophie Lowe, it seems the works Blame and Beautiful Kate and AFI award should keep her article for now. SwisterTwister talk 23:06, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt per all above JayJay^{What did I do?} 23:37, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt as per above. Mediran (t • c) 00:55, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and SALT per the above. Propose a SNOW close. ukexpat (talk) 02:09, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Not to be a process/policy wonk, but I suspect that the creator of the article may object to the deletion on potentially reasonable grounds, therefore the SNOW may not be appropriate. I note that the creator is on a 1 week block for reintroducing bad articles. It would be appropriate to let the process ride all the way out so that the consensus is iron-clad. Hasteur (talk) 02:59, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — ΛΧΣ²¹ 03:51, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For the same reasons I listed at the original AFD: a new actor with only a few bit parts to his credit. Not yet. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:07, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete under WP:NOT YET (actors). Minimal career fails WP:ENT. Lack of coverage fails WP:GNG. Allow back only if or when this actor gets a few significant roles or finally gets gets significant coverage. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:07, 2 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) 05:50, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Nightmare Before Christmas: The Pumpkin King[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

purely promotional PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 20:52, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has been reviewed by NintendoWorldReport, GameSpy, IGN, and Nintendo Power. Meets the GNG. Has content issues (WP:FANCRUFT), but I don't think it needs to be completely deleted. --Odie5533 (talk) 17:26, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't see anything blatantly promotional in the article, although there is a lot of cruft. However, as Odie demonstrated above, there is plenty of coverage for the game to pass notability guidelines, should one bother to search a little. Salvidrim! 08:29, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - plenty of reliable sources can be found. I've removed the WP:FANCRUFT and added a reliable source. Satellizer ^{talk contribs} 09:24, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as passing WP:GNG with multiple WP:VG/RS. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 12:07, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as passing WP:GNG, meets notability standards of a videogame article. Jucchan (talk) 06:17, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Plenty of reliable source coverage. Meets the WP:GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 13:40, 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 speedy redirect to Airline. A10. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Commercial flights[edit]

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

This article about commercial flights appears to be redundant of commercial aviation, hence why I suggest deleting or redirecting this entry. TBr and ley ^{(what's up)} 20:38, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirect to Airline, a better target than commercial aviation. Article could have been csd'd as an article that duplcates one on an existing topic.TheLongTone (talk) 21:09, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 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 no consensus. Closing this ~~a little early~~(EDIT: actually, it's been a little over two weeks) as it is quite clear that an out-and-out deletion is not going to happen, and AFD is not for the creation / retargeting of redirects. The general !voting pattern is indeed pro-redirect, but the depth of sources and WP:VICTIM suggests that an article may be valid. Further discussion can take place on the talk page. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:07, 6 January 2013 (UTC) Edit: — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:58, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Leigh Soto[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)).

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

Basically, WP is not a memorial. As laudable as her actions were, they are part and parcel of the Sandy Hook massacre, and her biography is only notable in that sense. Her life will never be discussed outside of it, and a redirect to Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting is the proper thing to do. Drmies (talk) 05:01, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I didn't phrase that very well--redirect is a proper thing to do, but so is deletion. Drmies (talk) 17:30, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect To Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. Clear case of WP:BLP1E. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 06:11, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP1E does not apply to WP:BLPs of the deceased. Excerpt from that page for your convenience:

Firstly, WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of living people.

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 21:41, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - As this article does not serve encyclopedic purpose outside of the shooting, it should redirect to the main article.Samvnkauffman (talk) 07:56, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. Subject has no notability beyond this single event. WWGB (talk) 11:52, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:BLP1E. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:03, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP1E does not apply to WP:BLPs of the deceased. Excerpt from that page for your convenience:

Firstly, WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of living people.

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 21:41, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The only notability of the subject is her death which is covered in another article. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:01, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect TiMike (talk) 16:54, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I agree that wikipedia is not a memorial, but how about we wait until the bodies are cold and the news stories have settled down, and folks have had a chance to write - or not - about this person before voting to delete this, shall we? --Overand (talk) 17:28, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:02, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment: Per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 December 23, the AfD should be run for the full seven days. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:04, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting per WP:BLP1E. Although I fully feel upset about the people who died in the incident, this entry should be redirected because Wikipedia is not a memorial service and the person in question will never be notable outside this incident. TBr and ley ^{(what's up)} 20:45, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP1E does not apply to WP:BLPs of the deceased. Excerpt from that page for your convenience:

Firstly, WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of living people.

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 21:41, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article stands on its own per WP:NOTABILITY, WP:NOTPAPER, WP:BIO, and WP:VICTIM—these cases have been discussed extensively on Wikipedia several times and in depth. This particular individual, as WP:VICTIM details, has been covered in an exclusive manner by a reliable source in the context of a single event. Furthermore, we have precedents such as William David Sanders, Jamie Bishop, and Jamie Bishop's AfD.

Regarding WP:VICTIM the following statute applies:

The historic significance [of the victim] is indicated by persistent coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources that devote significant attention to the individual's role.

The following reliable sources cover Victoria Leigh Soto in an exclusive manner:

Regarding WP:BLP1E, WP:BLP1E does not apply to WP:BLPs of the deceased. Excerpt from that page for your convenience:

Firstly, WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of living people.

Furthermore, Soto's article is referenced with reliable sources (Fox News, Huffington Post, El Nuevo Día, LA News, etc). In addition, we do have a policy for this particular case per WP:VICTIM which states:

The victim or person wrongly convicted, consistent with WP:BLP1E had a large role within a well-documented historic event. The historic significance is indicated by persistent coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources that devote significant attention to the individual's role.

So our job is to examine wether those two statements are true for Soto. Lets split them up:

The victim or person wrongly convicted, consistent with WP:BLP1E had a large role within a well-documented historic event.

Did Soto have a "large role"? The answer would be, yes, Soto had a large role, since Soto has to be compared with all others involved in the event. Did the janitor have a large role? No. The school bus driver? No. Soto? Yes, she did have a large role. Not only was she a victim, she also had a significant role within the event's context: she voluntarily and selflessly put herself between the attacker and other victims.

Then we have to determine wether this was a "well-documented historic event". This is self-evident from the article itself and all other references posted on the article.

Now we have the second part:

The historic significance is indicated by persistent coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources that devote significant attention to the individual's role.

Was Soto devoted "significant attention to her role in the event by reliably secondary sources"? Once again, yes, she was, by the references posted above.

So, in conclusion, wether we like it or not, Soto fulfills all criteria to have a stand-alone article.

Regarding precendets, even though Wikipedia is not based on precedents (see WP:PRECEDENT), there is no prima faciae here since there are precedents that this type of articles rightfully belong to Wikipedia. For example, see William David Sanders, victim of the Columbine High School massacre which is pretty much a mirror of this article, and Jamie Bishop, victim of the Virginia Tech massacre, who underwent an AfD who's conclusion was that his involvement in the shooting and coverage by reliable sources qualified him as notable enough for Wikipedia. This is the very same case for Soto.

Wether it is too soon or not is a subjective matter and an opinion. Wikipedia doesn't work based on opinions, feelings, nor emotions, we work based on facts and evidence.

As closing remarks, let me remind everyone that Wikipedia is not a democracy and voting should not substitute discussion. Per WP:CONSENSUS we must state, rather than vote, on why this should be deleted or kept. We have provided facts, evidence, references, reliable sources, and policies on why Soto should and can have a stand alone article. No one else has done the contrary. Keep your feelings, emotions, and personal opinions to yourself. WP:NPOV this.

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 21:41, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - In my opinion the Victoria Leigh Soto deserves an article. Notable? She saved the lives of the majority of her students and had been hailed as a hero by the international media. By saving the lives of children from being murdered she acted above and beyond of what is expected. Had she been a soldier, she would have been awarded the Medal of Honor. Such reasoning as "Subject has no notability beyond this single event", does not even make any sense. Rosa Parks became notable because of a single event. Her single event was used by others to focus on the Civil Rights issues of the United States. The fact that the Connecticut State University announced the creation of the "Victoria Leigh Soto Endowed Memorial Scholarship Fund" in her honor, tells us that she will be remembered for actions, not only by those affected, but by the students who will be the recipients of the scholarship. It is a question of time before a school or avenue be named after her. Tony the Marine (talk) 22:00, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - She is widely acclaimed as one of the few heros of the massacre. Her notability raises from the fact that she rose to the ocassion. Whether or not her classroom children survived is immaterial: it is an undisputed fact that she gave her life for the students that had been entrusted to her. The scholarship fund, etc., set up further add to her notability. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 23:32, 30 December 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]

Keep She is very notable, her actions where heroic in a tragic event, she has been mentioned several times in almost every major news network. JayJay^{What did I do?} 00:12, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. Everything needed can be covered there. We don't even have an article on the shooter... --Conti|✉ 00:33, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the Sandy Hook Shooting article (whatever it's name may be in the future). Her actions were great, she saved kids. Don't take this the wrong way, but we don't need to be a memorial to that. She is notable for only one event. Before Ahnoneemoos continues shooting down anyone who brings up BLP1E, please reference this policy. Excerpt follows:

The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person... When the role played by an individual in the event is less significant, an independent article may not be needed, and a redirect is appropriate.

That policy clearly says that we shouldn't have biographies unless they were a major part of a major event. She didn't have anything to do with the shooting other than being a part of the school it occured at, and doing what she was hired to do (protect her children). That does not work for notability. She did a heroic thing, yes, but that doesn't mean we need to have an article on her. Plus, most of the article right now is just a duplicate of information already in the shooting's article, or information we wouldn't normally have in a biographical article anyway. gwickwire^talk_edits 00:34, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, per WP:BIO1E Soto satisfies all criteria for a standalone article. Here, let's examine it rather than just linking to it:

If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate.

Is the event "highly significant"? Per NBC, the event is the second worst shooting in the history of the United States. That's makes it "highly significant". Was Soto's role "large" within the context of the event? Per the arguments presented above already, yes, Soto had a "large role" within the event's context.

Was her role large? No. She shot nobody. She was just caught in the crosshairs. She had nothing to do with the actual shooting, she was only a victim of it. Sorry. gwickwire^talk_edits 16:12, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, that very same page holds Wikipedia's policy for this specific matter, in case you missed it: WP:VICTIM is a soft redirect to Wikipedia:Notability (people) which hosts WP:BIO1E as well. So, as you can see, we already have a policy for these circumstances! Evenmoreso, the policy is very clear! Once again, per WP:VICTIM, Soto satisfies all criteria for a standalone article.

No she doesn't. She violates WP:BIO1E. Also, I think it might be good if you stop rehashing your arguments with everyone who says redirect. That keeps the page cleaner. Thanks. gwickwire^talk_edits 16:12, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 01:11, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:BIO1E, I think one can argue that every victim was notable in their own way for the shooting and each victim did get coverage in the media, does this mean that this one person should have their own article? No, should she be mentioned on the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting? yes. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:37, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See my comments above. Soto satisfies WP:BIO1E and WP:VICTIM covers her circumstances. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 01:11, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Life, unfortunately is sometimes boiled down to a single act, in life or in death and history is not only about The acts of Presidents. As societies we must recognize this. We have the Congressional Medal of Honor in The US. Sometimes we must recognize the single act of everyday civilians for posterity and do so knowing that there are so many that we cannot possibly recognize, it speaks to who we are. history and culture is not written by congressmen and kings. We are talking about maybe 3k of space in a world where storage is increasingle and exponentially shrinking in cost. Archaeologists thousands of years from now (or more) might only be able to judge our world society based on these few bytes. Their equivalent of a broken urn. Let us record our true heros who unarmed stood up to monsters to save our children. It's cheap, it's effortless to us. Make good decisions esteemed editors..-Justanonymous (talk) 00:39, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the fact is Soto's unselfish sacrifice has spawned two massive petitions on the We the People petition website at the White House's official website as well as Change.org proves that people want to memorialized the death of a person gone too soon. The petitions demand that President Obama a posthumous Medal of Freedom for her sacrifice as well as the renaming of a street in her honor in Newton. If the street is renamed, which it most likely will be, than the subject has substantial notability for an article on this site.--XLR8TION (talk) 00:50, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. BLP1E (even though she is no longer alive) still applies here: her only notable facet of her live was her last act of sacrifice to protect the children; this does not require a separate article to cover one action. This is not to say that if she is give a Congressional Medal or that some law is named after her, that we can consider recreating the article, but that's all CRYSTAL. Further, I would worry this would become a memorial because really that's all the focus would be on at this time. Even past that, any discussion of her role in the events of Sandy Hook would duplicate the discussion already on that article. All that is appropriate for an encyclopedia about her is stated in the Sandy Hook article. --MASEM (t) 00:56, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP1E does not apply to WP:BLPs of the deceased. Excerpt from that page for your convenience:

Firstly, WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of living people.

Regarding your other arguments, you need to understand that Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia and, therefore, is not constrained on what it can host. You need to look at Soto from an WP:NPOV: was this person (whoever she is) significantly covered by reliable sources in an exclusive manner? Forget the event or who she was. Was she covered persistently by reliable sources? If the answer is yes then that's enough merit for inclusion on Wikipedia: regardless of how we feel about it or our personal opinion on what Wikipedia should or should not host.

Now, regarding WP:NOTAMEMORIAL, you need to first understand why that policy was created and, second, what that policy entails. WP:NOTAMEMORIAL was created because people were creating articles of deceased people that didn't put their life in context to merit a standalone article. See for example: WP:RIP; now that's a memorial. It just says who they were, how they died, and that they were Wikipedians. Soto's article, however, is not a memorial: it details how she was involved in an event with historic significance and what was her role in such event. Notice we don't care what the event was nor what what she actually did: we only care about the fact that (1) the event was historically significant and that (2) she had a significant role within the event's context.

I understand your concerns, but the truth is that in this particular case wether we like it or not, Soto satisfies all criteria. This is based on facts and evidence, not on our personal opinion on what Wikipedia should or should not be.

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 01:22, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

However harsh this may sound, she did only one thing in the event - attempt to protect her students and got shot doing it. That is not a significant role in the event. This is well covered in the Sandy Hook article. As her life before being killed was non-notable, only post-death honorariums will increase her notability for an article. You need to read all of BLP1E because it gives several additional points of consideration, and not simply summated by the one phrase you are requoting over and over. --MASEM (t) 01:28, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You need to understand that WP:BLP1E does not apply to this case, period; regardless of what the whole policy states. It just does not apply to Soto because she is dead. Furthermore, we have a specific policy for these matters already: WP:VICTIM. Now, it does not matter wether she did one, two, three, or a million things. What matters is if the event and her role within the event was significantly covered by reliable sources. In Soto's case both criteria are easily fulfilled. Furthermore, and to counterargument your argument, Soto actually did more than one thing: (1) putting herself between the attacker and the victims, (2) being a victim herself, (3) have a fund in her name, and (4) be covered significantly by reliable sources several times. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 01:39, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes BLP1E applies even though she's dead, because she was only notable for one event, and so close to her death, we have no idea of any enduring coverage - the whole intent of BLP1E. Be aware every "policy" you are quoting are actually guidelines, and none of them demand a stand-alone article just because they are met, just that a stand-alone article is possible. --MASEM (t) 02:00, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ahnoneemoos: If you are so concerned that BLP1E doesn't apply because she's dead, see BIO1E which applies to all biographies. She is only notable for one event, therefore, BIO1E applies. Her role was not a large enough role in the event to allow an article. She was not the shooter. The shooter, maybe, should get his own article eventually. She was a victim. She was not a part of the event, she was a victim of the event. There is nothing in WP:VICTIM that says she should have her own article, but there's a lot in WP:VICTIM that says she shouldn't, and excerpts follow: A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person. The victim... [is the subject of] coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources that devote significant attention to the individual's role. No source I have seen devotes an entire article (not a short stubby article, but an entire normal length for the source article) to her actions. Sorry. gwickwire^talk_edits 20:02, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I believe that the expression used by the nominator "Her life will never be discussed outside of it" is POV and should not be included. Soto will always be remembered for her brave actions, especially every year when the Connecticut State University awards the "Victoria Leigh Soto Endowed Memorial Scholarship Fund" to its deserving students. The most ridiculous statement that I have read so far here is "She didn't have anything to do with the shooting other than being a part of the school it occurred at, and doing what she was hired to do (protect her children)." First of all, she sacrificed her live and saved many children by standing between them and the shooter. Second of all, she was hired to teach and was not required to give her life for others. Had she been a soldier she would have been awarded the Medal of Honor for her sacrifice. Why not then delete or redirect every article written about those who were awarded the Medal of Honor? After all with the reasoning here we can assume that theirs was an act of a single event and that they will be forgotten? Antonio Martin (talk) 01:03, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This is where we have to learn that we have to write the encyclopedia from a compassionate-less POV (hence NOT#MEMORIAL). Yes, her actions were brave and tragic that she lost her life. But from an encyclopedia, she was just a one figure among several involved with the event. If she were to receive a honorarium due to her actions akin to the Medal of Honor, then there may be something more to talk about. But that's CRYSTAL that that's going to happen. --MASEM (t) 01:11, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Is it too soon a choice? Ahnoneemoos takes a reasoned, well thought out, and compelling stance on keeping the article and I commend this person for it, but can't we put some "distance" between the event and making declarations about what constitutes "historical significance"? The world is still reacting to the "raw shock" of the event and we're seemingly rushing to attribute status to someone who is famous for last moments of her life. Please don't my word for this, search for articles on victims of 911 and see what turns up.--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 01:18, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback! We actually have an essay on that very same subject; check out WP:TOOSOON. Fortunately, it's just an essay, not a policy. In Soto's case we do have a policy that cover her circumstances: WP:VICTIM. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 01:30, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, fair enough.--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 01:43, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. For the moment. Also, pending further developments including Medal of Freedom, for the moment house this article's content as appropriate compared to other heroes'/victims' mentions in the main Sandy Hook article. As an aside, if every hero of Sandy Hook should get an article, then where is the article for the principal and the school psychologist who rushed the shooter and also paid with their lives? Shearonink (talk) 01:25, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Per my post above, multiple independent reliable sources about Dawn Hochsprung:

Sandy Hook Principal: Mother, Educator, Leader, Hero (Huffington Post/Newtown Patch), Colleagues Remember Sandy Hook Principal (CBS News), Hundreds pay respects to Sandy Hook Principal Dawn Hochsprung (Washington Post), Principal Dawn Hochsprung a ’5-foot-2-inch Raging Bull’ Lifesaver (ABC News), Dawn Hochsprung: Sandy Hook Elementary’s Heroic Principal (Daily Beast), Slain Connecticut principal remembered as energetic, positive, passionate (CNN).

Per my Comment elsewhere on this page, I see nothing wrong with possibly redirecting Soto to a 'Heroes' section of the main article which could then include all the adults who sacrificed themselves for those children. This is covered by multiple reliable sources: Hamill: Sandy Hook’s heroes give us hope for ’13 (NY Daily News), School psychologist died trying to protect others (USA Today story about Mary Sherlach). Shearonink (talk) 18:15, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

redirect extremely noble and heroic person, but even though BLP1E does not apply to the deceased, this article will always be a pseudobiography, and does not need to be stand aloneGaijin42 (talk) 03:30, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Although her actions are memorable, she doesn't meet GNG by herself. Also, we have this BLP1E issue... — ΛΧΣ²¹ 03:55, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or delete. Classic WP:1E. Toddst1 (talk) 06:06, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per everyone else.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:34, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Clear redirect case where the person is only notable for one event -- sadly in this case a tragedy -- but unless more emerges and she has a bigger effect such as Rachel Scott from the Columbine shooting where a movement was formed because of her writing. Mkdw ^talk 07:00, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect only notable for one event. Can be restored if she has a long term cutural impact. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 07:43, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Twenty-eight students and teachers were "victims" at their school, but, unlike most of the others, Victoria became an "active participant" when she stood, confronted the killer and tried to give those under her care an extra chance, a fact that has merited ample coverage by independent media. In doing so, she became a role model. Teachers are not required to die for their students, unlike soldiers who are expected to die for their fellow soldiers. Yet soldiers who go the extra mile are recognized with medals and special recognition in Wikipedia, while some would deny a teacher who stood to take a bullet for her kids similar recognition in Wikipedia, not as a prize but as a remarkable method to allow others to learn from her heroism. I agree that the rules allow Victoria to be covered by a "stand-alone" article and Wikipedia will better serve its users for it. Pr4ever (talk) 11:58, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep as a stand-alone article. Victoria Leigh Soto was not merely a "victim." She engaged in direct, meaningful action which cost her life and saved many others. As such, she is much closer to the textbook definition of hero or heroine, than mere victim. A teacher who takes a bullet for her students, and actually saves several of them, is a great deal more than just a victim. In addition, even if Victoria Leigh Soto were only a "victim" (which she is not), this article would stand on its own per WP:NOTABILITY, WP:NOTPAPER, WP:BIO, and WP:VICTIM—these cases have been discussed extensively on Wikipedia several times and in depth. Victoria Leigh Soto, as per WP:VICTIM, played a large role in a historical event that was well-documented. In addition, as per WP:VICTIM, her role has been covered in an exclusive manner by a reliable source in the context of a single event.

Finally, we have clear precedents such as William David Sanders, Jamie Bishop, and Jamie Bishop's AfD. The Sanders and the Bishop articles, have both been in Wikipedia for over five years. To keep them and not Victoria Leigh Soto, would be a glaring double standard.

Nelsondenis248 (talk) 13:41, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:About the Sanders article: It was not written until 2007, has no inline citations and has been tagged for improvement since 2009. About the Bishop article, it was not written until November 2007, several months after the sad events at VA Tech. I see nothing wrong with possibly redirecting Soto to a 'Heroes' section of the main article. Shearonink (talk) 18:15, 31 December 2012(UTC)

Thank you for your chronology. Since you're so intent on splitting hairs, in seven hours we will enter 2013, and both the Sanders and Bishop articles will technically be six, not five years old. These articles, and their long existance in Wikipedia, provide ample precedent for Victoria Leigh Soto.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nelsondenis248 (talk • contribs) 21:53, 31 December 2012(UTC)

Comment: My point was that the articles were not written immediately following the events that precipitated them, that time passed before they went live into Wikipedia mainspace. Shearonink (talk) 22:30, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article can be reevaluated after a period of time, if it appears that this person really does not deserve an article. At this time she appears to. I am sympathetic to the BLP1E argument but I don't think it applies here. I also feel that the sourcing of the article itself can be improved. Coretheapple (talk) 20:35, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems to be ample precedent for this article, and she received significant coverage. Coretheapple (talk) 14:52, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to main article on the shooting. Let me note that I expect this MAY change over the upcoming years/months. The individual was non-notable before the event. She was forced into action and showed wonderful leadership in the middle of a tragedy, but not sufficient enough to have a separate article. In similar situations (i.e. Columbine), "leaders" were also not notabel enough for individual article until later when books, movies, TV movies, etc were written about them. I would not be surprised if this happens in this case too - and at that point, she may indeed be notable enough for an individual article. Otherwise, 1-event itself is not significant enough to provide the required level of notability. Note: we in the press HAVE emphasized her actions: having a hero sells more newspapers, but that does not make her article-worthy yet. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:38, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic clearly meets WP:GNG. Arguments based on WP:BLP1E can be safely ignored. If editors don't like the article, nobody's forcing them to work on it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:14, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BIO1E (which applies regardless of BLP status). —David Eppstein (talk) 00:43, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BIO1E. In my opinion, this also fails WP:VICTIM which typically applies to coverage that centers around the victim (e.g. Matthew Shepard). Location (talk) 01:00, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong forum There is no deletion being discussed here, either of the edit history or of the redirect. The correct place for the discussion is on the talk page of the article. Note that a redirect-without-deleting-the-edit-history outcome from AfD is not binding on the community. Likewise, a keep outcome does not prevent a later decision to redirect. Unscintillating (talk) 21:32, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many many AfD's result in redirect, and that redirect would be precedent for any other AfD that comes about when someone recreates an article over the redirect with the same content. Regardless, deletion is a valid option in this option so it's the right forum. gwickwire^talk_edits 21:38, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your redirect assertion, I refer you to King of Hearts, who reopened this discussion. It seems that admins don't like to get involved in such disputes since they are content disputes, not deletion issues. Unscintillating (talk) 23:00, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's just flat-out wrong. --Conti|✉ 23:43, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement seems to be responding to my post. Please be more specific. Unscintillating (talk) 04:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AfD's can end up with a decision other than "delete" or "keep", and "redirect" is one of them. And that is as binding to the community as any other AfD outcome. --Conti|✉ 12:31, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Rational outside observers are likely to regard this as idiocy, with good reason. We don't need to go out of our way to embarass Wikipedia; that's done enough in the ordinary course of events here. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:27, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hear hear. A voice of reason in this wilderness. I fully agree. Nelsondenis248 (talk) 06:58, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Should we have an article on the shooter, too? --Conti|✉ 12:31, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect. Only notable as a victim of a school shooting. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 17:25, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, she has gained prominence as a heroine of the shooting. If she was just a victim I would favor deletion. Coretheapple (talk) 20:37, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep People who are really significant in a major event acquire notability, because people write about them at length. WP:BIO1E explicates this dilemma fairly well. To quote, "if the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." The shooting is a major event, not some 15 minutes' wonder on Twitter, and the individual in question has received extremely high levels of coverage. We've well passed the threshold. Ray^Talk 20:45, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:GNG and WP:BLP1E (recently deceased). She was clearly a wonderful and brave person, but no, sorry - Alison ^❤ 20:52, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If Dyalan Kyebold and Eric Harris have a wikipedia page for their notoriety in a school shooting, I think Victoria should have one too, for example Rachel Scott and other victims of Columbine have wikipedia pages - User:Cabelo545 (talk) 21:07, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. --MASEM (t) 15:09, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Question. To be fair and stay neutral, wouldn't WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS also apply to "Redirect" comments above such as this one above "Redirect to Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. Everything needed can be covered there. We don't even have an article on the shooter... --Conti|✉ 00:33, 31 December 2012 (UTC)" ???
    - Sure, adding "we don't even have an article on the shooter" is OSE as well. However, the first part of that argument about the reason to redirect is appropriate. --MASEM (t)
Comment. How reliable are these hero claims? The only living witnesses are 10-year-old children who were inside a cupboard and no doubt deeply traumatised by the incident. Yes, she probably did attempt to hide the children, but who can say that her actions were "heroic" rather than what any sensible adult would do in the situation? WWGB (talk) 01:05, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand our policies, what matters is that we reflect what is in reliable sources, such as this article in the NY Daily News today: [4]. I understand your point, but I think that the large amount of publicity that she has received tips the balance in favor of an article. Coretheapple (talk) 15:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What determines notability is not a brief burst of coverage but enduring coverage. So yes, nearly every victim in the shooting had a burst of news coverage, but there's almost no enduring coverage of these persons any more outside their deaths within the shooting. This is not rule out that a potential article on any victim including Soto may be possible in the future if, say, a memorial, a law given their name (ala the Amber Alerts), etc., but right now, that doesn't exist and it would be CRYSTAL to assume these will occur. --MASEM (t) 02:42, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect unless there's long-term cultural impact from her actions within the larger event. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:55, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What if this comes out no consensus[edit]

It should default to redirect to my mind. (I did !vote for redirect.) Anyone who gets their name in the paper will get keep votes in a discussion like this. This is essentially an offshoot from a main article and requires consensus for creation, not the other way around. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 02:07, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus for creation is not required per WP:BEBOLD and WP:NOTPAPER. If this comes to no consensus it would mean that the people participating on this AfD could not reach a consensus on how to proceed with the article and, therefore, should be left as is since no particular action was preferred on this discussion to change its current status. You can, however, request an WP:DRV or nominate it for AfD once again a few months down the road. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 03:54, 6 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) 05:49, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Nightmare Before Christmas: Oogie's Revenge[edit]

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

While I'm sure the game is fun this seems purely promotional as per WP:SPIP. I did a quick search of google to see if any newspapers have ran anything on this game and I did not see any. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 19:54, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep of this and The Nightmare Before Christmas: The Pumpkin King - WP:BEFORE applies here. Several excellent references in the reliable sources search. AfD is not cleanup. --Teancum (talk) 15:55, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep For video games, a good check is to go to the Metacritic/MobyGames entry and see what is listed for rankings. For the mobygames entry, it lists reviews in GameZone, TeamXbox, JeuxVideo, Yahoo! Games, GameSpot, IGN, GameSpy, Game Informer, Eurogamer, and 1UP. Metacritic shows 34 reviews including Play Magazine, Siliconera, PSM Magazine, Famitsu magazine, Official US PlayStation Magazine, GamersHell, GamingNexus, PALGN, G4TV, Sydney Morning Herald, and Computer and Video Games. This article clearly meets the GNG. --Odie5533 (talk) 17:16, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also like to note that WP:SPIP probably doesn't apply here. I highly doubt the editors of the article were intentionally adding promotional material to generate sales for the game. Their addition of minutia is more likely the will of fandom (WP:FANCRUFT). --Odie5533 (talk) 17:21, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So any videogame is an automatic keep? I only ask because it is likely that most games will recieve routine coverage. I don't see anything notable about this one other than Capcom made it. But was it a hit or a cult classic? Also just saying WP:BEFORE and not elaborating is not helpful. Especially since I actually went to Google and nothing came up except for video game websites. I also don't believe PSM has a record for fact checking and accuracy. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 19:58, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Reviews constitute critical commentary, not routine coverage. Routine coverage would be a press release, or a churned press release. For me, if a game receives a few (3+) full page reviews in any medium, it is almost always sufficient to meet the WP:GNG. I'd argue against it, but I've seen games pass AfD with far, far less than this. Sometimes only a few few-sentence reviews buys a video game a keep. --Odie5533 (talk) 00:50, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. The bar seems amazingly low for videogames. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 01:18, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In theory it's supposed to be a Wikipedia-wide threshold. WP:GNG requires "significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources". "Multiple" could be as few as 2. And WP:N is only a guideline. The true minimum threshold is set by WP:V, believe it or not. But you certainly won't see me arguing to ignore WP:N. It's basically a de facto policy and rightly so in my view. -Thibbs (talk) 03:01, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Films, TV episodes, albums and singles all have a similar minimal requirements (within the GNG), so its nothing special for video games. Note this doesn't extent to all VG's, as many smaller titles go unnoticed. Further, a possible option in the future if there's no development information and just some reception is to create a "List of The Nigthmare Before Christmas video games" to summarize them all. But that's not a matter at AFD to worry about. --MASEM (t) 15:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — With the plethora of reviews of the game in reliable outlets, including Times Online, Eurogamer, IGN, 1UP, Game Informer, GameSpy, Famitsu, Play Magazine, and others, it appears to satisfy the general criteria for notability (GNG). Mephistophelian (contact) 06:24, 2 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Keep - multiple reliable sources can be found. I've added one as well as removed the WP:FANCRUFT. Satellizer ^{talk contribs} 09:19, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as passing WP:GNG with multiple WP:VG/RS. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 12:07, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 4 January 2013( (UTC)

Keep per all the coverage presented above. (It seems the nominator just isn't familiar with what is considered a reliable source for video games. For what it's worth, it may seem like the bar is set low, but it really isn't - the industry is currently going through some changes that is re-emphasizing little projects and small dev teams, and it is keeping out a lot of these little non-notable iOS and web browser type games.) Sergecross73 msg me 13:35, 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.

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 nomination withdrawn. C 679 07:27, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Football at the 2010 Asian Games – Women's team squads[edit]

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

Original rationale for deletion was: "Not useful, impossible to verify." PROD contested as an invalid reason, however this list is permanently incomplete due to the information being impossible to verify, thus failing WP:V and should be deleted. C 679 19:49, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C 679 19:52, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: You state this stuff is "impossible to verify" but did you try? In approximately 5 minutes I found this or this. Or this. 176.253.45.152 (talk) 04:48, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep needs completing and improving, I can't see why it should be deleted on varified! I am sure there should be plenty of sources around. Govvy (talk) 14:26, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - sources have now been found, are these enough to ease the nominator's concerns? Giant Snowman 09:47, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Three of six, would be more content with six of six. North Korea anybody? C 679 15:03, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thereyar. This nom REEKS of WP:IDONTKNOWIT. 90.216.162.70 (talk) 22:14, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Needs to be completed with references not deleted. I'd rather have half the information, referenced, then to delete the article completely. TonyStarks (talk) 00:10, 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:08, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Athenry F.C.[edit]

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

PROD contested by IP who stated "taken out deletion notification this page relates to a very notable soccer club in ireland" - however there is no evidence of any notability and they appear to be a non-notable local team. Giant Snowman 18:03, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:05, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Please refer the article. I have added the references to the article. While searching for the article I understood the notability of the article. It is a famous one and the article is needed. Please support the article and keep it.Mydreamsparrow (talk) 19:22, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You need to evidence any claim to notability through reliable sources - you have not yet done so. Giant Snowman 23:34, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Club has not played at the national level of football in Ireland, a European competition, or a domestic cup and they fail WP:GNG. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 10:34, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep athenry soccer club is a very notable club in the west of ireland with 3 premier titles and a host of juvenile titles and awards, also winning the fai junior club award, it has also provided numerous players to league of ireland clubs most notably galway united — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.76.14.252 (talk) 02:00, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - has not played at a notable level, and fails WP:FOOTYN. Also fails WP:GNG, as the club hasn't received significant coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 13:38, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:FOOTYN. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:38, 6 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. postdlf (talk) 05:48, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jerrybomb[edit]

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

Non-notable neologism. PROD was removed by article creator. Slon02 (talk) 17:55, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced how-to make drink article. No context. Nothing on Google. MathewTownsend (talk) 18:05, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, how-to concept. There appears to be no notability signals, while the article may also be a neologism. The only available sources regarding the source are self-published sources, which are not deemed reliable typically. TBr and ley ^{(what's up)} 19:34, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Majoreditor (talk) 20:11, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 04:36, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. JayJay^{What did I do?} 16:36, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 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 speedy deleted WP:CSD#G12 by Jimfbleak. KTC (talk) 18:53, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ComputerCraft[edit]

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

Non-notable essay. TBr and ley ^{(what's up)} 17:55, 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 no consensus. Opinions are divided about whether the subject meets the notability requirements, which is a matter of editorial judgment, so the result is "when in doubt, don't delete" (WP:DGFA). Because few opinions discussed the sources in detail (the way RayAYang did, for instance), it is possible that a second and more thorough discussion will reach consensus. Sandstein 01:40, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Riin Tamm[edit]

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

Following discussion on the article's talkpage, a number of editors have expressed concern as to whether this individual meets notability guidelines. NickCT (talk) 17:33, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - see article's talkpage. David (talk) 17:41, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A close case, but this seems to meet WP:PROF and WP:BIO. There is coverage of the subject in multiple independent sources. I think we should be careful of systematic bias in dismissing some of these Estonian sources. Also, I suspect this is attracting more scrutiny than it deserves because it was featured on WP:DYK. IronGargoyle (talk) 08:27, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As far as I can see, this fails WP:PROF by a long stretch (and won't come close to meeting it for years to come, either). Can you perhaps tell us why you think this meets PROF? --Randykitty (talk) 09:35, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - The board membership and chairship in national Estonian scientific organizations. My comments directed towards systematic bias largely stem from these dismissals. We give examples of other nation-level scientific organizations (e.g., the Royal Society) on point 3 of WP:PROF. Beyond that though, the article still passes WP:BIO in my opinion. IronGargoyle (talk) 15:47, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I really don't think that you can compare board membership in the Estonian Society of Human Genetics (with, according to its article, 87 members) or of the Estonian Association of Gerontology and Geriatrics (154 members) with being an elected fellow of the Royal Society, which is a very selective honor (and please also note that PROF#3 does not apply to board members of the Royal Society). That has nothing to do with a systematic bias against anything Estonian. It's just the reality that an 87 or 154-member society is not a huge body and with 6 board members (who usually rotate every few years), soon every member of the society would be notable under your interpretation of PROF. --Randykitty (talk) 16:58, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm with Randy here. Though admittedly this isn't a clear cut case, and I think it's good to consider Gargoyle's point about systemic bias. I'm not really sure comparisons drawn between the Royal Society and any Estonian scientific organization are really valid. NickCT (talk) 20:33, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - What about WP:BIO and WP:GNG? The Postimees and Ohtuleht articles seem to be non-trivial coverage. IronGargoyle (talk) 23:15, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Fair enough. But those are two articles in what are basically minor local sources. Still strikes me as borderline notability at best. NickCT (talk) 23:40, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 23 citations in total means she is not notable as a scientist. She can still be notable as a journalist due to her pop-sci publications, but this has not been demonstrated in the article so far. I would be willing to reconsider if her notability as a journalist has been demonstrated.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:59, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think anyone is arguing to keep based on how many publications she has. What about WP:GNG? At least two of those references seem to be non-trivial coverage from independent sources. IronGargoyle (talk) 23:18, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She does not pass the specialized WP:PROF "inherent notability" guideline for academics, but the citations show she clearly passes the WP:GNG test. She is a notable personality in the sense that Estonian TV and radio shows, newspapers and magazines ask her to pontificate about genetics and aging, and she organizes various national conferences and professional groups. A notable science pundit in Estonia. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:11, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Not trying to bust on Estonia or anything, but we are talking about a country of 1 million with a $15K GDP/cap. Saying "A notable science pundit in Estonia." is like saying, "A notable science pundit in Wyoming" (i.e. not that notable). NickCT (talk) 10:01, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Not trying to bust on Estonia"... sounds like "with all due respect" — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:01, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - According to this source the Estonian GDP per capita is 67% of the EU-27 average, at €11,918. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:45, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Crisco 1492 - How does one say "I don't this country is very notable" is a nice and respectful manner? NickCT (talk) 23:36, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - The fact that you want to say that indicates that your argument is fallacious. Notability is not fame nor importance. It has no relationship to size of the country of origin. Uncle G (talk) 08:37, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Ugh oh.... Folks are bandying about big words like "fallacious"...... Look, a couple of people have basically made the argument that this subject seems important on the national level in Estonia. The obvious and completely non-fallacious response to that is; if Estonia isn't super notable, than the subject's notability on the national stage doesn't by itself confer notability. I absolutely agree that notability isn't fame or importance. But notability also isn't local. Just because someone is the premier scientist in Estonia or Andorra or Monaco or wherehave you, doesn't mean they're notable on the world stage. NickCT (talk) 14:51, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        You "don't this country is very notable" [sic]? Well, feel free to AFD everything related to Estonia. A singer or artist or science populariser notable at the national level should very much be notable, no matter what country he or she comes from. To say otherwise is to be decidedly Anglocentric (considering the number of D-level local celebrities from the US and Britain which have articles) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:56, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        I think we may be confusing notability w/ importance. Notability is international, universal and without regard for locality. Imagine I'm an artist from Andorra. I may be the best artist in Andorra (i.e. I may be important on a national level). That still doesn't really mean I'm "notable". Per Uncle G's comment; what really matters is the "depths and provenances of sources". "Notable at a national level" doesn't really make sense, because if someone is notable, they are notable at all levels. NickCT (talk) 15:22, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        "International" does not show up in WP:N, at all. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:34, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Also, if you are the best artist in Andorra yet have no coverage (even in national publications), how can we say you're the best? Tamm has coverage at the national level, which is enough to satisfy the guideline. She may get more later, but the criteria is already satisfied. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:36, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        I think your missing the point. Notability is a state a being. Like being dead. If you're dead, you're dead no matter what country you're in. Notability means you've been covered in RSs. If you're covered in RSs, you're covered in RSs no matter which country you're in. Again, the question we ought to be asking is about the "depths and provenances of sources". NickCT (talk) 15:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        It is, and she is in such a state under our current guidelines which do not require RSes to be international. Now, you were the one who brought in the nationality aspect (small nation = [next to] no notability). Remember? "Saying 'A notable science pundit in Estonia.' is like saying, 'A notable science pundit in Wyoming' (i.e. not that notable)." — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Actually, if you read back, you'll note that Aymatth2 used the "notable in Estonia" comment to justify his "keep" rationale. Additionally, if you read through a number of comments below, you'll note a number of them use the "in Estonia this person is important" logic. Plus, you repeated the idea of "notability at a national level" being of some importance in determining whether we should keep/delete. I guess you no longer feel "at a national level" is relevant? re "do not require RSes to be international" - Right, but there is nothing in WP:RS about using the national origin of a source to determine if it's reliable. In other words, when judging whether something is a reliable source, you're not meant to consider whether it's Andorran, Estonian, etc... I guess by "international" what I meant is "not linked to any particular nationality" (perhaps that was unclear). NickCT (talk) 16:51, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the newspaper coverage is quite substantial indication passing the WP:GNG requirement. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:39, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep that she is notable in her country is enough for Wikipedia. We have never required subjects to be world famous, otherwise articles like Chrisye would have been deleted. National relevance is certainly enough — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:01, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep she certainly passes WP:GNG. Yazan (talk) 14:13, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As discussed above, there is no way this meets WP:PROF. Any notability therefore will have to come from WP:GNG. I agree with NickCT. Where is the limit? Countries come in many sizes and being well-known in one country is not the same as being well-known in another (or even in part of another country). Would the president of a learned society be notable if that society were, say, the "Nauru Association of Human Geneticists" (assuming there is even one over there)? Or if somebody is regularly consulted by the Andorran national newspaper Diari d'Andorra? Estonia is a very small country. Some other small countries like Belgium and the Netherlands have single cities with about as many inhabitants. Even within Estonia, Tamm's notability may be limited. Postimees has only a circulation of 61,000 to 72000, Õhtuleht less than 250,000. In all, I don't think this meets WP:GNG either. --Randykitty (talk) 15:20, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You've succumbed to the same fame and importance fallacy as NickCT above. Notability is not fame nor importance. Try addressing the depths and provenances of sources, instead. Uncle G (talk) 08:37, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I rarely comment at AfDs, but noticed this article when it appeared on the main page and when I was leaving a note on the talk page of one of the editors of this article (possibly the DYK nominator). I have looked at some of the other articles worked on and/or created by the creator of this article, and is it possible that what we are seeing here in some cases is the creation of articles to go with photos? In some cases, that is fine, but my view (admittedly rather to the extreme end of the BLP debate) is that to really have a sense of what someone's career has achieved, you have to wait until the end of it, or when obituaries are published. While people are still doing what may make them notable, we should really only have a short stub (literally only a paragraph or two), which can then be expanded later as various levels are reached (such as attaining the awards and honours conferred by their peers as they progress in their career) and proper biographical sources are published. These include career retrospectives and articles to mark retirements and so on. For the vast majority of people, article are created far too early. They may continue to accrue notability and coverage, but there is really no need to create articles too early. It just ends up with discussions like this. Compare with William Francis (civil engineer), an article I recently reviewed for DYK. At the end of the day, we can't predict whether someone will continue to receive coverage or not, so we may end up with an article that never really goes anywhere (there are literally thousands of examples out there). Better to work on established people towards the end of their careers, rather than those at the start of their careers. Carcharoth (talk) 19:44, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- @Carcharoth - re "the creation of articles to go with photos?" - I suspected that, but am not sure. re "career has achieved, you have to wait until the end of it," - An interesting idea. But I think it would require some serious policy revision to enact that line of thinking. This AfD is probably not the best forum for serious policy debates. NickCT (talk) 23:48, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. It passes requirements and is well sourced.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 21:00, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sometimes the outlook at AfD can be a bit short-term. It is entirely possible for an article to pass requirements and be well sourced, but still have an uncertain future. There is the very real possibility that Wikipedia will, if it has not already, end up with too many BLPs or stubby biographical articles to feasibly maintain. The line I try and draw is whether the birth and/or death year is known with any certainty. What you don't want to end up with is articles that are carefully maintained while someone is (presumably) alive, and then as they get older and fade from the public eye, all interest is lost in them, and their passing is not mentioned anywhere, and you end up with articles in a kind of limbo. An extreme example is Jack James (fencer). There are literally thousands of sportsperson bios like that. Where do you start with doing anything with that article? A less extreme example is Robert D. Parks, nominated for deletion in 2006. The changes since then in six years are here. Again, where do you start with an article like that? Getting a birth year would be a good start, but many people still engaged in their career don't have the right sort of retrospective material published about them that tell us when they were born. It is the difference between CV-style information that people publish in their lifetimes (slanted towards promoting themselves to others and prospective employers), and proper, encyclopaedic, biographical overviews of someone's life. Apologies for going off-topic for this discussion, but it is something that should be discussed at WT:BIO or WT:GNG or somewhere. Those examples were not random, by the way, as the names are common so finding the information requested is particularly tricky. Carcharoth (talk) 21:41, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes all requirements and has a number of different sources. Not even sure why this is being discussed: is she suffering from some form of cultural censorship for not being from the Western powers? - SchroCat (talk) 21:25, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh that's right..... The evil Westerners are trying to keep the Esotnians down. That's what this AfD is about. NickCT (talk) 23:37, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, it's about the provenances and depths of sources, not Estonia at all. Notability is not fame nor importance. Try addressing the depths and provenances of sources, lest people conclude that the reason that you keep trying to make this a discussion of how unimportant Estonia is to you is that the argument about the provenances and depths of sources is unassailable. If you want to show otherwise, actually address the issue, instead of repeatedly distracting from it. Uncle G (talk) 08:37, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - re "how unimportant Estonia is" - Listen, if it sounds like I was making that point, I was only making it in response to a bunch of folks arguing that being important within the context of Estonia confers notability. "the depths and provenances of sources" are absolutely the only thing we should be considering, and I just don't think they support this subject's inclusion. NickCT (talk) 15:16, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - a very borderline case in my opinion, but leaning towards Keep. Deb (talk) 12:11, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I agree with Deb; it's borderline. Therefore I lean towards "keep". --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 16:25, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable in Estonia and therefore meets WP:GNG. It's not necessary for this individual to be known internationally for her to meet the notability requirements. Prioryman (talk) 20:15, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This discussion has become much longer that the discussed article itself :-D Personally, I don’t think my Polish translation troubles someone. Happy New Year to everybody! --SU ltd. (talk) 10:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC) …and my Kirghiz stub as well. Saloom aleykum! --Kylike (talk) 19:22, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete
- Fails the citation requirements of WP:PROF#C1, which is not surprising considering that we're talking about a graduate student.
- Fails the requirements of WP:PROF#C3, or "The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a Fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor (e.g., the IEEE)."
  - The Estonian Association of Gerontology and Geriatrics is a very nice organization, but can hardly be classified as a major learned society. To quote the English version of its website, [5] "EGGA is a voluntary union of people wishing to improve the life and health of the elderly. The association was created in 1997. As of January 1st 2012 EGGA has 125 members. EGGA members include people working with the elderly (medical doctors, nurses, social workers, rehabilitation specialists, nurse helpers, care workers, managers of care institutions), representatives of pensioners, those taking care of sick family members, and the elderly themselves." Board membership in what is essentially a club of people with a common interest (not dissimilar to a local Meetup) is not grounds for notability under WP:PROF#C3.

- - Membership on the board of the Estonian Society of Human Genetics seems to be essentially an administrative responsibility, and not a distinction of scientific merit - that role seems to be fulfilled by its Lifetime Achievement Award, which the subject has not won, which fortunately lets us dodge the debate about whether a learned society in a country of 1.2 million people, with 118 members, should be considered on the same plane with storied bodies like the Royal Society, the US National Academy of Science or the Academie Francaise.
- We now pass to discussion of WP:PROF#C7 and the basic criterion of WP:BIO, or the coverage the subject has achieved outside the field of pure academic accomplishment. What we have here appear to be, according to Google Translate, a profile in the Tartu Post Times, an essay by the subject, and several articles on genetics where the subject is quoted briefly, mainly to the effect that less than 2% of the human genome has been studied. The essay by the subject can be disregarded as a primary source.
  - Brief quotations concerning general knowledge by a student are not unusual in local newspapers, and do not constitute significant coverage or impact on science (to quote the guideline, "A small number of quotations, especially in local news media, is not unexpected for academics and so falls short of this mark.")
  - The profile in the Tartu Post Times [6] is different. It is essentially a narration of an interview of the subject, since out of 26 scientists chosen to popularize science to schoolchildren in Estonia by the Archimedes Foundation (a foundation chartered by the Estonian government to promote the science of the country [7]), she is one of 4 females and only one of 2 doctoral students chosen. Out of all the sources given, it comes closest to establishing grounds for notability. Judgment calls here are going to be subjective, but in my opinion, human interest profiles of promising young scientists, particularly attractive ones, are not uncommon in local newspapers, and do not constitute the sort of significant coverage that truly attends a person of note - particularly since we have only this one profile.

To conclude, what I think we have here is a promising young graduate student with an affinity for PR and community outreach, but has not yet passed the bar for notability, either as a scientist or for other accomplishments. Ray^Talk 03:04, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with a lot of what RayAYang says here. It is clear that notability (in the sense of independent reliable sources writing about someone) is something that accrues throughout a person's life at various times. As I said above, the true litmus test for me is what is said about a person retrospectively, either towards the end of their career, after their career, or after they have died. What is said about a person at the time is not as useful, as it can lack the objectivity provided by distance in time. It is clear that as a person accrues notability, they cross some line that is hard to identify precisely. My view is that it is better to wait and err on the side of caution before creating articles like this. Also in part because it must be excruciating to be the subject of an article like this and have it debated like this. One final point: for science, one clear measure of notability that can in part address the issue for smaller countries where it may not be clear how prestigious the national organisation is, is whether someone has been elected to membership of a foreign learned or academic society, rather than just ones within the country. No comment on where Estonian science organisations fall on this spectrum. Carcharoth (talk) 03:05, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

comment The picture of the subject used in this article File:Geneetik Riin Tamm.jpg is now a featured picture on commons and so had appeared on many WP wikis. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ray summed whole notability part really well. Sort of borderline case but I don't really like borderline BLPs. As we are dealing with living person its better to be sure. Possibly can be recreated in future if subject receives some more coverage.--Staberinde (talk) 10:05, 5 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 redirect to Furry fandom. Whether to merge anything from the history is an editorial issue. Sandstein 01:30, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kemono[edit]

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

This article has been an issue for over 5 years. It has never been properly referenced, versions on on foreign language pages (aside from ja.wiki) are based on an ancient version of this page, and in Japan this term is equated with the word "furry". I turned the page into a redirect to furry fandom in July, but an anon came along a month later saying "this article is different".

There is nothing in this article that is salvagable. When I turned it into a redirect ages ago, the only thing I had to do on furry fandom was change a section directing people to the page into a sentence that basically read "kemono is Japanese for furry". However I do not even think we need to make that mention.

To sum things up, "kemono" is a neologism that has only presence in an English speaking community to refer to what are simply their Japanese counterparts. There are no publications that even remotely touch upon this aspect of the Internet subculture (and certainly not one that differentiates between Western and Eastern art and artists). This page has existed as original research and a bunch of links to things that people want to term this with for ages and it's time Wikipedia be rid of it. —Ryulong (琉竜) 17:01, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No contest, for now. - Gilgamesh (talk) 02:10, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with the appropriate furry art article, including any information about the art genre's centuries of history in Japan. - Gilgamesh (talk) 06:03, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  Dude that hasn't been on the page in ages. There's nothing worth saving on this page anymore.—Ryulong (琉竜) 06:48, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Redirect to furry fandom--TKK ^{bark !} 19:32, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Did someone check here (Google Japan Link) for sources? I would love to search but cant read Japanese. In addition a past version of the article (Past version) shows external links to possible notable artists (One being Osamu Tezuka) Link - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Kemono" is a common word in Japanese just like "furry" would be if you googled that. The search results simply show links to a lot of Japanese furry artwork and Japanese furry community sites, as well as uses in Japanese for the original meaning of "animal".—Ryulong (琉竜) 09:05, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Furry fandom. Neologism that is not itself the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. However, the term is a possible search term, so a redirect won't hurt. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to furry fandom as per the comments above. This article is just a bundle of unsourced original research. --DAJF (talk) 01:26, 7 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. KTC (talk) 01:03, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lena Haloway[edit]

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

Character from a slightly notable series of novels that don't even have their own article. This belongs on a fansite, or if an article is created for Delirium Trilogy, in an extremely condensed format on there. PROD was removed, hence taking to discussion. Mabalu (talk) 16:45, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Mabalu (talk) 16:49, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:GNG in that no significant coverage in independent reliable secondary sources can be found.Folken de Fanel (talk) 02:44, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a character from a novel series that doesn't even have its own article? Unless an article is created for the series then there's no justification in keeping one especially since she hasn't been the subject of reliable coverage. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:57, 6 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. postdlf (talk) 05:48, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Syrian Civil War slogans[edit]

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

POV fork of Timeline of the Syrian civil war (September–December 2012)‎ Darkness Shines (talk) 15:50, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Page has again been moved back to List of Syrian Civil War propaganda slogans in breach of NPOV Darkness Shines (talk) 15:59, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ALready fully dealt with on article's talkpage. Also, these slogans are no longer mentioned on the timeline article(s) - now an agreed stance. Ergo: can't be a 'fork'.MalesAlwaysBest (talk) 16:02, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was not agreed upon at all to split the article, you did it because you think these are "defaming/bigoted/vilifying/propagandising slogans whose tolerated presence make a joke of WP:NPOV" Which is why you moved the article to it's current non neutral name. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:10, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is about one or two sentences of material here. Why not just merge it into Syrian Civil War? — AjaxSmack 18:26, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well if it is to be merged it should go back to the article it got forked from. But I do not think a redirect titled List of Syrian Civil War propaganda slogans is NPOV per POVTITLE Darkness Shines (talk) 18:33, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Seven quotes don't constitute an article, especially when the are all connected to one article. Trinitresque (talk) 08:18, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability to merit its own article. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 13:55, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:POVFORK; creator has described the slogans as "worthless dishonest anti-Syria slogans". Powers ^T 16:55, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is simply not encyclopedic content. Plain non-notable. My very best wishes (talk) 23:07, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Would be better on WikiQuote. Mkdw ^talk 22:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 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.

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 01:24, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dominica–Kosovo relations[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG. all this is to this relationship is diplomatic recognition, which is already covered in International recognition of Kosovo. there is no trade, no visits by leaders, no migration, no embassies etc. also bilateral relations articles are not inherently notable and being part of a Wikiproject adds no strength to notability. LibStar (talk) 15:46, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. KTC (talk) 18:56, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:21, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's no way that a topic like this is going to be notable in isolation. Nick-D (talk) 22:12, 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 Speedy Delete after multiple recreations (non-admin closure). Vulcan's Forge (talk) 16:16, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ben-Jamin Newham[edit]

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

Non-notable actor. A few bit parts to his credit, but nothing significant yet. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:25, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Already speedied twice today under a different title. The creator has been warned about creating inappropriate pages, including what does and does not constitute a reliable ref. Now speedied a third time. Harry the Dog WOOF 15:28, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"but nothing significant yet."… fuck you!?…He's in a movie with Hugh Jackman and he's done MORE short films than sophie Lowe… she has a wikipedia page… i expect you to request hers deleted aswell then???….

i will create him another page tomorrow and will continue to re-create them until they are left up… he is more than note worthy, and you are no-one to be the judge anyway!

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#G3 KTC (talk) 17:02, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Magpet Air[edit]

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

Looks like a hoax as it fails the Google test. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 15:07, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, I too think it is a hoax, see their "official website". --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 15:16, 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 merge to Antagomir. In part, minus the promotionalism. Sandstein 01:33, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blockmir[edit]

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

Not supported by independent reliable sources. The only sources in the article that specificially discuss blockmirs are a link to the company web site and two patent applications, none of which can be considered reliable. Blockmirs are briefly mentioned in PMID 21241758 ("antagomir (also called anti-miR) or blockmir"). Hence parts of this article could potentially be merged into Antagomir. Boghog (talk) 14:53, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, agree to merge into Antagomir and redirect ... Reo ⁺ 18:36, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Boghog (talk) 10:00, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to antagomir - the current article is simply promotional. -- Scray (talk) 17:54, 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 redirect to The_Expendables_2#Sequel. MBisanz ^talk 02:23, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Expendables 3[edit]

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

Article is about a film that is well before filming, and presents rumor and speculation as fact in terms of casting. Fails WP:NFF. Not even in Preproduction. WP:TOOSOON. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:17, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Obviously fails WP:NFF. Would have preferred to see a speedy redirect though rather than having to wait for the AfD! Not sure how good any of the information is - most of the citations are just links to rumours to stir up publicity for the second film. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:19, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to do a speedy redirect, either way better to make it official IMO so you have something to point to if someone decides to revert war over restoring the content. I assume since it clearly fails in every regard an admin could be asked to close early? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 05:02, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Rob Sinden (talk) 13:25, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Incubate per TOOSOON. StanleyTAnderson (talk) 16:57, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Expendables 2 – Sequel per the notability guidelines for future films. A stand-alone article is warranted if filming begins as planned. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:07, 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. KTC (talk) 00:57, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Boss (2013 film)[edit]

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

New film that has not started shooting yet. Fails WP:NFILM. Disputed prod noq (talk) 13:35, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as being TOO SOON. Article is premature, as even it tells us "Film's shooting will be start after releasing Jeet's next movie Deewana.". Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:20, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - just too soon to have an article. Unless there is enough coverage of it at the moment, it's too soon. No prejudice against recreation once release is near. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 07:20, 6 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:23, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Byron Bloodworth[edit]

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

Fighter fails WP:NMMA JadeSnake (talk) 12:03, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 01:54, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NMMA --TreyGeek (talk) 02:49, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NMMA. --LlamaAl (talk) 15:45, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not going to try to argue to keep this article because technically he does fail the current notability. However, this is a situation where I wish people would use some common sense. He has 2 of his 3 fights, I haven't seen anything about him being cut after his last loss, so there is a high probability that he will get that 3rd fight to obtain notability in the next few months. We can't force you to stop nominating guys like him, but some of us don't understand what the motive is for trying to delete so many articles, especially guys like this that will be almost certainly be notable in a few months. I can't force you to use some common sense, so I copied this article. If they decide to delete it, somebody please remind me that I have a copy of it saved so we can repost it when he gets that third fight. Willdawg111 (talk) 18:35, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK. --LlamaAl (talk) 18:49, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need. You can ask for a WP:REFUND and the edit history will be preserved. Poison Whiskey 20:50, 6 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. KTC (talk) 00:56, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sonny Parsons[edit]

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

No signs of notability. ●Mehran ^Debate● 10:43, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

what about the IMDB listing? BO | Talk 13:10, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:IMDB. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:33, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's hard to find sources for a person whose group was active in the 70's, at a time when the Philippines was a dictatorship, under martial law, print media was controlled, and when the internet didn't exist yet. Any coverage about Hagibis is probably either not online, in an archive somewhere, or lost. However, I can see two articles from the Manila Bulletin that are primary about Parsons, so that's enough for me to establish notability. Note that his crime was from around 2005, so expect that at least some coverage will be gone due to link-rot. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:41, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete unless better sources can be found. Something establishing notability as a performer. FurrySings (talk) 16:20, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – There is also coverage here in 2002 in The New York Times describing him as a "Philippine action-film star" and this in the South China Morning Post saying he is a "film star". Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:02, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - Highly possible that there are print sources in the Philippines. I've had the same issues with some older Indonesian singers (Titiek Puspa comes to mind... almost nothing on her early career some sixty years ago) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:14, 6 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. KTC (talk) 00:50, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Department of Astronomy, Belgrade[edit]

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

De-PRODded by article creator. Not notable. Academic departments are rarely notable and this one is not an exception. No independent sources, tagged for notability since May 2012. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 10:19, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The nominator already said what I was going to when I saw the title of the AfD: "Academic departments are rarely notable and this one is not an exception." The lack of independent and in-depth sources points up the lack of notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:42, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I gave it shot, but doesn't have enough coverage. AstroCog (talk) 00:11, 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 NAC - Speedily deleted per A1. ukexpat (talk) 03:32, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

លក្ខណៈសម្បត្តិមេដឹកនាំ[edit]

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

Foreign language article not translated after two weeks -- Patchy1 09:51, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is the English Wikipedia. Given that the only English text on this page is "Numbered list item" and "Indented line", I wonder if this might even be a test page. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:26, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Foreign language article that has not been translated. I do not know what any of text really states, but perhaps this is a test page per its little English context of "Numbered list item" and "Indented line". TBr and ley ^{(what's up)} 19:40, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per all of the above. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 19:41, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no-one is prepared to translate it. The content seems very similar to km:លក្ខណៈសម្បត្តិមេដឹកនាំ and I think this may be an A2 candidate. Hut 8.5 19:47, 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. KTC (talk) 00:49, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Referenspris[edit]

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

Foreign language article not translated after two weeks -- Patchy1 09:51, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:57, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As I wrote at Pages needing translation into English, I'm not persuaded of the usefulness of the article, or I would have translated it. It's about the "reference price" attached to healthcare treatments in the Swedish healthcare reimbursement system (the article links to sv:Högkostnadsskydd, which might be more useful to us, but there is probably some non-country-specific article the content could go into) and contains an essay segment about a governmental reform to the system with respect to dental care. The larger topic of how medical treatment is reimbursed and prices set for such reimbursement within the Swedish and other socialised medicine systems is definitely notable, and I can see the relevance within such an article of disputes over these decisions, but not on such a micro scale as this article. In other words it's neither a matter of its being written in Swedish - I or someone else could fix that - nor of there not being sources available (I'm sure news sources and government publications exist) but of the independence of the topic. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:57, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Two days later, the editor took the advice on their talk page and created the same article on Swedish Wikipedia; it has since been moved and rewritten to be about the dental reform. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:08, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Based on the length of time it has sat there without a translation, and Yngvadottir's rationale. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:55, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't read it. Seems to be an ad (talks about 3000 Kroner). JFW | T@lk 00:00, 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. postdlf (talk) 05:47, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Top 20 Social Networks[edit]

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

Most probably unrecoverable directory of indiscriminate links. Quite possibly a Search engine optimization exploit: See GNews hits for paucity of mentions in mainstream print and online media. Shirt58 (talk) 09:51, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:LINKFARM. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:35, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY JayJay^{What did I do?} 16:56, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Redundant to List of social networking websites (just sort that one by the last column), likely promotional, and possibly a joke (the main warning sign being the use of "Interweb"). --BDD (talk) 00:02, 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. Sandstein 01:31, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reza Parchizadeh[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

promotional article for the writings of a graduate student. Based on the previous afds, it is possible that the subject is notable, but almost all references are to his own writings, including you-tube links to his speeches. There has been no improvements since the previous afds. Had this not been to AfD before, I would have considered it for G11 speedy. DGG ( talk ) 20:39, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Undecided He seems to meet WP:GNG, however he doesn't seem all that notable to me. Also as stated above it does come off as promotional WP:IMPARTIAL that is the only real problem I have with the article. I could be reading into the tone of the article too much. (and please don't WP:SOFIXIT me) --Cameron11598 (Talk) 21:05, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I would have fixed it if I thought it possible, but the promotionalism is too pervasive DGG ( talk ) 01:57, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about that. There is enough material. Will take care of it. Iranhumanwatch ( talk ) 02:00, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep OK. Added a significant source and cut out some passages so that the article would fall within the boundary of the sources. Guess that should do it. Iranhumanwatch ( talk ) 03:00, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/question Dear Iranhumanwatch: You indicate that you added a significant source. I reviewed the diff file which shows that you added multiple refs/sources. Can you please specify which one(s) you consider WP:RS, thank you ? FeatherPluma (talk) 03:50, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear FeatherPluma, as I have tried to concentrate on third-party sources in my revision of the article, I brought in IUP Newsletter, which I consider an important source in English. The piece by Young Journalist’s Club in Iran was already there, and I just brought in a specific quotation from it. As I thought the responses to his articles by the Islamic-Republic opposition figures outside Iran were also important, I specifically quoted them in the revision. In addition to these, there were YouTube links that in my opinion did establish or at least demonstrate his notability, but were not considered RS exactly because they were on YouTube. Iranhumanwatch ( talk ) 05:00, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Iranhumanwatch: Thank you for replying. "Important" sources and "significant" sources can certainly support an article. I want to try to give the article its best chance. In considering all articles, I do my best to identify a source, either already within the present article's text or that can be added, that meets the citation standards of WP:RS as a specific benchmark. "Important" and "significant" sources may or may not meet the more stringent requirements usually sought by WP:RS. The usual thought process on Wikipedia is that such "important" and "significant" sources are not irrelevant, and that they can sometimes support article expansion, but nonetheless they may sometimes be less than the threshold needed to "bedrock" an article, unless other special criteria pertain. Do you have anything published by an English-language, edited national press, or something from an accredited city or regional news source, or anything from an academically peer-reviewed review? In essence, do I understand correctly that you judge the IUP L and C Program Newsletter (page 11) citation as presently being the source that most closely meets the WP:RS threshold that we would collectively prefer? Or is one of the cited opposition figures of such reknown (if so, who, please) that his comments are of greater impact? FeatherPluma (talk) 00:59, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear FeatherPluma, thank you for your hairsplitting method. That is what I really like. However, what I prefer is that other Persian-speaking editors who are informed about politics in and on Iran could come in and give their opinion; because at the moment I feel that I am the only source of information on an article I am defending, which is not that scientific. Anyway, I do consider the IUP Lit&Crit Newsletter an important source. In addition, of the opposition figures I quoted, Esmail Nooriala, is certainly important, as he is the leader of a party (Green Seculars Party) and is the editor in chief of a widely-read website (New Secularism). Reza Talebi is also well-known with regard to ethnic debates in Iran, and has written numerous articles on that topic. Naser Karami is of relative importance, as he only writes occasionally. Golshan is even less important than Karami, and Rokhsani is not that important. But, I did find something which is peer-reviewed: his article, Democracy or Decadence? A Cultural Aside to the "Golden Age" of the Pahlavi Monarchy in Iran, as it is mentioned in the article, "was first published in Popular Culture Review, Volume 23, no. 2, Summer 2012, pp. 85-93. It is republished here courtesy of its editor, Dr. Felicia F. Campbell of University of Nevada at Las Vegas (UNLV)." Iranhumanwatch ( talk ) 12:30, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear editor: 1. I will give due attention to the sources you've identified, one by one, as I am able, over the next few days. (note to reviewing admin: this is likely to take me at least 3-5 days, but I will go thru all this bit by bit, and get back here.) 2. Dear editor, are we completely correct in understanding that you are not the subject of this WP:BLP and that you are not closely affiliated to him ? Thank you so much for confirming this explicitly, or for revealing any potential conflict of interest. 3. Are you aware of any sister wikipedia article in any language that covers this subject? If so, can you please point (by link) to that, as I would like your help in being sure that modifications of spelling and transliteration / style do not have us miss any such foreign language article. FeatherPluma (talk) 00:18, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear FeatherPluma, thank you for your concern. Your Point 1 was not addressed to me, and the answer to your Point 3 is no, there is no Wikipedia article on the subject in any other languages. In response to your Point 3, however, I must say that I am neither the subject of the article nor am I closely affiliated with him, but I certainly do have an interest in what he says and writes to have taken up the burden of composing this article on him. Therefore, I cannot say that I am completely "neutral;" but I have tried to be as objective as possible by bringing in various material both by the subject and third-party sources. Hope that clarifies. Iranhumanwatch ( talk ) 11:25, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I just realized that his analytic article, Decline of the Discourse of the Left in Iran, has also been published on a number of important leftist Persian websites such as The Union of People's Fedaian of Iran, Kar Online (Work Online), Akhbar Rooz (Daily News), Tarhino (belongs to the Provisional Committee of the Leftist Socialists of Iran), and Ranginkaman which is not leftist, but publishes all kinds of articles. Like this, I guess I'd better mention it in the body of the article as well. Iranhumanwatch ( talk ) 12:25, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Appreciate the answers and update. Once I have addressed some year-end chores I'll get to work on things. Happy New Year ! FeatherPluma (talk) 19:58, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Completed lengthy, detailed review. See final careful thoughts below, in date sequence at current end of comment list. FeatherPluma (talk) 05:27, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 00:17, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Speedy G11/Delete Article is almost entirely promotional and does not provide factual information relating to the subject's notability in a neutral fashion. After two previous AfDs, reliable sources discussing the subject in detail remain absent. English language sources are almost entirely primary, a lot of the foreign language sources look like blogs, and the prevalence of Youtube links in the last AfD make me wonder how this was kept. Ray^Talk 17:10, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Certainly nowhere near WP:Prof. There is not enough substance for WP:GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:28, 18 December 2012 (UTC).[reply]
How can you judge so surely about the subject's insignificance when even a Persian search on him has not been included in this entry for deletion? And how can you be so sure that "a lot of foreign language sources look like blogs" when you apparently cannot read them? This is not a scientific approach, and if the deletion of this article is going to be based on such sweeping judgments, it will first and foremost demonstrate an ethnocentric attitude on the part of some editors. Iranhumanwatch ( talk ) 03:45, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I can't decide yet which way to vote on this case, but I am sure that it's nowhere close to Speedy or G11 -- there are many reasonable assertions of notability in the article that are not purely promotional (and as DGG points out, an subject that has passed AfD once cannot be considered for Speedy except for continual recreation of deleted content). The subject does not meet WP:PROF, but might meet GNG depending on the significance of the sources supporting the assertions in the article. Iranhw is correct in pointing out that there is a Western bias on Wikipedia that is well-documented and that we need to work to overcome. Part of overcoming that will need to take place in first having more well-cited articles about reliable sources on Iranian academic journals, newspapers, prizes, etc., so that editors can have help in making their determinations. I'll be following the debate and checking back on the article and its sources over the next couple of days, so if more sources (or quotations from the sources already listed that asserting the subject's significance) can be found, I will vote Keep; as it is, I lean more towards deletion. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 05:34, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Michael Scott Cuthbert, for your fair judgment. The point is, the subject is well-known enough in the Persian-speaking sphere not to need sources to show his notability. That is why I mostly concentrated on his ideas. That's also what is usually done in Wikipedia with regard to people who are well-known in the West. For example, nobody will ask you to produce evidence why George Lucas (no comparison intended) is notable, and the article on him will mostly concentrate on his work instead. However, it seems that the case does not hold for notable non-Western subjects. As such, I think I must recast the article, using inline citations from the sources that already exist. But it will take some time, as I will have to rewrite the article and also translate material from Persian to English. Iranhumanwatch ( talk ) 06:00, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is Reza Parchizadeh the same person as Azad Azadeh? I'm confused about the purpose of citation 5, is it to show that he is a blogger? -- cnn.com in general is a reliable source that would help establish notability (though iReport is not since it is user created), but the article linked to does not mention Reza Parchizadeh at all. I've looked through all the sources now and I can't see anything that would be considered an RS as defined by Wikipedia. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 19:49, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Azad Azadeh is not Reza Parchizadeh. It is an alias for the blogger Abbas Khosravi Farsani who was arrested by the Islamic Republic and condemned to serving a term, and whom Parchizadeh defended by writing articles in Persian. Since this cnn.iReport account is Parchizadeh’s, it is likely that he wrote this piece as well. As for RS, I have done my best. Young Journalists’ Club is a reliable source within Iran, and you can see that its piece on Parchizadeh-Pahlavi has been published on a number of other websites. This old Tehran University blog has also addressed him as a student and scholar. The YouTube films (which I elided in accordance with Wikipedia regulations) were good sources for his notability, for they were organizational films recorded by Tehran University. I also found out that he has interviewed the exile Iranian film critic, Amir Ezati, on page 14 of the same IUP Newsletter, though telling not much about himself. In the end, this fact must be taken into consideration that since he is in opposition, finding reliable sources on him on websites located in Iran is almost impossible. What you saw was what I could find so far. Thank you for your patience and scientific approach, anyway. Iranhumanwatch ( talk ) 05:30, 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, MBisanz ^talk 02:33, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Even a limited search in English suggests that this person is a culturally significant intellectual. groupuscule (talk) 11:53, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Once his own publications are removed, not much is left. If after all this time his very active supporters here cannot come up with any evidence of notability, then there simply is none. Fails WP:PROF and WP:GNG. --Randykitty (talk) 14:33, 28 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, Michig (talk) 09:42, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:PROF and WP:GNG ukexpat (talk) 02:16, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Ukexpat & Randykitty. In addition, the article is promotional, per DGG & Ray. GregJackP Boomer! 19:20, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I have examined the article's sources very carefully, and some might be "significant" or "important" enough to possibly serve as sources for expansion (but not "bed-rocking") of a general, non-BLP, article. To that extent, the deletion / redaction of the scholarship and work effort that has gone into to this article completely engenders my empathy. However, the subject of this BLP does not presently meet WP:PROF and WP:GNG. Although I suspect that that is probably a matter of time, WP is not WP:CRYSTAL. The language at the BLP reliable sources guideline raises the general benchmark of the Wikipedia principle of verifiability in a BLP. I obtained the assistance of a Persian / Farsi speaker, as challenged. None of the sources can be fairly characterized as convincingly meeting WP:RS. The issue here isn't whether the article is well written, or interesting to some extent, or could be submitted for magazine review, as it clearly meets those benchmarks in my opinion, but rather the technical issue of not having good WP:RS. The BLP reliable sources guideline reads, "... material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable, and whether it is in a biography or in some other article. Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources..." It is perhaps mildly telling that a line of enquiry discloses no article in any sister Wikipedia, which is slightly (but not irreconcilably) at odds with assertions that the Persian-language community is pressingly familiar with the subject of the BLP. (This in itself is absolutely not a point of elimination, just a minor consideration.) For thoroughness, another avenue of investigation was a detailed review of the previous AfDs. Within this line of review, I found that a component element in the previous reasoning for article retention was the erroneous conflation of this article's BLP subject with someone who had "notoriety as a former dictator's son", who was mentioned in news reports. I would speculate that this mistake arose from either a good faith mistranslation(s) or mistaken identity. Of course, in fact, Reza Pahlavi is not the same person as Reza Parchizadeh. In summary, there is a consensus running through all three AfDs, particularly here, with editors recurrently looking for threshold-meeting WP:RS, and, despite suggestions, none actually has emerged to date. FeatherPluma (talk) 05:27, 6 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:24, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gavyn Bailey[edit]

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

Although covered in some local affiliate media, this musician lacks the significant coverage necessary to meet WP:BIO. The article was created by the subject's publicist who stated on the talk page that "This page should not be speedily deleted because... (Gavyn is making his way through the business and many people should know his story. This is a way to get him there!)" --Skrelk (talk) 09:16, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment On the other hand, the sources are good and substantial, see CBS News [8], CoastLine Pilot [9], OC Weekly [10] and maybe the others listed here. But I don't think I'm sufficiently familiar with the US pop culture to say keep or delete. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 09:29, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsigned musician. Fluff coverage does not grant notability. Fails WP:MUSICIAN. In addition, promotional and autobiographical. Safiel (talk) 00:04, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Purged useless and spam links. All the remaining links are of a purely local nature. Safiel (talk) 02:44, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPBOX, local coverage only, not notable. GregJackP Boomer! 16:21, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 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. postdlf (talk) 00:57, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wan Azraei Wan Teh[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by an IP without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:39, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:41, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Considering he played for his club when they were still technically a Malaysian Premier League club he still fails WP:NFOOTBALL as the MPL is not considered fully-pro on WP:FPL and he fails WP:GNG. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 12:45, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 13:42, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 1 January 2013 (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) 13:37, 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 Boldly redirected to Kessel, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:39, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Al Kessel[edit]

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

Contested PROD. The only reliable sources I can find are those that confirm his death. Sincere condolences to his family and friends, but unless he received reliable coverage in his lifetime, then I don't see how he is notable. The sources in the article appears to be nothing more than obituaries. Also, if there is coverage for his supermarket chain, then make an article about that and merge any information about him to that article. As a sign of respect, if anyone finds any reliable sources about him from before he died, I will withdraw this nomination. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:24, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Kessel Foods. I found a source verifying the beginnings of the grocery chain. This source and this also give more historical info on the chain. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:35, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, a search for "Al Kessel" in Google News found several years' worth of coverage regarding both Al Kessel and his supermarket chain. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:40, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But are most sources about the supermarket chain rather than about Kessel? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:58, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most of it does mention Al, but overall, they seem to be more about the chain than its founder, which is why I suggested that the article be moved to Kessel Foods or something. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:11, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Move per Ten Pound Hammer --Dr who1975 (talk) 04:22, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Move or redirect as suggested above after Kessel Foods (which would seem to pass WP:CORPDEPTH) is created. Stalwart111 11:40, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have created Kessel Food Markets, to which the Al Kessel content may be merged. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:47, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD should probably run its course first, to see if there is consensus to merge to Kessel Food Markets. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 22:58, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Kessel Food Markets per TenPoundHammer. Save Al Kessel. Why? Because we're with you! TomCat4680 (talk) 02:46, 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 no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 02:24, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Futuristics[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO, There are no references, just fake links. -MJH (talk) 00:23, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi MJH, please let me know what links are't working and I will correct them. It is not my intention to provide bad links as there is more than enough references available for this production team. Thanks. DerekAC7 03:38, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Comment It might be grounds for WP:G4 considering the same problem seems to be plaguing this version of the article in that most of the sources don't work or do not mention The Futuristics aside from credits or at all. Furthermore, the article creator this time is the same creator as last time and has an obvious WP:COI based upon the fact that its been approximately 7 months between edits all on the same article. Mkdw ^talk 01:38, 16 December 2012 (UTC) Change to Keep based upon the recent work. Mkdw ^talk 05:48, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please understand the only reason it was deleted 7 months ago is because they didn't have any type of interview in a credible magazine. I now have provided an interview in DAG Magazine and mentioning in Billboard. Furthermore, it is abundantly clear that Alex Schwartz and Joe Khajedourian, who make up The Futuristics, have written on these songs as I provided links to ASCAP's site with their writing credits. "I Cry" by Flo Rida is currently the number 6 song on the Billbaord Hot 100 as referenced below. It would be a diservice to take down this article as it's providing valuable information on a production team that has writing credits on many notable songs as well as currently one of the biggest songs in the country. Thanks for your help with this. ^[1] ^[2]^[3] ^[4]DerekAC7 03:38, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:20, 18 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 00:03, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It seems to me that the issue here is whether or not having produced a few singles that have performed well in the charts is enough to squeak past WP:GNG or WP:CREATIVE. This is the AllMusic credits page for the duo. So the question of whether or not they've been involved with those is not the issue here, but rather whether those grant standalone notability. My feel is that they do not. For someone to be a notable producer, I'd want to see a lot more work and third-party mentions than what I'm seeing in Google and even what the author has provided by way of references, which I will note include instances where they were involved in things like engineering rather than production. All in all I think this is a case of WP:TOOSOON, perhaps less than the previous AFD but still not enough. We are left with this as the only substantive claim to standalone notability. I don't think that's enough. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:37, 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, Courcelles 02:41, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I would concur with FRF on this; it takes a long time for a producer to become notable, if it all, even if they work with big-name acts. MSJapan (talk) 04:10, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Is mentioned In the NY Times, and yahoo talks about them as well. The notability is there PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 05:09, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's about as far from WP:SIGCOV as you can get. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 06:02, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep FreeRangeFrog brings up a good point that it takes a lot for a producer to become notable. However, since notability is such an subjective idea, we need to stick to the guidelines provided by Wiki, which all in fact have been met.
Keep - mentions in notable media, songs produced. --BabbaQ (talk) 19:21, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The production duo does appear to be notable and have notable coverage, but there are sourcing issues because of format and non-RS inclusions. I deleted two citations which were other Wikipedia articles. Backtable ^{Speak to me}_{concerning my deeds.} 21:55, 5 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. KTC (talk) 00:43, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gaby Steiner[edit]

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

WP:ATHLETE says that "High school and pre-high school athletes are notable only if they have received, as individuals, substantial and prolonged coverage that is (1) independent of the subject and (2) clearly goes beyond WP:ROUTINE coverage. " The subject has very few references that go beyond the routine "Branson girls played XXX High School, Steiner did...", and none of them are for a prolonged amount of time, simply a few articles on her MCAL award (most of which come from local papers). Delete, I say. Buggie111 (talk) 02:13, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Secret ^account 00:24, 26 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, Courcelles 02:36, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:17, 6 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 no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 02:24, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yukio Kawabe[edit]

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

This article does not meet the established requirements for notability per WP:NMMA. Willdawg111 (talk) 05:34, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete: FAILS WP:NMMA. Willdawg111 (talk) 05:34, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep — The article meets WP:NSUMO: Kawabe has been ranked in the top Makuuchi division. Poison Whiskey 15:15, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If you want to use his Sumo to establish notability, then the article needs to be about his Sumo and not about his MMA. If you want to keep this article, consider deleting the MMA and write him up as a Sumo competitor, because as this article sits right now, it doesn't even come close to meeting notability. I'm not that familiar with the Sumo circuits, so I don't know what they would require for him to be notable for Sumo, but if the MMA is removed, I would have no issue with the article being kept.Willdawg111 (talk) 16:06, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Well except for the table it appears there is an equal weight between the MMA and Sumo. The article is just a Stub and that is the biggest problem not notability. By the by - top Sumo players compete way more times per year than any MMA professional - albeit the match often lasts seconds rather than minutes. A table would be huge.Peter Rehse (talk) 03:04, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 03:14, 23 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 23. Snotbot t • c » 03:38, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - if he's competed in both MMA and Sumo, then in no way should one portion be deleted for the other. Lukeno94 (talk) 22:18, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment His MMA doesn't give him notability. If he does have notability for his Sumo, there isn't any Sumo information in the article to defend that notability. So if he is notable for his Sumo, that information needs to be in the article. Agreed? Willdawg111 (talk) 06:22, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm the article has a referenced mention of 16 years in the top sumo division. That would give about 650 matches if you assume the minimum 8 matches per basho, 5 bashos per year. Good luck with that table.Peter Rehse (talk) 07:01, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep His notability is in sumo, not MMA, but the fact is he meets WP:NSPORTS#Sumo. More documentation and text would be nice, but his notability is clear. Jakejr (talk) 15:53, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is very little actually done to this article, other than put a chart up of his 3 MMA losses. If somebody actually wants to put some time into the article, put something together about his Sumo career. Atleast several, legit, paragraphs with some references, then I would come back and say lets withdraw this and keep the article. As the article stand right now, I just don't see anything worth while keeping, there's just hardly anything there. Willdawg111 (talk) 08:05, 29 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, Courcelles 02:35, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is only 2 sentences (half of which has nothing to do with Sumo) and a table with 3 MMA losses, which he clearly doesn't have notability for his MMA, which nobody is disputing. It looks like somebody started this article a year ago and never came back to finish it up. If nobody has interest in actually putting time in to make this a legit article, let's remove it. If somebody wants to work on it later, then they can finish it and re-submit it.Willdawg111 (talk) 04:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter if the information isn't there. He's notable. --LlamaAl (talk) 01:09, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Because of his Sumo career, not MMA. Needs a lot more sourcing and prose about his Sumo career. Luchuslu (talk) 00:48, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - Fails WP:NMMA, but passes WP:NSUMO. --LlamaAl (talk) 01:09, 7 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 merge to Israel Museum. MBisanz ^talk 02:25, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mishkafayim[edit]

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

See the related ongoing AfD for the associated magazine Einayim: WP:Articles for deletion/Einayim. The issues are essentially the same; no indication that this magazine meets WP:NMAGAZINE. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 03:55, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I assume הסרפד has checked for Hebrew language sources. There is next to nothing in English. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:52, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm less confident with my searching in this case (Einayim [the associated children's magazine] is apparently always referred to as "Einayim magazine", which helps me filter out the much more common search term "Einayim", meaning eyes. Mishkafayim (in Hebrew: "Glasses") is referred to variously as a periodical, magazine etc.), but there seem to be no results outside of einayim.com, the site of the above-mentioned associated magazine. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 05:20, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This Article should not be deleted, It was an important and high level art magazine and now is collected by many. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.166.238.56 (talk) 07:06, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Formatted above vote. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 21:12, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Small tip to the anonymous editor, if you think this article should be kept you must find and cite reliable sources discussing the magazine. Marokwitz (talk) 06:26, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notes:
- I've searched more thoroughly in Hebrew and I am not convinced that this periodical is notable, though I could be convinced otherwise, if I missed something.
- A possible alternate to deletion in this case is merging to Israel Museum, by whom Mishkafayim was published. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 19:35, 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, Courcelles 02:35, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Israel Museum, per the nominator's later suggestion. Marokwitz (talk) 07:12, 6 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 21:44, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gribouille[edit]

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

I was searching for a reference that she died of a drug overdose, so that I could add her to the List of drug-related deaths, however I can't find a reference for her from a reliable source at all, let alone for her cause of death. The only sources I've found are either self published or cite wikipedia as their source. Freikorp (talk) 04:02, 23 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 23. Snotbot t • c » 04:28, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have added sources to the article. She also had two albums released on EMI. --Michig (talk) 13:30, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for finding those sources. I'm not sure how my google web search missed an allmusic profile. After I gave up on google web I spent over an hour searching through snipets and previews on google books trying to find something reliable, but came up empty handed. Now that you've found these sources I'm happy for this nomination to be closed. Freikorp (talk) 14:15, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment: I'm a little concerned by the fact that none of the sources predate the French Wikipedia article. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 21:10, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Could you explain what you mean? Some of the sources are from the 1960s. --Michig (talk) 21:27, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sorry, I should have made myself clearer - I was referring specifically to the cause of death issue. One 2006 source hints at differing rumors as to the cause of her death, but it and all other sources on the subject are post-2004. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 21:38, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 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, Courcelles 02:34, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Nobody appears to be in favour of deletion. Do we really need to keep this open? --Michig (talk) 09:04, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Indeed, the nomination was withdrawn (see Freikorp, above) and there were no other delete !votes (my comment is about a content issue), so why is this still open? הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 04:19, 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. Sandstein 01:22, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A formal introduction to diagnosability of DES systems[edit]

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

I cannot see why this is an article: is at an essay? a how-to guide? High-quality information, perhaps, but not encyclopedic at all. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 04:50, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on current content. This article is currently lacking in context that would enable a reader unfamiliar with the topic to even get an idea of what the subject is referring to. Not until the "References" section is the abbreviation "DES" ever spelled out. This content may be valuable to some people, but the rest of us are at least entitled to know what the subject has to do with. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:03, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is more like a how-to guide than an encyclopedia article. JIP | Talk 09:37, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The concept of diagnosability in AI is well-known. Discrete event dynamic systems can be modeled by finite state machines, a type of automaton. Automata can in turn be modeled as formal languages. So this article is about detecting and diagnosing problems in automata, representing both the diagnostic algorithm and the automata as formal languages. This is a popular approach these days to modeling testing of complex hardware and software systems. There are enough references out there (the first three I came across were ^[5], ^[6], and ^[7]) that the topic of diagnosis in automata seems notable. The article needs a lot of improvement: no lead, an opaque introduction, little motivation for the formal language approach, not a lot on diagnosability itself beyond a few definitions, no citations, and ill-formatted and incomplete references. The article was created by user NRV-MSDES with only that single edit and a name that is suggestive of this article. Mark viking (talk) 19:26, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: "Diagnosability of DES systems" may be a notable and worthy subject, but "A formal introduction to diagnosability of DES systems" is not. Would moving the page to a more suitable title solve the "encyclopedic" issue, leaving only writing problems? If so, I am willing to withdraw my nomination; but I really don't understand anything written in the article, so I have no way of knowing. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 19:49, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that moving the article to a more general/neutral title would help create a better-grounded, more encyclopedic article. Perhaps "Diagnosability of a discrete event system", as the acronym DES usually stands for "discrete event simulation"? My best guess is that this article was created as a quick summary of a single technical article in the field and as such, doesn't really have a neutral point of view. Renaming the article might encourage a more balanced approach, too. A rename would allow the topic to become notable, making the article more keepable. Mark viking (talk) 20:42, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mark: if you are familiar with the subject, can you tell me whether there is any article-worthy content there? And if there is, does Diagnosability of discrete event system (systems?) accurately describe the topic? הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 01:23, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the very delayed reply. I understand the gist of the article, but I'm not an expert in this branch of AI. Comparing this article to the AI diagnosis article, they really discuss the same subject. This article could be thought of as a specialization of the AI diagnosis article to just the formal language based modeling of diagnosability. I suppose that argues for merging of useful content from this article to the AI diagnosis article. In my opinion, the useful content to merge is (1) the list of references is fine, but need work to add volume and page numbers, etc. (2) the Discrete Event Model for Diagnostics section could be a useful addition to the AI diagnosis article but, it would need a good bit of fleshing out to make it more understandable. Mark viking (talk) 05:34, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 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, Courcelles 02:33, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted in hopes the above discussion would be finished before closing. Courcelles 02:34, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'll be damned if I can make heads or tails of what this is supposed to be about. Calling all Electrical Engineers... Carrite (talk) 18:28, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a clear essay — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:18, 6 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:19, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Khwaja Sheikh Pak[edit]

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

A contested prod. This article is entirely unreferenced, I could find no significant coverage from reliable secondary sources. This article could also quite possibly be a hoax. Rotten regard 19:45, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The subject may or may not be notable, but I see no reason to allege possible hoaxing. Please assume good faith, as I reminded you when I removed the latest WP:PROD tag. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:24, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I allege hoax because I can find nothing to verify this person's existence. Please don't patronize me Phil, AGF only goes so far. Rotten regard 20:41, 9 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 00:05, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence to support claims of notability. 1292simon (talk) 02:29, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:53, 18 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) 05:31, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Having spent a few minutes on a Google search in English using the various names by which the subject is described in the article I have concluded that this route is unlikely to be successful because of the problems inherent in transliteration and translation. But the terms in which this person is described are consistent with the pattern of other Sufi teachers and I think it is unlikely that this article is a hoax. I agree with Phil Bridger that is important that we assume good faith in respect of such articles and are respectful of the considerable sensitivities here. The article ideally needs the assistance of an experienced editor with the necessary language skills and preferably familiar with this strand of Sufism; clearly it does not currently meet WP standards. The claims of notability are in the article but not verified, but nor is anything else. --AJHingston (talk) 10:55, 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, Courcelles 02:32, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I agree with AJHingston, the only way this article would be improved is if a user experienced with the history of Pakistani Sufis were to provide at least one reliable source. Google Books searches for "Sheikh Muhammad Chishty", "Khwaja Sheikh Pak" and adding 1928 provided nothing solid and I have found fragments from other people sharing the name or part of it. Unfortunately, like most of these articles, birth and death dates are usually unknown and this article reads too much like a personal biography. SwisterTwister talk 16:58, 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 keep. Withdrawn by nominator (me) Qwyrxian (talk) 11:44, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Parque Cristal[edit]

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

I can't find any significant coverage of these. I see some Spanish language sources that mention the building, but they seem to do so only as a location for another event (like a crime or fire). I don't see any indication that the building itself is notable. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:32, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some references to sources that cover the building itself, with content including the statements that it won an architectural award and that it is a famous landmark. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:34, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And in light of that, I'll withdraw the nomination. Thank you very much for the references! Qwyrxian (talk) 11:44, 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:21, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Multigraph (software)[edit]

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

Unremarkable software. —Theo polisme 16:58, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Searching for references for the software is a bit challenging, because there is already a Multigraph commercial software product for visualizing multi-channel data acquisition experiments; the Google Scholar articles I saw referenced this software. Regarding the Javascript library, I could find no published papers. There are a couple of abstracts "Multigraph: Interactive Data Graphs on the Web". Bibcode:2010AGUFMED43B..05P. ((cite journal)): Cite journal requires |journal= (help) "Multigraph: Reusable Interactive Data Graphs". Bibcode:2010AGUFMIN31C..08P. ((cite journal)): Cite journal requires |journal= (help) from the 2010 American Geophysical Union meeting, but it is unclear if this meeting has peer-reviewed submissions. Given the lack of peer-reviewed sources, this may be a case of WP:TOOSOON. When peer-reviewed sources and reviews are published, recreation of the article is reasonable. Mark viking (talk) 20:31, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 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, Mediran (t • c) 05:35, 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, Courcelles 02:31, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This Article is barely even a stub. Deleting it hardly removes anything. If a longer new Article can be written that somehow proves notability, so be it, but even so getting rid of this stub is a good idea. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 04:21, 6 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 merge to Environmental impact of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Sandstein 01:24, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of endangered species threatened by the Deepwater Horizon oil spill[edit]

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

Another list that can be part of Environmental impact of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. It is only based on the announcement bu two environmental groups. There may be better info on the topic but it can still be part of Environmental impact of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. As much as I want to promote env protection as an environmentalist this list is a bit too much like advocacy. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:52, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it is already well covered by the new article (which I had split verbatim from Deepwater Horizon oil spill). -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:53, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. 06:34, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of US-related deletion discussions. 06:34, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a minor detail, and the species are not even "threatened", only the alleged victims of "unauthorized take" (whose lengthy definition does not include being threatened). Clarityfiend (talk) 01:32, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the new article, which I agree seems like a better editorial presentation than a couple of lists. Note that this didn't necessarily need an AfD discussion unless it was contested. Jclemens (talk) 04:06, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While a good editorial could also be placed at the main article(s), this is a lot of information to add to what will surely be a very long article. This is the largest environmental disaster the US has ever had, and the largest oil spill of its kind. With Valdez, environmental ramifications weren't really observed until after the 4th year. It's only been 2.5 since the BP spill. Too early to delete related articles. petrarchan47 t c 22:21, 29 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, Courcelles 02:29, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article Environmental impact of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill was split from Deepwater Horizon oil spill without discussion or consensus on 23rd December (along with this article up for deletion/merge). Because many editors are on holiday, an extension on this would be much appreciated. petrarchan47 t c 06:09, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Environmental impact of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill per Alan Liefting and Jclemens. Beagel (talk) 08:04, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - as suggested above. Seems like the most reasonable option. Stalwart111 11:44, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above comments. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:38, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a valid list on a separate well-defined subject per WP:List. There is no need for all objects of the list to be described in a single source (per rules). No need to merge everything together. My very best wishes (talk) 16:57, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure anyone is suggesting an entire collective list would need to come from a single source to verify this list. If one source says a species was threatened by the DWH and another RS says the same about another species, I don't think that would be considered WP:SYNTH to put them together. I think the issue here might be what constitutes a threat and to what extent and is that adequately defined by sources (and consistently) to build a list without major qualifications/caveats. I think more detailed prose with specific details about the threats to/impacts on each species would be better and can be covered in the Environmental impact of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill article (which wouldn't require a species to first be "officially" endangered for inclusion, for example). I wouldn't be opposed to the creation of a fork like Environmental impact of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill on specific species if such a merge later turned out to produce a section way too large to be practical. Stalwart111 23:59, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing wrong with placing this list in Environmental impact of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill except one reason: readability. That's why we have separate pages for lists in general. My very best wishes (talk) 23:03, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For sure, I just think this might be presented better as prose (in article and later split off if need be) than as a list - a comprehensive analysis of the impacts on different species, stock levels, species-specific recovery efforts, etc. But maybe that's too ambitious. Stalwart111 23:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Environmental impact of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 04:23, 6 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:25, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Harvard PhD Event[edit]

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

Event may arguably be notable, but very poorly written, and I think the arguable notability simply isn't quite enough to overcome that, nor is it improvable in my opinion. Delete. Nlu (talk) 06:30, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm not so sure that "poorly-written" is an acceptable reason to delete an article. It wouldn;t take much effort to imrpove the prose; I'd do it myself but I don't read Mandarin 官话. Majoreditor (talk) 03:59, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my comments above. Majoreditor (talk) 17:02, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete The lack of any English language sources makes the very title of the article highly questionable and essentially a bit of WP:OR. Mangoe (talk) 01:47, 30 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, Courcelles 02:29, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have a feeling it might even be a hoax. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 04:26, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:V. Most of the references in the article are 404s. Those that are not don't confirm the details in the article. --Michig (talk) 08:36, 6 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. KTC (talk) 00:34, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deep K. Datta-Ray[edit]

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

Not notable as a journalist or otherwise. This article was created by Charlie79 (talk · contribs), who also created a page on notable journalist Sunanda K. Datta-Ray. This page could be a kind of an advertisement by someone related to Sunanda. --GDibyendu (talk) 04:31, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Subject doesn't appear notable. Article lacks context, if it wasn't for the BLP maintenance tags that I added and the living people category you wouldn't even know it was about a person, Datta-Ray sounds like a technical term for something, that's more of an observation than a reason to delete though. -- Patchy1 07:14, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Datta-Ray is a surname, used among Bengalis.--GDibyendu (talk) 09:19, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I found that out after doing some extra digging, but the article should contain those details so that exra digging isn't required. -- Patchy1 22:52, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GDibyendu (talk) 13:12, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 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, Courcelles 02:28, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice. An IP user removed much of the context from this article in February 2012, thus explaining why the article does not even clearly identify the subject as a person. The subject is indeed a person and verifiable as being a journalist, but all I can find are some articles written by him; I don't see anything written about him. The article can be re-created later if the subject attains more prominence and has articles written about him. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:33, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Certainly exists and is a journalist, but I found no coverage of him, and without that we have no basis for an article. --Michig (talk) 08:31, 6 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. postdlf (talk) 00:56, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vahdat Ivan-e-gharb F.C.[edit]

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

Delete as unnotable sports club which has not been shown to hold any notability, part of a large series of microstubs created about similar topics. c.f. a similar case from earlier in 2012. Cloudz 679 09:39, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Cloudz 679 09:42, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 09:38, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:42, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:42, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've not read a clear guideline about the soccer clubs yet. 3rd Division clubs could be notable in my opinion. ●Mehran ^Debate● 09:20, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What about this club makes it notable? Cloudz 679 20:30, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As we have an article about 2010–11 Iran Football's 3rd Division which is a national league and Vahdat Ivan-e-gharb F.C. is one of the teams. It makes it notable regards to WP:FOOTYN. ●Mehran ^Debate● 19:48, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As discussed at the last AfD, linked in the nomination, the Iran Football's 3rd Division article identifies as a regional league. Teams play each other according to geographic criteria. As previously established, merely being one of the teams in this regional league is not an indication of notability. C 679 22:54, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No it's not regional. Take a look at the same article. You can see that we have teams from different provinces all over the country. For example, Group 3 consists of Teams in Tehran, Isfahan, Babol, three different region of the country, one of them is in the center, one is upper and one is in the right north. And also about the other group ... And then they play together till final match. This is called national. ●Mehran ^Debate● 05:12, 29 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, Courcelles 02:27, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unsourced article about a club that has not generated sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:52, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - has not played at a notable level, and fails WP:FOOTYN. Also fails WP:GNG as there isn't significant coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 13:13, 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. Either this is an absolute hoax, or it's so riddled with errors it needs to be blown up and started over. Either way, not a snowball's chance of this surviving in anything remotely near to its current form. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:00, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1979 IL-14 Crash[edit]

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

PROD on this article was removed by creator so taking to discussion, although seems a clear delete. The rationale given by Randykitty was: "Unsourced. English so bad that it is difficult to see what is correct or not. An IL-14 flight from the Soviet Union to Antarctica seems unlikely. That there was a problem explaining the deaths of people on board that was solved only 2 years ago (for a crash that allegedly occurred in 1979!) is also unlikely. Possible hoax, fails WP:V" Mabalu (talk) 02:25, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have come across this which verifies that there was such an accident in 1979 although not all the details tally with those in the article. However, this is all I was able to find, and I am not sure it is enough to support an individual article. Mabalu (talk) 02:28, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless reliable sources can be produced. It seems unecessary to point out the inconsistencies in the article as it stands - that this is an aircraft built in the Soviet Union, on a flight said to have originated there, yet the registration is US, the purported photograph is of an aircraft bearing US markings, the enquiry is said to have been conducted by the NTSB (US and verifiable if it existed). The ASN entry is plausible but not sufficient unless the source for that can be confirmed (the Scamble website only has the aircraft as entering service). --AJHingston (talk) 09:28, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:V. I am more and more convinced that this is a hoax. The article creator also uploaded a photo purported to be "own work" and, as noted by AJHingston, showing a plane with US markings. --Randykitty (talk) 09:33, 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 Rawalpindi. Without prejudice to recreation if reliable sources can be found to establish notability separate from Rawalpindi. —Darkwind (talk) 05:54, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tench Bhatta[edit]

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

Per WP:BLOWITUP Honestly, I think this article has no hope, the cleanup tag has been up for 2 years and its still a mess. JayJay^{Talk to me} 18:43, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. We do keep articles about localities but lets clean up WP in a small way by deleting it. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:17, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral and comment: I have "blown it up", partially at least, removing all the indiscriminate lists from the article. I've found it on Google Maps, which spells the name "Tench Bhata" with one 't'. Thus, it is a confirmed geographical location, and should not be deleted, and is not bad enough to warrant WP:BLOWITUP. However, it seems from Google Maps that Tench Bhata is a neighborhood, not an independent locality, so perhaps it does not meet notability criteria. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 20:55, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 02:31, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: There is a distinct lack of reliable sources for any information about Tench Bhatta—including the etymology given in the article—on the web; very many results on Facebook, Youtube, Blogspot, etc. but reliable sources (e.g. Google Maps) only confirm that the place exists. I am taking the liberty of removing anything for which I cannot find sources, and adding the location data from Google. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 02:31, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Well since it has been cleaned up and everything virtually removed, I propose that the article be redirected to Rawalpindi JayJay^{Talk to me} 03:37, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If merged to Rawalpindi, how should it be mentioned in the article and how should it be sourced? הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 19:37, 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, Courcelles 02:22, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There have been countless articles in Wikipeida that started out even worse than this article (at least the way it was before being wiki-cleansed). Just because this locality is in Pakistan does not mean it should be deleted. Ottawahitech (talk) 14:37, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the issue now is whether Tench Bhatta is a distinct locality or just a subdivision of Rawalpindi, in which case it would have to be quite independently notable not to be merged. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 19:23, 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. The answer to Sintch (t c)'s question is no, under current guidelines, a stamp designer is not intrinsically notable, and the consensus here is a lack of sources to otherwise establish his notability. —Darkwind (talk) 06:12, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gilbert Hitch[edit]

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

Non-notable per WP:BIO -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:01, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom: there's only barely a claim of notability here, and no reason to think that Mr Hitch was notable Nick-D (talk) 01:29, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : Satisfies "significant enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" (by virtue of his contribution to Norfolk Island's philatelic history) according to WP:BIO. Alternatively it could be re-titled "Stamps of Gilbert Hitch" Sintch (talk) 02:51, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But there is a paucity of refs on the subject. He could be mentioned in the Postage stamps and postal history of Norfolk Island article though. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:51, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I take your point. I guess my article sought to acknowledge the designer rather than the stamp. Just as the song writer's contribution is eclipsed by the fame of the singer, such is it for the designer of a stamp. And if you are not really interested in stamps then its designer will be of far greater insignificance.

I did look to precedents for guidance and found the following articles,

Hitch was a local Norfolk Islander. He designed about 40 stamps over a period of 20 years. There are a number of local contributors to the Island's philatelic history. Perhaps another list? "List of local designers of stamps for Norfolk Island"Sintch (talk) 03:51, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A List of local designers of stamps for Norfolk Island article is not needed. The Postage stamps and postal history of Norfolk Island will suffice. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 18:27, 26 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, Courcelles 02:22, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article was rejected "Non-notable per WP:BIO". Then the failure to satisfy WP:BIO is defended with "But there is a paucity of refs on the subject. He could be mentioned in the Postage stamps and postal history of Norfolk Island article"

The paucity of articles on stamps of Norfolk Island is only one article titled Postage stamps and postal history of Norfolk Islandand it is not biographical. It comes under the project Wikipedia:WikiProject Philately which provides for a list of philatelic topics that doesn't include the designer.

I have studied the WP:BIO requirements. I have referred to the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes

"Notability on Wikipedia is an inclusion criterion based on the encyclopedic suitability of an article topic. For Wikipedia:Notability (people), the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice" – that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded"[1] within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life. "Notable" in the sense of being "famous" or "popular" – although not irrelevant – is secondary."

Hitch was not popular or famous in Australia. But it is my submission that he is worthy of notice for "significant, interesting enough to deserve attention or to be recorded"

1). If we examine the basic criteria for notability WP:BASIC

"A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published[3] secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[4] and independent of the subject.[5] If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.[6] Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject. People who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable without meeting the additional criteria below. Articles may still not be created for such people if they fall under exclusionary criteria, such as being notable only for a single event, or such as those listed in What Wikipedia is not."

It is my submission that Hitch satisfies this. He is not the subject of an in depth study but he is listed in multiple independent secondary sources that demonstrate notability. The book "Norfolk Island Stamps 1947 - 1991" and many issues of the 'Australian Stamp Bulletin' identify him as the designer of stamps.

2). The criteria for any bio WP:ANYBIO

"The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times. The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field.[7]"

It is my submission that Hitch satisfies this by virtue of his widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his specific field.

3). Creative professionals WP:CREATIVE

"The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique. The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums."

a) Hitch is regarded as an important figure by his successors on Norfolk Island for his philatelic contribution. I will seek to have David Buffett provide a response to this article. b) Hitch's work has become a significant monument or been part of a significant exhibition of Norfolk Island's philatelic history. Sintch (talk) 14:55, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What appears to be the issue here is simply "Is a designer of stamps considered to be a notable person for the purposes of wikipedia?"

It would be good if this could be determined by wikipedia. There are some wonderful artists who have contributed to our Australian Philatelic history that could come under this umbrella. Sintch (talk) 00:53, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Subject lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Books lack independent reviews. Designing a few stamps does not make someone notable. Re the above claims 1) being mentioned is not substantial coverage. 2) No evidence shown of a "widely recognized contribution". 3) a) No evidence shown that "Hitch is regarded as an important figure". b) No evidence shown of a significant monument significant exhibition. A listing of his name in a more complete Postage stamps and postal history of Norfolk Island may be warranted but it in it's current state any mention would be undue weight. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:29, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The book and various issues of 'The Australian Stamp Bulletin' are reliable independent sources. "Designing a few stamps does not make someone notable" signals that this contributor may be unable to objectively contribute to this discussion. The stamp is a piece of art. Is it not appropriate to recognize the creator of that piece of art which
1. ~~can become very valuableSintch (talk) 02:23, 5 January 2013 (UTC)~~[reply]

You cannot !vote twice. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:24, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Alan. Am I permitted to comment without voting?

The book and various issues of 'The Australian Stamp Bulletin' are reliable independent sources. "Designing a few stamps does not make someone notable" is the issue here. Although some may not wish to acknowledge it, the stamp is a piece of art.Sintch (talk) 14:42, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Like with any artist, their work may be valuable and even important in an area. That said, it does not necessarily mean that they are notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia. I certainly applaud this person's work, but there simply does not seem to be adequate coverage from a wide range of sources. Mkdw ^talk 03:25, 7 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) 00:55, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jardine Motors Group[edit]

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

altho there are many references in trade publications, these are notoriously unreliable sources. Fails WP:ORG due to lack of WP:RS Gtwfan52 (talk) 23:40, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I nominated for a prod for the same reasons. Adding press releases does not make it any more notable. noq (talk) 00:37, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Keep on the strength of subsequent improvements. The present article is a mess, and the China operations are only sketchily referred to. Because the company operates under several different brands its visibility is low. That said, it was at one stage the largest motor dealer in the UK and owned, amongst others, Polar (Ford). Size is not everything, but there is a systemic problem in Wikipedia that even very large commercial organisations based outside the US (sometimes with turnover in the billions of US dollars, and the UK operation of Jardine Motors clearly exceed the billion mark) struggle to get past AfD. Company profiles which are truly independent of a company, especially a private one, are exceedingly rare - a newspaper or business journal may print something as its own editorial but the information has to come from the company. So unless we think that WP should not dirty itself with the nasty commercial world at all, then at least it is attempting to provide a service which nobody else does. The real question here seems to me not really notability but whether this needs a standalone article independent of Jardine Matheson. A better article probably would stand. --AJHingston (talk) 10:40, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The article certainly needs a lot of improvement. The motor group appears to be a subsidiary of Jardine Matheson, which is a substantial UK plc, with origins in trade with China in the 19th century. It would be better of the article had some indication of size, such as the number of garages (dealerships) in UK, turnover and profits, but that is a matter to be rectified by editing, not a ground for deletion. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:17, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:30, 29 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, Courcelles 02:20, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article has now been expanded and revised to address the points made by the above users. The company has a turnover of US$4Billion, is one of the 10 largest UK motor retailers and was at one stage, the largest UK motor retailer. I appreciate there is still some work to do on the article, though this, I feel, does not mean the article should be deleted, even in it's present form. GrouseyGrouse (talk) 12:45, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I still say Keep but it needs tagging for improvement. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:47, 5 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. KTC (talk) 00:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suicide of Taylor Hooton[edit]

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

Poorly-referenced article about a non-notable death. Article seems to exist primarily as a hatrack for the father's activities. WWGB (talk) 02:20, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 02:38, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 02:38, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 02:38, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't like the smell of this article one little bit, it seems like a heap of unsourced and unsourcable speculation about an unfortunate event. My condolences to the subject's family and friends. Carrite (talk) 18:31, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

I am Don Hooton, the father of the late Taylor Hooton. If you choose to delete this article, so be it. I would rather see you do that than include the rank speculation that has been attempted to be inserted into this article by some who refuse to accept a factual article about Taylor's death. But, before you do, please let the record reflect that EVERY statement in this article is 100% accurate. There are a number of pro-steroids proponents who take issue with some of the FACTS that are laid out in this article. They want to blame Taylor's death on other causes - it is beyond their intellectual capacity to accept what is written in the medical textbooks about the relationship between steroid usage/withdrawal and severe depression. Their allegations that anti-depressants may have caused his death are nothing but raw, unfounded speculation of the sort that does not comply with Wikipedia rules as I read them. If you question my statement, ask any of them to "source" their claim by providing any detail whatsoever about his use of anti-depressants. For example, how long was he taking them? In what dosage? And ask them to "source" that information. (They can't!) The only reason that these people are even aware of Taylor's short term usage of anti-depressants is as a result of the fact that I reported that to the NY Times. Taylor's physicians and others reviewed the possibility of a correlation of anti-depressants and some relation to Taylor's death and dismissed it. The article, as written, is accurate and has been fact checked by a number of qualified authorities internationally. This is hardly a "non-notable" death as suggested by someone above. Taylor's death set off the national debate on high level of illegal steroid usage by our nation's youth and his story has been covered by almost every national new outlet including the NY Times, CBS 60 Minutes, NBC Nightly News, and many, many others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.74.250.197 (talk) 16:01, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no showing that the subject or the event meets WP:GNG, WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Unreferenced by WP:RS or WP:V in multiple, independent sources. From personal knowledge, I am aware of the incident and the basic facts are true, but as it stands, the article is not acceptable for the project. Should additional sources be found, and the article is rewritten to be in compliance with both WP:MOS and to be about the event, not the activism, I would be willing to reconsider. GregJackP Boomer! 04:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Although a terrible event, notability of the suicide is not shown. Condolences. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:30, 6 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:27, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Byron David Smith killings[edit]

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

I don't see how this article is exceptionally notable then any other murder in this country. It was a double homicide nothing new, hear about them all the time on the news. WP:NOTNEWS JayJay^{Talk to me} 18:06, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:25, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:25, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Easily meets WP:GNG. Notability has been established through national and international news coverage of this incident. See for instance Daily Mail, USA Today, and ABC News. The particularly grisly nature of the killings and the ramifications for the Castle doctrine in a year that has seen numerous controversial killings of the same ilk support an argument that this subject has enduring notability as described in WP:NOTNEWS. Gobōnobō ⁺ ^c 15:27, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - yes meets WP:GNG. trough national and international coverage. Need expansion however but that is not a reason for deletion.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:15, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Media frenzy =/= notability. In the wake of Sandy Hook the media pounces on any shooting, but being spread across cyberspace on many cites does not confer notability. Will there be any WP:PERSISTENCE to this case? Signs point to no. Tragic event but not something for an encylopedia. If the case becomes notable, then it might be articleworthy then, but arguing that the case will become notable and thus the article should be kept is WP:CRYSTAL or, at the very least, WP:TOOSOON. Wikipedia is not a news service. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:05, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually this event took place before Sandy Hook. JayJay^{What did I do?} 20:25, 29 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 02:01, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Deals w/ Castle Doctrine, which is an evolving legal theory in the US. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.104.151.10 (talk) 00:30, 5 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 redirect to Drew Fraser. Sandstein 01:32, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The WASP Question[edit]

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

Does not satisfy WP:N. Fraser once had some local notoriety, but this book has attracted nearly zero attention. The article is merely a summary, hence no more than promotion of the book. Dropsic (talk) 19:52, 15 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 15. Snotbot t • c » 20:08, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:11, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:11, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I support keeping the article, although it is by no means a perfect article I think it remains signifigant enough to retain. Certainly the article could use improvement, but then so do most articles. You state that the book is essentially just a promotion as it only summarised the book, but it does not seem all that different to me from other (admittedly less than stellar) articles like When Religion Becomes Evil. Furthermore I would like some clarification as regards notability and quantity of source, for instance The Madness of King George (book) an article which I used as a template (along with the other two I referenced on the discussion page) does not appear to have ever had any trouble remaing on Wikipedia even though its author is even more obscure than Fraser, and its illustrator is not much better known, and the article has no citations or references at all. I am by no means arguing that this is a stellar article with no need of improvement, but it (the article) does not strike me as all that much more poorly written, or based on a book all that much less signfigant than a number of other articles on Wikipedia at the moment. Back to your criticism that the summary was insufficent, what additions do you think the article ougth to have? Threadnecromancer (talk) 01:58, 18 December 2012 (UTC)threadnecromancer[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, postdlf (talk) 05:27, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm a little late to the party, but here are some of my answers to the above question. First off, the existence of other articles that may or may not pass WP:NBOOK has no weight upon this AfD. An article might exist that has fewer or no sources, but that just means that the article has yet to be sourced or brought up for AfD and deleted. When it comes to book summaries, the same rule applies. Just because one page has an overly elaborate description of the plot or contents of a book doesn't mean that it is necessarily in the encyclopedic or neutral format that an article should have. Of the two books mentioned above, both of them have issues with notability (ie, reliable sources) and one needs to be edited for content. A list of the book's chapters is almost never something that should be put on a page. A general synopsis of the book is usually more appropriate. I edited the synopsis on the page down to one paragraph that more briefly discusses the plot information. I also removed one of the sources, a link to a YouTube video of an interview with the author. The thing about YouTube is that we can only link to something if it's released by the person who owns the rights to the video. You could have the author uploading a CNN interview, yet that wouldn't be usable as a source since CNN owns the rights to the interview footage. There are ways to get around that, such as finding the information and putting in a reference that doesn't use the YT link. Now here's the other issue about YT videos: we can't always guarantee that the interview is actually notable enough to count towards notability. Sometimes people are interviewed on shows that don't pass notability guidelines or they are interviewed by people or organizations that they are personally involved with. For example, if Fraser worked for CNN and they interviewed him, that interview would be seen as a primary source. Don't worry if this feels frustrating to read- it's just as frustrating for the vast majority of us, trying to navigate through all of the red tape. Now this particular interview looks to have been through an Australian politician's radio show, but people could argue both ways on this. They could say that it's usable because the politician is notable, but others could argue that he isn't notable enough. I'd go through Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard to ask if this type of interview is usable. Even if it is, we need multiple reliable sources to show notability. Very rarely will one source be enough to show notability for anything, be it person, place, or thing. I'm having some issues with finding sources, so I'm leaning towards redirecting this to the author's page.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:06, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Drew Fraser. At this specific point in time there just isn't enough coverage in reliable sources to show that this passes WP:NBOOK. I also wasn't able to find where this specific book is taught in multiple colleges and Fraser isn't one of those people who are so overwhelmingly notable that all of their books would be notable as well. (Less than 1% of the authors alive or dead meet this guideline, so it's not a slight against Fraser.) I have no problem with this getting userfied by Threadnecromancer if they want it, but this should redirect to the author's page for the time being. It's conceivable that this would be a search term and as redirects are cheap, there's no reason not to redirect it.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:15, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support redirect: Tokyogirl79 - I agree with your reasons and your editing, by which time there's not much there so I support the idea of just a redirect to Fraser. --Dropsic (talk) 21:51, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please define "userfied" for me? I am sorry, but I am ignorant as to what that means. Threadnecromancer (talk) 21:12, 24 December 2012 (UTC)Threadnecromancer[reply]

Sure! What it ultimately means is that a copy of the entry will be moved into your userspace so you can work on it until more sources can be found that show notability for the book. What makes userfication so great is that stuff in your userspace generally can't be nominated for deletion. This will pretty much allow you to take as much time as you need, be it weeks, months, or even years. I've got more than a few books in my userspace that have been languishing there for years because I have yet to find enough sources to show notability. The biggest obstacle with userfying articles is usually that people forget about them after a while. That's why it's sometimes a good idea to earmark them somewhere if you're like me and can easily forget what you've written in your userspace. There's more about it as WP:USERFY, if you're interested in having a copy of this moved to your userspace. I do have to warn you that it might end up that the book gains no further attention, but you never know. Some books fly under the radar for years, only for a random event to suddenly spark interest in it. A great example is The Purpose Driven Life. It released in 2002 and was largely overlooked until Ashley Smith mentioned that she read it to her captor, upon which point the book became wildly popular. Considering that the author of The WASP Question is notable himself, it's possible that the book might become more visible in the future and will gain coverage in reliable sources. When/if that happens, you'll have an article ready to move back into the mainspace. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:32, 27 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 01:58, 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 keep. postdlf (talk) 05:45, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Damm algorithm[edit]

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

Article contains ~~two~~one primary sources by the author of this article. Notability not asserted. PROD has been declined. A quick Google search reveals that Damm's work is being referenced by others, so that might already satisfy our minimum inclusion standards but I'll let others decide. Nageh (talk) 18:10, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:27, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:27, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with the nominator that Damm's 2007 article is probably a distillation of part of his thesis, so a single primary reference. For secondary references, I've found three sources:

p. 305 of On Check Digit Systems, in the book Numbers, Information and Complexity [11]

p. 143 of Check character systems and anti-symmetric mappings in the book Computational Discrete Mathematics: Advanced Lectures [12]

page 5 of Check character systems over quasigroups and loops, Quasigroups and Related Systems, vol. 10 (2003), 1--28 [13]

These are all secondary independent sources; the first two only mention Damm's work in passing, but the third discusses his results in depth, with at least 13 citations of Damm's work. It is just above the threshold for keep in my view. The article's prose is well written, but has some non-neutral point of view issues in the Strengths and weaknesses section. If the consensus is (understandably) not keep, merging a subset to the check digit article might be a good alternative. Mark viking (talk) 23:33, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – IMO the Damm algorithm has merit of a type that makes it surprising that it has not made it to the mainstream yet, possibly explained by how recently it has been published. Because of this, my inclination would be "keep" even if the formal notability criteria (addressed by Mark viking above) were only marginally met. The article as written is a good reference on the algorithm (except that the source code is superfluous, and I toned down a POV remark), which is the purpose of WP. Merging the algorithm detail into another article such as check digit is not appropriate; if such a topic is notable enough to mention/reference, it should have an article of it own. — Quondum 07:16, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Damm algorithm is much easier to implement than others. The calculation of the check digit and the detection of errors are done in the same way. The article gives a good explanation of the algorithm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.232.81.127 (talk) 10:23, 26 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 01:57, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this provides useful information and follows the same general form of the other checksum articles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verhoeff_algorithm, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luhn_algorithm), and is already linked to from other articles in wikipedia. Davisnw (talk) 19:39, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm comfortable that the algorithm has been cited in enough reliable sources to demonstrate notability. Majoreditor (talk) 20:20, 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. Fram (talk) 15:30, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1390 SH[edit]

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

A particular year in a particular calendar is not appropriate for a separate encyclopedia article. The article for that calendar is sufficient. ~~Listing all the people who died during this year is ridiculous.~~ Fails WP:GNG -MJH (talk) 21:21, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note – Similar articles 1391 SH and 1434 AH are also nomiated see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1391 SH & Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1434 AH ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:47, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, although I feel I should point out that every year in the Gregorian calendar has its own article, with a list of the people who died that year... But, of course, it would be silly to create duplicate year articles for every obscure calendar, and 2012 in Iran would be a more appropriate place to list these particular deaths. DoctorKubla (talk) 09:07, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 23:48, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 18 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 21:13, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Anglo-centric much? What makes Gregorian calendar years notable, but this Iranian calendar year not notable? I would like to entertain the idea of closing all of the discussions opened on these and having a community RfC on determining the notability of these calendars. Ryan Vesey 23:06, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Change to redirect. Make the article redirect to 2011 or 2012. Andrew (talk) 03:10, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Hamedvahid (talk) 07:45, 28 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 01:53, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it makes no sense to have redundant systems listing events that took place in the large number of extant calendar systems, and the Gregorian calendar is the most widely used calendar globally, especially in English speaking countries (our target audience). Some sort of redirect to a page listing conversions would also be acceptable. Hut 8.5 20:06, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per the rationale given above and at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1434 AH. הסרפד (call me “Hasirpad”) (formerly R——bo) 02:16, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Again, I agree with Hut's comments. Redundant and not standard. Mkdw ^talk 03:37, 7 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. Fram (talk) 15:31, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1391 SH[edit]

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

A particular leap year in a particular calendar is not appropriate for a seperate encyclopedia article. The article for that calendar is sufficient. Listing all the people who died during this leap year is ridiculous. Fails WP:GNG -MJH (talk) 21:19, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note – Similar articles 1390 SH and 1434 AH are also nomiated see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1390 SH & Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1434 AH ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:47, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge content to the appropriate Gregorian year articles, per WP:PRESERVE. This is my vote for all of the other nominations that have been made for Iranian years recently as well. MJH, can you combine all of these AFDs into one nomination so I don't have to vote individually for every one of them? --Jayron32 01:35, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as an aside MJH, your logic is faulty. The articles don't really fail WP:GNG because information on a given year is easily found in reliable sources. We have articles on Gregorian years, for example. I don't think we need redundant information on every calendar in the world, but that has nothing to do with Notability; this year will be plainly notable in Iranian sources, for example. So, please take care that your rationales when nominating for deletion. Slapping "Fails GNG" is meaningless and you need to indicate how it fails GNG (this doesn't, for example, as sources are likely plentiful), and if it isn't being requested to be deleted on notability grounds, you need a sound, reasonable, and detailed rationale anyways. Just something to think about. --Jayron32 01:38, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 23:50, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 18 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, LlamaAl (talk) 22:44, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Anglo-centric much? What makes Gregorian calendar years notable, but this Iranian calendar year not notable? I would like to entertain the idea of closing all of the discussions opened on these and having a community RfC on determining the notability of these calendars. Ryan Vesey 23:07, 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, MBisanz ^talk 01:53, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it makes no sense to have redundant systems listing events that took place in the large number of extant calendar systems, and the Gregorian calendar is the most widely used calendar globally, especially in English speaking countries (our target audience). Some sort of redirect to a page listing conversions would also be acceptable. If there is any information not present elsewhere then that could be merged as well. Hut 8.5 20:08, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per the rationale given above and at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1434 AH. הסרפד (call me “Hasirpad”) (formerly R——bo) 02:16, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Hut's comments that this article is redundant. Mkdw ^talk 03:28, 7 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 no consensus. WP:NPASR. KTC (talk) 00:24, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Space Zap[edit]

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

All of the sources cited appear unreliable. I could not find coverage of this game anywhere. Delete per WP:GNG. Odie5533 (talk) 01:46, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was given this but it's probably not enough. 24.218.157.186 (talk) 23:01, 14 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 00:10, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing suggests the game is notable. 1292simon (talk) 02:04, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 22:23, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:23, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There's a review of this in Play Meter magazine[14]. If you want to find coverage of arcade games, you have to look in the trade press. - hahnch e n 16:23, 20 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, —Theo polisme 22:47, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I wasn't able to find WP:RS reviews of Space Zap per se, but I was able to locate two sources covering Space Fortress, a port for the Bally Astrocade. If it could be determined that Space Fortress faithfully replicates the gameplay of Space Zap (and hence the two are basically the same game), the following references should help establish WP:GNG:

Classic Home Video Games, 1972-1984: A Complete Reference Guide
Katz, Arnie; Kunkel, Bill (July 1982). "Programmable Parade: Space Fortress". Electronic Games. 1 (5). Reese Publishing: 75–76. (fairly in-depth game review) --Mike Agricola (talk) 20:22, 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, MBisanz ^talk 01:52, 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. KTC (talk) 00:22, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Page Traffic[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORP. This is the best source, but it is hardly reliable or independent as it is the CEO being interviewed. The other references are mainly linkedin or similar sites. Searches in google news bring up nothing. SmartSE (talk) 13:44, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. —Ed!^(talk) 19:34, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 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, ⋘HueSatLum ? ❢⋙ 15:26, 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) 01:20, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Whole lotta pseudo-references of no real substance, for a company of no real substance. --Calton | Talk 10:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I double checked and seems company name is Pagetraffic and not Page Traffic. When you change the name, lots of references comes up — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikehose (talk • contribs) 15:00, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of significant independent coverage. I found press releases and an article by an aspiring journalist which repeated the company's sales pitch, but nothing more. --Michig (talk) 08:22, 6 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dan "DFS" Johnson[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO there is no discussion of this individual in any of the references cited. Not even mentioned in Covenant Award which lists the key contributors. -MJH (talk) 22:23, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Previous AfD same subject WP:Articles_for_deletion/Dan_Johnson_(musician)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — sparklism ^hey! 12:34, 11 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 00:03, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As per nom. 1292simon (talk) 02:32, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Covenant Award only mentions the artist name on the official site, but if you research further you will find that he was the producer and co-writer of the Album in question. The content in the first reference link recently changed, which is why the discussion of the individual is absent. Perhaps refs need to be updated. James Stranahan 02:38, 21 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dirtybofficial (talk • contribs)

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) 05:30, 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) 01:14, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a previous AFD resolved to delete the article and this "alternate title" seems to have been created to avoid having people make the link to the old (deleted) article. That's usually the stuff of CSD. Not particularly good form. The suggestion that original research should be used to verify particular claims does not help. Stalwart111 11:50, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not cool. Prior to creating the new article, Musicmpr (contribs) also blanked the previous AfD discussion. I'll assume WP:FAITH and just suggest he/she needs to be at least made aware of some wikipedia rules. Otherwise we could well be going through the same thing in future with Dan Johnson (DFS records) or similar. 1292simon (talk) 21:46, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep definitely a notable producer in Canada. Angelkraft (talk) 23:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC) — Angelkraft (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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. KTC (talk) 00:20, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Champion (arcade game)[edit]

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

The sources in the article appear unreliable or are entries in a list or database. I could not find significant coverage of the game in secondary reliable sources. Delete per WP:GNG. Odie5533 (talk) 06:26, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:06, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:EXISTS, but not notable. 1292simon (talk) 02:21, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 22:06, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:06, 18 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) 00:17, 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) 01:11, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Electronic Games published a short (two paragraph) game review in August 1982. Not sufficient to satisfy WP:GNG yet, but it's probable that further research into arcade gaming magazines published in 1981 and 1982 would uncover further coverage of the game. --Mike Agricola (talk) 19:52, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If enough reviews are found in the future to meet the GNG, I would be fine with the article being taken to WP:DRV. --Odie5533 (talk) 00:55, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears to lack sufficient notability for an article. --Michig (talk) 08:18, 6 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 redirect to Nichibutsu. MBisanz ^talk 02:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Radical Radial[edit]

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

I could not find significant coverage of this game in secondary reliable sources. The sources in the article are either entries in a list or database, or they are unreliable. Delete per WP:GNG. Odie5533 (talk) 06:19, 9 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, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Nichibutsu. The game is not notable in its own right. 1292simon (talk) 02:19, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 22:10, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:10, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:06, 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) 01:09, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete: I couldn't find any WP:RS with significant coverage of this game either. However, it is possible the game was more notable in Japan than in North America. Using the game's Japanese title (ラジカルラジアル) as a Google search term yields a bunch of results. Unfortunately I don't read Japanese and have no idea what Japanese gaming sites are considered reliable. But it might be something for someone familiar with the language to investigate. --Mike Agricola (talk) 20:01, 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 delete. KTC (talk) 00:18, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah May Coward[edit]

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

Does not meet criteria of Wikipedia:WikiProject Figure Skating/Notability Hergilei (talk) 00:47, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:32, 18 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 00:02, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While project-specific guidelines cannot trump official Wikipedia guidelines, I do not think that this person meets WP:GNG to begin with. All I can find are secondary mentions and listings of events where she has performed, but no substantive standalone coverage. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:40, 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) 01:09, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It appears that she competed as a junior prior to 2012, finishing 3rd in the British Championships with her brother ([15]), and competed as a senior in the 2012 NRW Trophy. I doubt that this would be enough to pass the figure skating notability guideline, and I only found local coverage. --Michig (talk) 08:14, 6 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 no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 02:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Giulio Romano Vercelli[edit]

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

Subject does not pass WP:ARTIST 1292simon (talk) 05:50, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 13:18, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The artist's website makes it clear thereisn't the coverage needed in RS. Johnbod (talk) 13:59, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If verified and covered with more detail, the claim that the artist won an award for his painting "Uva" at the 1920 Venice Biennale could give a decent notability claim. AllyD (talk) 14:46, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 18 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 00:01, 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) 01:08, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I found the following Italian/French-language snippet sources in Google Books, which look like they may indicate notability, at least one appears to be significant. Could do with an Italian reader to verify: [16][17][18][19]. --Michig (talk) 08:02, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to Michig's links, Google Books turns up a book or booklet about him, Gabriele Mandel, L'impressionismo italiano e Giulio Romano Vercelli (Milan, 1967), but without a preview. There would also appear to be an entry on him in the Dizionario Enciclopedico Bolaffi dei pittori e degli incisori italiani (this is referenced, not verified). And there's a street named after him in a village near Turin.--Andreas Philopater (talk) 00:48, 7 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) JayJay^{What did I do?} 02:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sherrie Rose[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No evidence of notability. Fails WP:ENT Valrith (talk) 07:03, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per previous AfD, although I will agree that a major expansion of the article is needed. Lukeno94 (talk) 16:15, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:ACTOR in all regards. No editorial coverage to pass WP:GNG--Nixie9 (talk) 05:41, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Just as was kept in 2011. She passes WP:ENT and WP:GNG and while some of her acting roles are minor, there are enough nontrivial roles to meet the requirements of WP:ENT. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:42, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:00, 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) 01:07, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Has received fairly wide coverage, and several of her roles appear to have been starring ones, e.g. Me and Will,[20][21][22] Summer Job,[23] The Victims,[24] and an episode of Tales from the Crypt.[25] --Michig (talk) 07:54, 6 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. postdlf (talk) 00:52, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FleshEatingZipper[edit]

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

All sources are primary. Could find no secondary sourcing whatsoever. Prod declined by IP for no reason. Everything points to a WP:WEB failure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:26, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've done some editing to the page, removing a lot of primary sources and a quote-farm that had formed in the page. A search quickly shows that while this is one of the more popular sites out there and might be usable as a RS for other articles, I don't see anything to show that this site is notable enough to merit an article of its own. No matter how nicely written or reliable the site's own posts are, primary sources can't show notability. I think it might just be WP:TOOSOON for this website to have an entry. It's only been up for a year and while it apparently got some initial hits for covering an author rant, being popular doesn't mean that you get an entry. It just means that it's possible for the site to gain coverage to show notability, in other words, coverage that focuses on the site rather than just mentioning it. I just don't see that type of coverage at this point in time, hence the "too soon" bit.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:23, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - some guys got laid off and started a website? I can't see any WP:CORPDEPTH there. Stalwart111 11:54, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — After failing to identify any reliable sources whatsoever regarding FleshEatingZipper, I'd agree that the article fails WEB and that it's premature for the VG project to consider incorporating this as a reliable source. Mephistophelian (contact) 07:14, 4 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Sparse reliable coverage, and nothing I'd be comfortable using to establish WP:WEB notability. Mkdw ^talk 09:30, 5 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. KTC (talk) 00:16, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vamshi Paidithalli[edit]

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

Contested PROD. BLP of an Indian actor that seems to fail the general notability guidelines, as well as not really meeting WP:ACTOR. As is usual in the case of non-Western bios it's difficult to find third party coverage, but peacock language aside, I could not find many sources that would help establish notability. No prejudice to withdrawing the AFD if Indian editors or others with more knowledge can help source the article. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 10:12, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 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, -- Cheers, Riley 00:06, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unable to find reliable, secondary sources which evidence the notability of this actor. Any chance there're non-English sources? --j⚛e decker ^talk 03:16, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As far as I can tell he hasn't had major roles and the lack of available sources indicates that we shouldn't have a BLP here. --Michig (talk) 07:38, 6 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. Sandstein 01:33, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nima Soltani[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking ghits and Gnews of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO. reddogsix (talk) 04:35, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

:CommentThanks - it was on speedy before - I wanted it off speedy because I have an interest in Persian Art/Antiquities and have a reason to believe the subject may be significant. I am compiling a few new sources I have found. The big thing is the subject area - Persian Carpets is such a niche area and so few people make the carpets/fix them anymore most of the major "carpet fixers" would in fact be notable in their main industry. I am reserving vote at the moment until I fully establish an opinion. 7 days gives me the time to do the background work and make an informed vote.Boatingfaster (talk) 05:17, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 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, -- Cheers, Riley 00:06, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like paid-editing spam; no evidence of WP:BIO notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:30, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CLOSING ADMIN - Note that Boatingfaster is a sockpuppet of a paid editor: here PeterWesco (talk) 15:59, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE PeterWesco (talk) 15:59, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing found to indicate the notability that would make an encyclopedia article appropriate. --Michig (talk) 07:34, 6 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. KTC (talk) 00:14, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Amaro Erbes[edit]

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

No indication of notability, fails GNG Nounique names 02:31, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 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, -- Cheers, Riley 00:06, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unable to find reliable, secondary sources which provide coverage of this tasty-sounding beverage. --j⚛e decker ^talk 03:14, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't appear to be a notable product. No significant coverage found. Nothing else found that would indicate that an encyclopedia article is appropriate. --Michig (talk) 07:32, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This topic appears to fail WP:N. Source searches have only yielded passing mentions such as in this article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:36, 6 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. WP:SOFTDELETE KTC (talk) 00:14, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Barometer on Change[edit]

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

An entire article not merited for this subject, perhaps only a glancing remark in an article about Moorhouse Consulting, if even that is notable enough for an article. —Eustress ^talk 08:48, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 18 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 00:00, 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, -- Cheers, Riley 00:05, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm up in the air on this one. I'd prefer to have the contents rendered into an article on Morehouse Consulting per nom, but the Barometer appears to have received enough attention in reliable sources so that it could qualify for its own article. Majoreditor (talk) 20:28, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. At present, this is a single report that doesn't seem to have been widely covered. --Michig (talk) 07:28, 6 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. KTC (talk) 00:08, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Inferred justification[edit]

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

This term was coined in 2009 study titled "There Must Be a Reason: Osama, Saddam and Inferred Justification", published by sociologists at the University of Buffalo. The study got a fair amount of news coverage, but there's no evidence that the term itself has become common parlance amongst academics, which means it isn't notable. DoctorKubla (talk) 08:45, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 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, -- Cheers, Riley 00:04, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. While the term draws several ghits it's an echo-chamber: different publications quoting the same person. As the nom mentions, the term has not been picked up by others; hence, it strikes me as a neologism. Majoreditor (talk) 01:04, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this seems a clear WP:NEOlogism with no hope of developing notability. It's a bit of jargon coined on an off day by a sociologist. 'Nuff said. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:18, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There only seems to be one paper using the term and a few other sources discussing that paper. I don't feel that this is sufficient to have an encyclopedia article on the term. --Michig (talk) 07:20, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Maybe if the term picks up in popularity it can have an article. Until then, the current article is unfit and ponders something non-notable. Backtable ^{Speak to me}_{concerning my deeds.} 23:40, 6 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. KTC (talk) 00:08, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

American BOA Inc[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORP. Parent company may be notable (de:BOA Group) but this subsidiary doesn't seem so. I see nothing in the article that suggests significance, and the sources are few and of poor reliability. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:13, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 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, -- Cheers, Riley 00:04, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pending more sources, I wasn't able to come up with sources reaching WP:GNG/[{WP:CORP]]. --j⚛e decker ^talk 03:11, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I didn't find much coverage of the company. --Michig (talk) 07:12, 6 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. No evidence provided of meeting general or specific notability criteria. j⚛e decker ^talk 03:08, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Vasiliev (Catholic priest)[edit]

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

Priest bio, does not seem to meet WP:N. Deprodded with a rationale that his imprisonment makes him notable. No, it does not, unless it made him discussed in reliable sources - which the article so far fails to prove. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:17, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I checked Russian sources and could not find anything which was not already in the article (two or three more sources which merely state that he converted and was jailed). Probably delete if no further sources are found.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:01, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- He appears to have been imprisoned for his faith, and his death in prison can be regarded as martyrdom. This makes him a candidate for canoniosation. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:33, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And you based this conclusion on what sources? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:56, 30 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 00:03, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:SIGCOV and WP:VICTIM. Blue Riband► 04:24, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing on him found in a High Beam search, a Questia search and a google search, other than what is already mentioned. Yes, he possibly could be a candidate for canonization but since there is no evidence that he is such a candidate, that would be speculation, can not be mentioned in the article and thus should not count toward notability. I saw a reference to another priest of the same name that was a confessor for the czar and presided over Rasputin's funeral but that must be an older person; should not be confused. May have been an admirable person, but no more details or sources so notability not established. Donner60 (talk) 08:05, 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. postdlf (talk) 00:51, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Loreen Dinwiddie[edit]

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

Only assertion of notability is being over 100 years old. Weihang7 (talk) 14:05, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely weak keep - [26], [27], [28], plus probably a few more further into Google. There's plenty of stuff there, but I doubt there's enough in the way of reliable sources in there for anything other than my weak keep (I did find an opposingviews link, but that's probably rightly blocked.) Lukeno94 (talk) 22:09, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Should be kept because research into centenarians is highly important as is research into the effect of vegan diet on lifespan and this article provides useful documentation on both subjects. — Preceding unsignedcomment added by 24.234.172.23 (talk) 02:51, 26 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 00:03, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not quite notable yet. Lukeno94 provides 3 links, but only one of them appears to be a reliable source: KGW is Portland, OR local TV which is fine, though not enough for notability. The other links are to Ann & Paul Malkmus's personal website, and to what appears to be a community blog which merely discusses the KGW report and hence provides no independent information. The article links to 2 YouTube videos, which again tends not to be a WP:RS since anyone can put content on YouTube. Centenarians are listed on WP if they're notable, or if over 110 they can go on List of living supercentenarians. If she lives a bit longer, she can get a mention in a list, but doesn't merit an article. --Colapeninsula (talk) 01:18, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I turned up nothing on her in High Beam searches with and without her middle name. Her name does turn up in google searches but they seem to refer to the You Tube videos and the fact that she is a vegan, and not much else. I don't see how the mere mention in an article of a single supercentenarian who happens to have a vegan diet would contribute to any research or documentation on the effect of a vegan diet on life span. The connection between age and veganism cannot be established by this mere coincidence or anecdote. So I see nothing to support her notability for an article beyond her age - unless Wikipedia is going to document everyone who lives past 100 years for the mere fact that they lived that long - perhaps with a few stray facts about their lives. I agree that she could go on to a list of supercentenarians (if and when qualified) but is not notable enough for an article simply on account of her age (with all due respect to her age and probably admirable life style). Donner60 (talk) 07:34, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am new to Wikipedia, so pardon my lack of formatting knowledge and my potential bias as Loreen is my grandmother, but I think it is a legitimate article, as she is the oldest person in the state of Oregon. She will be a super centenarian in just one month from today, and this is pretty to able. Elsie Thompson and Bernice Madigan have their own articles, and they are supercentenarians wo old the record as oldest in their states (Florida and Massachusetts). I don't know how to add my signature, but please are this into account. It is confirmed that she exists and is the oldest person in Oregon. She is not like the oldest person in some states, who are 102 or 103, which is still quite old, but this is nearly a supercentenarian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.177.25.246 (talk) 02:25, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment. Perhaps there should be a list of the oldest person in each State - if these can be verified. A fact or a few facts could follow the name. Each person like this could be covered without controversy as to notability and without constantly creating separate pages about people with few other notability - again, unless wikipedia wants to have a guideline that everyone who reaches 100 years of age, or some age like 110 or an age in between, can get an article based on their longevity and little else. I mean no disrespect because such people can teach us quite a bit about life and often about a variety of topics and are admirable in many ways - just that they would often not seem to meet the notability criteria here. (I don't feel strongly about this; just calling it as I see it in terms of my understanding of the guidelines; if someone thinks I am being too strict about it, it's ok with me - by which I mean that if the decision is to keep the article, it's ok with me.) Donner60 (talk) 05:27, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_supercentenarians_from_the_United_States#Oldest_living_American_by_state — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.177.25.246 (talk) 22:14, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As with most articles on supercentenarians the subject's notability rests solely on her age (that is, being merely "really old" and not "the oldest in country xxx" and this has been agreed on repeatedly as insufficient to justify a stand-alone article. In this case the subject hasn't even reached supercentarian status, let alone been verified (which typically takes 6-12 months, and may not even happen) so keeping the article "in case she makes it" is an extremely poor argument for retention. Additonally the only citations are from youtube which is not considered a WP:RS. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 09:54, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As noted above, there is no evidence of meeting WP:N's requirement of non-trivial coverage in multiple, reliable, third party sources. Considering that she's really only notable for one event at this point (becoming the oldest person in Oregon), at most a redirect to List of supercentenarians from the United States#Oldest living American by state might be appropriate, but even that would be somewhat unnecessary in my opinion. Canadian Paul 17:03, 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.