< 14 January	16 January >

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

The result was speedily deleted by Jimfbleak (G11). 86.44.40.0 (talk) 14:09, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aneel[edit]

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

Musician of questionable notability. Google search on Aneel "I Keep Looking for You" (his allegedly award-winning album, and only major claim of notability) shows only 61 unique results, primarily sales links and directory listings. No independent reliable sources to corroborate the claims. MikeWazowski (talk) 23:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:MUSICBIO, sources given (cdbaby.com, filmbaby.com aso.) are WP:NOTRELIABLE.--Ben Ben (talk) 00:03, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possible speedy. Not notable. Hairhorn (talk) 02:25, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Bryce (talk | contribs) 01:25, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of East Cemetery Hill[edit]

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

An attack by two brigades does not seem notable enough to have its own article. This could be covered just as well at Battle of Gettysburg, Second Day or at Cemetery Hill. Wild Wolf (talk) 15:08, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This should probably be a merge recommendation. It overlaps substantially with Cemetery Hill. (The Second Day article is deliberately structured to omit any of the battle details on Cemetery Hill or Culp's Hill.) Hal Jespersen (talk) 18:19, 15 January 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 January 15. Snotbot t • c » 23:19, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 23:29, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 23:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The nomination does not offer a sensible reason to delete, seeming to suggest merger or other restructuring. And the suggestion that the battle is not notable is utterly false as this engagement is covered in detail in numerous sources. For example, here's a complete order of battle. The nominator should please refrain from further nominations in this Gettysburg deletion spree as it seems clear that he is not following deletion policy. Warden (talk) 23:33, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the issue here is not if it can be referenced but if this is notable enough to have a seperete article from the Gettysburg article, which I believe is what Hal Jespersen is saying as well. Neither one of us believes that the battle needs to be covered in this much detail. (See the discussion on the MILHIST talk page here.) Wild Wolf (talk) 00:29, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep of course, since article clearly meets notability criteria and is a valid sub-article of the oversized Battle of Gettysburg, Second Day, which has the same level of detail (via Jesperson et al edits-which establish notability) instead of the proper summary per WP:MOS. Target for Today (talk) 20:17, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep Outsidedog (talk) 03:57, 17 January 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. Der yck C. 13:59, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

East Carolina University Police Department[edit]

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

Contested PROD : Non Notable University Police Department, without any independent sources; Fails WP:ORG Mt king ^(edits) 23:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 23:38, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 23:38, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 23:44, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no demonstration of notability.--GrapedApe (talk) 01:12, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Although I agree the article needs some work I hesitate in recommending it be deleted with 228 views in the last 30 days alone. --Kumioko (talk) 18:29, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not that page views matter are in the least bit relevant to this discussion, but 228 in 30 days is low. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge. I'd probably lean towards delete, but perhaps some information could be salvaged at East Carolina University if that's where other schools have their police departments information. I can't find too many, however. Patken4 (talk) 21:50, 17 January 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. Tone 13:52, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arman Aharonyan[edit]

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

BLP Prod was removed without comment. Notability appears dubious, especially with claims like "he prefers not to use them because his punches, proven by doctors can easily break bones." Pink Bull 22:45, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cant find anything on this person, is this bordering on a hoax ? Mt king ^(edits) 23:38, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can find no information about an MMA fighter by this name. Article states that the subject is "semi-pro" and thus likely fails WP:ATHLETE. --TreyGeek (talk) 01:12, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of notability. The only reference given has nothing to do with the subject. Looks like it may be a hoax, but even if it isn't he clearly doesn't meet any notability criteria. Mdtemp (talk) 15:17, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not even close. The article is a disaster and the person is of indeterminable notability. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 20:21, 21 January 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. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kristinn Steindórsson[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Contested PROD. Fails NFOOTBALL and GNG. No apps for Halmstad and even if he would, Superettan is not a fully professional league. No apps for the Icelandic national team either. Reckless182 (talk) 22:30, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Tooga - BØRK! 15:49, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Tooga - BØRK! 15:50, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 16:00, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - per WP:CSD#G4. This article was deleted just four months ago. Sir Sputnik (talk)

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 12:47, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Heiko Khoo[edit]

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO, Google searches show a lot of stuff he has generated himself but not independent sourcing of his notability. Ifnord (talk) 22:11, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Interesting personality, but non-notable. Antonio Unbreakable Martin Tell me more, tell me more, like did she go very far? 12:03, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not clear where the nominator tried to search, as Google News show multiple secondary sources about him, like Los Angeles Times, The Independent, Washington Post, Green Left, rebelion.org, The World, wsws. Clearly passes GNG. Cavarrone (talk) 22:17, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The articles mention him in passing but are not about him. The Independent, for example, is about the creation of a carosel and has a quote from him opposing it as taking away space from Speaker's corner. --Ifnord (talk) 17:53, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Fails WP:POLITICIAN: he cannot even get elected to his own student Marxist Society. Appearance in newspapers in itself does not indicate notability WP:NOTNEWS. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:50, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article fails to explain why this person is notable. 67.239.100.244 (talk) 16:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC)— 67.239.100.244 (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 keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 10:44, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Menteris Besar of Negeri Sembilan[edit]

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

Fails WP:LISTN. Bbb23 (talk) 21:27, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Chief executive of a first-level subdivision of a sovereign state is inherently notable. If you so resort to arguing against its notability by suggesting it's not notable as a list, then perhaps we should just call it "Menteri Besar of Negeri Sembilan". —Yk Yk Yk talk ~ contrib 21:33, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Derisory nomination for the reasons given by Yk Yk Yk. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:30, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a chief executive-related list that is inherently notable as reason from Yk Yk Yk - WPSamson (talk) 04:59, 17 January 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. Notability established by strong coverage in Google Books. Therefore, it passes WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) Bryce (talk | contribs) 01:28, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agent 3S3: Passport to Hell[edit]

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

Fails WP:MOVIE. Article currently has no sources other than IMDb. Couldn't find it listed on Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritics. Google news search came up with nothing other than a pointer to a trailer. Bbb23 (talk) 21:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: The film has a strong and not-trivial coverage in Google Books, including books like L'Avventurosa storia del cinema italiano raccontata dai suoi protagonisti, 1960-1969, 007 All'Italiana, Mondo exotica: sounds, visions, obsessions of the cocktail generation, Dizionario dei film italiani stracult, Spionaggio, avventura, eroi moderni. The nom lacks of WP:BEFORE. Cavarrone (talk) 12:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per Cavarone.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:42, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep -- Not sure how the editor proposing the deletion picks their sources: of course a 1965 film is not covered by Rotten Tomatoes and the like. On the contrary, it is widely covered in texts and repertories about Italian genre films. Goochelaar (talk) 22:46, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's because I'm not Italian. Maybe it's because the creator of the article didn't cite any sources - gee, wouldn't it be radical if we required a little quality in the creation of articles? I even thought about withdrawing the nomination based on Cavarrone's research, but he had to gild the lily and add the ungrammatical barb (my own barb), so I figured I'd let the usual AfD unpleasantness continue.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you are unable to search and identify Italian sources you should avoid to nominate for deletion articles about Italian subjects. Plain and simple. - Cavarrone (talk) 09:12, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad it's "plain and simple" to you. Next time I see an unsourced article about an Italian subject, I'll try to remember to contact you to see if you want to source it.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:46, 20 January 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Bryce (talk | contribs) 01:28, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Common chemicals[edit]

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

Seems to consist mostly of original research. Has already been transwikied to wikibooks which seems appropriate. Suggest merging any new content to the wikibooks article, then deletion. Lmatt (talk) 20:12, 15 January 2012 (UTC) Lmatt (talk) 20:12, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The suggestion that chemicals such as acetic acid or acetone are an original invention here is preposterous. The nomination suggests merger and our licensing constraints then mean that we cannot delete. See WP:MAD. Warden (talk) 23:43, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was obviously not suggesting that "acetic acid" itself has been an original invention on Wikipedia! My concern is information like "In supermarkets, acetic acid is available in concentrations up to 31%". In the table, the common name, where to buy, and specific brand or product columns seem to be original research. Lmatt (talk) 15:12, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Borderline keep I'm not sure what to do about this one. You can't say anything on here isn't sourced - a ten second Google search for "Acetic Acid" brings up this factsheet from the US EPA. I suspect everything else on the table can be similarly sourced. However, the article has very few links, and I can't say that "Common chemicals" is ever something I'd directly search for on WP, as opposed to "Acetic acid". Having a list is useful, because at school you're taught that C2H5OH is "Ethanoic acid" whereas the real world still may call it "Acetic acid". Also List of commonly available chemicals should be merged with this article and whatever the end consensus is to be applied to that. --Ritchie333 (talk) 13:09, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Common chemicals and where they are sold, makes sense to have. I'm not sure about listing name brands though. There are many products out there for each thing, so do you list them all? Do you only list those that have Wikipedia articles for them? Are the products listed only found in a few stores, or is found in hundreds or thousands of stores? Dream Focus 20:41, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this instructive article. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:30, 18 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Snow keep. Per all the above keeps. Sourced and notable.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:17, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of schools in Nelson, New Zealand. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 10:44, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tahunanui School[edit]

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

Delete. Non-notable school. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:51, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. —-- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:55, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable primary school. Google search turned up nothing promising. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:19, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. The only coverage I could find was trivial, passing mentions. [1] Till I Go Home (talk) 09:23, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - blank, and redirect to List of schools in Nelson, New Zealand where it is already listed. There is no policy or guideline that primary schools are inherently notable, but as redirection is often a preferred solution: Sometimes an unsuitable article may have a title that would make a useful redirect. In these cases, deletion is not required; any user can boldly redirect to another article (policy), non notable schools that are proven to exist are generally not deleted; instead, according to long established precedent demonstrated by 100s of AfD closures, and summarised in WP:OUTCOMES, an objective essay that "is intended to supplement Wikipedia:Deletion policy", they are redirected to the article about the school district (USA), or to the article about the locality, or to a list article. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:18, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per convincing Kudpung's rationale. Cavarrone (talk) 10:11, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Delete. The subject of the article lacks the RS coverage that would -- in light of precedent -- support notability such as would lead us to keep it as a stand-alone article.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:08, 20 January 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. Tone 13:52, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2007 Ağrı earthquake[edit]

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

Unremarkable earthquake. Doesn't align with WikiProject Earthquakes notability guidelines Dawnseeker2000 19:33, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nominator (disclosure - I came up with the notability guidelines). I checked on the Kandilli Observatory website and (via Google Translate) it says no more than our article. No deaths, injuries, and very little damage. Mikenorton (talk) 20:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable event. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:22, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per guidelines. Also of interest is the fact this phrase still existed in the article: "and they were still looking for casualties." -- Zanimum (talk) 23:58, 15 January 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. Tone 13:53, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Famous Back Four[edit]

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

This is entirely unsourced and I'm unaware of this being in common use, certainly not in any wider context than between Arsenal fans. The offside trap trivia is true, but the article isn't about that. Fol de rol troll (talk) 19:29, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unsourced trivia, at best. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:25, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect. Interestingly enough, there's no mention of the term in Arsenal F.C. If the term could be sourced properly, we could redirect it to the Arsenal article. Otherwise, it should be deleted.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:59, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We don't need articles on specific football line-ups/partnerships, that's just overkill. Besides, a Google search reveals few sources that use the phrase "Famous Back Four". Mattythewhite (talk) 21:17, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Our colonial cousins seem very keen on articles on specific line-ups/partnerships - see, for example, Category:Nicknamed groups of American football players........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:47, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - more like an affectionate fan's term than an encyclopedic one. Giant Snowman 21:29, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this and this and this suggest that the group is actually best known as the famous five, which would kinda make sense, what with there being five of them an' all...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:07, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication that this is encyclopaedic or sufficiently notable. Argyle 4 Life^talk 15:28, 20 January 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. Tone 13:53, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tavare hill[edit]

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

Former PROD (I was the nominator). Bio of a wrestler who wrestles for a pro wrestling association that itself doesn't have a Wikipedia article. That doesn't mean he should qualify for deletion per se however that association's own website only mentions him as a minor player. A google search produces over 1,000 ghits, but little that's independent of the subject. None of the "references" in the article even mention him at all. Warrants discussion, hence AfD rather than PROD. role^player 19:04, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable. Minor wrestler for minor association with no independent coverage. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:28, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Despite his miraculous feat in winning the Carolina's Championship from a TV sportscaster who has been dead for 40 years, the subject does not pass our general notability guidelines. Also, the article contains original research and material that is not verifiable. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 00:22, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of schools in the Manawatu-Wanganui Region#Palmerston North City. Tone 13:53, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Linton Country School[edit]

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

Delete. Non-notable school. Also, primary schools are generally not given their own article. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 18:48, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. —-- Alan Liefting (talk) - 18:48, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable elementary school. Or redirect to Palmerston North, New Zealand if there would be any value in that. Carrite (talk) 19:23, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable primary school. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:30, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - blank, and redirect to List of schools in the Manawatu-Wanganui Region#Palmerston North City where it is already listed. There is no policy or guideline that primary schools are inherently notable, but as redirection is often a preferred solution: Sometimes an unsuitable article may have a title that would make a useful redirect. In these cases, deletion is not required; any user can boldly redirect to another article (policy), non notable schools that are proven to exist are generally not deleted; instead, according to long established precedent demonstrated by 100s of AfD closures, and summarised in WP:OUTCOMES, an objective essay that "is intended to supplement Wikipedia:Deletion policy", they are redirected to the article about the school district (USA), or to the article about the locality, or to a list article. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:34, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE for closer: if this AfD is closed as 'redirect', please remember to include the template on the redirect page as it populates an important category. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:34, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or Delete. This school -- with zero independent gbooks hits, and three passing mention gnews hits, lacks the RS coverage that would -- in light of precedent -- support notability such as would lead us to keep it as a stand-alone article.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:11, 20 January 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 OpenXMA. There is a clear consensus, that a separate article for this software isn't warrented. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 10:41, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

XMA (software)[edit]

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

Zero notability found. Non-notable software. Fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 18:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect. Could be redirected to OpenXMA, the content of which isn't all that different from this article. A redirect only makes sense if editors think that OpenXMA is sufficiently notable to keep.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:06, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, seems to be only covered in press release republishing sources. OpenXMA should probably follow it, though not in this discussion. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:11, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to OpenXMA, as suggested. DGG ( talk ) 02:14, 21 January 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 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ifnord (talk • contribs) 21:25, January 15, 2012 (UTC)

Huffy[edit]

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

~~Non notable, failing WP:ORGIN and WP:CORPDEPTH~~ Nomination withdrawn Ifnord (talk) 18:33, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Are you serious? One of the most well-known American brand bicycle companies. AfD is not a venue for cleanup and though it is packed with some easily pruned corporate information there isn't a real cause for deletion here. Nate • (chatter) 20:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Was serious, but now I realize hasty. Point taken, nomination withdrawn. --Ifnord (talk) 20:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does that mean the discussion is closed and the banner can be removed from the top of the page? -AndrewDressel (talk) 21:11, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think I can close it, give me a moment to make sure I do that right. --Ifnord (talk) 21:20, 15 January 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 discussion below established that the article fails WP:Crystal ball. In the absence of an obvious target to redirect to (two names were given below, in addition to "or any one of the lead actors"), I will delete this article for now. This AfD should not prevent the article from being undeleted or recreated in the future should the film become notable in the run-up to, or after its release. Der yck C. 16:51, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Since this AfD does not necessarily preclude future recreation of the article, I chose not to remove the red-links caused by this deletion, except on disambiguation and list pages. Der yck C. 16:59, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kick (2012 film)[edit]

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

I noticed this article only recently. Per Wp:NFF, no source exists saying that principal photography has commenced. Salman Khan is working on 1 or more films like Ek Tha Tiger, Sher Khan and some other ones. So is Sonakshi. I also came across a source which said that the film will start shooting in 2012, and the year has just began. It is likely to start only in the second half of this year, and till then this shouldn't be an article. It should be deleted, userified, redirected, or merged with minor info. X.One ^SOS 18:13, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~:Redirect: The filming is yet to began which violated WP:NFF. Redirecting the page to the lead actors future projects section will be cool. -- Karthik Nadar 18:18, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article also includes material based on a rumor. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pending: This is against WP:CRYSTALBALL; sources say such, but there is no word of completion. However, if this debate results a delete, then either I or someone else must keep an eye on that article in case that the film is published in India or Korea. What if this article is created either one week before or at the time the film will be released? --George Ho (talk) 20:11, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Sorry, I didn't get you. X.One ^SOS 05:22, 16 January 2012 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll rephrase: this article violates WP:CRYSTALBALL, but is it the reason to delete this article? If so, then why would the film to be truly completely made possible? There is no sources yet to prove whether it is a fake or real, but we'll see the upcoming sources about this film. If this article is deleted, and someone creates this article without discussion if the film is completely produced, would WP:G4 be met? --George Ho (talk) 06:21, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, George... this not a violation, as WP:CRYSTALBALL (also sometimes linked as WP:FUTURE or WP:SPECULATION and a few others) does allow that future events might have an article when it offers that if a topic is "of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred", it "is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced"... with proper caveats against unverifiable speculation... and against insertion of an editor's personal opinion or analysis. And when speaking toward films, that policy specifically advises editors to "take special care to avoid advertising and unverified claims". So forward-looking articles are not disallowed by a policy that explains that yes... they might be written of.. and how.

Point being made is that while the Wikipedia policy WP:CRYSTALBALL does not forbid forward-looking articles, the more cogent arguments above are those refer to the guideline WP:NFF which, like every guideline, ha its occasional exceptions. If deleted here per AFD, a too-soon recreation would fall afoul of CSD G4 only if it were a "sufficiently identical and unimproved copy".

For articles on planned films, we look to see if the topic of the film's production has enough persistant and enduring coverage to be worthy of note... not as a film, but as a topic of a production-in-process. And even barring extensive and persistant coverage, policy allows that the topic still might at least be discussed somewhere... and redirected or merged to related articles such as those of director or producer. (see below) Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:16, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Redirect per nom for now to either director Shirish Kunder where it might be spoken of and sourced in context to his oter projects, OR to Kick (2009 film) where it might be spoken of and sourced as a planned remake,[2][3] with no prejudice toward return once we have confirmation of principle filming. Note: THIS is interesting and may hold possibilities, but I do not read Hindi. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:16, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is wise to redirect to the original film. The director would be a better choice. X.One ^SOS 13:06, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Shirish Kunder or any one of the lead actors. X.One ^SOS 13:06, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The linked sources do not confirm that there's really anything worth redirecting. A rumor about what "might" happen is insufficient. Doczilla _STOMP! 18:42, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Had this been unverifiable speculation, your not wishing a redirect might have merit. Rather than unverifiable "rumour", reliable sources verify that producer Sajid Nadiadwala was contacted by the Korea Tourism Organization about filming in Korea, and that he subsequently signed an agreement to shoot parts of this film in that country.[4] Reliable sources verify that this is to be a remake of the 2009 film, and that A. R. Murugadoss was signed back in 2009.[5] Reliable sources verify that that Salman Khan signed on to the project and that Shirish Kunder is the curent director.[6] Reliable sources reported that Angela Jonsson joined the cast last week.[7] A redirect to where such properly sourced information can be spoken of in context is fine, as policy specifically allows such. As long as such is verifable and does not involve editor's inserting personal opinion or analysis, properly sourced "speculation" is always welcome someplace. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:44, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Pending - I changed my mind; this isn't a violation of WP:CRYSTALBALL. Sources say that this film is under production; what happens if it is cancelled? There are cancelled films in Category:Cancelled films. --George Ho (talk) 20:50, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Cancelled" is a whole different issue, and would likely prevent any article recreation. But even a cancelled project (were it to happen) might still be mentioned in a filmmaker's, article in context to his career. Yes, nothing is ever for sure... but predicting cancellation at this point is the truly unverifiable violation of WP:CBALL. We don't do that and instead share what is reported in reliable sources. I note that Angela Jonsson was signed to this project only a few days ago. However, and per policy properly verifiable information offered in context to actor's or filmmaker's careers is always welcome in Wikipedia. Being proactive, and in respecting WP:Editing policy, I have done just that and laid ground work for a suitable redirect. My own thought is that it be to that of producer Sajid Nadiadwala, as no matter the changes of directors or possible changes of actors, the remake has been Nadiadwala's verifiable project since 2009 and remains so to the present. I invite you to look at Kick (2009 film)#Remake,[8] Sajid Nadiadwala#Career,[9] and Shirish Kunder#Career,[10] and give your feedback toward which you feel might be the best redirect target per editing policy. Thanks. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:32, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds sensible. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:39, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:43, 17 January 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 for not meeting the relevant inclusion guideline and factual inaccuracy on a WP:BLP. Der yck C. 17:00, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weronika Bloczynska[edit]

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

Not notable and no serious claim to notability. No independent refs. Fails WP:NTENNIS Velella ^{Velella Talk} 17:27, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I see no notability in this person at all at any of the tennis websites. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:22, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Clearly too early, as she has only appeared in a few small $25k ITF tournaments, where she always lost in first round. Needs at least 1 title in over $35k tournament to be notable. Information in the article is also factually inaccurate, as she is wrongly listed with 2 ITF titles in the infobox. MakeSense64 (talk) 15:49, 16 January 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. Renzoy16 makes a valiant effort to prove notability, but his sources fall short. The article even appears slightly promotional in nature and discusses the content of the list rather than the list iteself. Sources presented are not significant or about the blog. v/r - T P 18:46, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hip Hop 100[edit]

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

An annual list complied by a hiphop blog (although the article does not state this at present). I'm having trouble seeing this as a notable thing in its own right. The blog itself does not have an article, although Rocky Williform (the founder of the blog), StreetCred (another Williform blog) and this article seem to be a tiny walled garden created and maintained by single-purpose accounts. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:47, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article should not be deleted and is relevant, especially for the followers of the hip hop genre. Though some people might take the page as not important and irrelevant to have its own article in Wikipedia, I think the article should not be deleted as because it provides the readers information, regarding who are this top people from the hip hop genre who had greatly shaped the hip hop culture and the hip hop scene yearly. It greatly summarizes the people's accomplishments grouped into categories: arts, humanities, and business (rationale for the categories are found in the article). It is not just a simple yearly compilation of people, it is a compilation of people who have great impacts in the hip hop scene, culture, and industry. Regarding on the article for the website/blog, I am currently into it: HipHopBlog.com. I am currently looking for references to finish it.-- Renzoy16 | Talk to me 17:46, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: List compiled by a non-notable blog. SL93 (talk) 18:53, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The list comes from a notable source. Hip Hop Blog was even cited in the following links:
- http://www.mtv.co.uk/music/urban/246585-tim-westwood-and-dizzee-rascal-make-it-into-the-hip-hop-100 (That's MTV UK, a notable source)
- http://blogs.ajc.com/the-buzz/2010/11/22/a-trio-of-celeb-turkey-giveaways-on-tuesday/
- http://blogs.bet.com/music/sound-off/jay-z-diddy-stephen-hill-and-more-listed-as-most-influential-people-in-hip-hop/ (BET.com is another notable source too)
- http://www.ozonemag.com/?p=31887
- http://www.sys-con.com/node/1614176

Being noted in different articles across the web, will certainly increase the notability of the list and of the blog itself.

Notability can also be based on the amount of web content. Google is indexing 3.5 million pages on the website. See this screen shot (Screenshot of Google Search Index) or type into Google the following: site:hiphopblog.com and you will get the search results. This makes the site notable.

Also, the articles are part of Google News Feed. You can click on news and type the following site and see that Google adds the articles into the Google newsfeed: site:hiphopblog.com. Also, see this screen shot of the Google News results (Google News Search Screenshot)).

Google added the site's content as part of the Google and this is major. You dont become a part of the Google News if you are not a notable source.

--

Renzoy16 | Talk to me 20:29, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I really hope that the article would not be deleted. I really gave strong points to keep this article. I also hope that people will respond on this discussion. Anyways, have a nice day everyone!--Renzoy16 | Contact Me 21:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Being cited does not amount to significant coverage. Google hits do not show notability. Being a part of the Google news feed does not show notability. Read WP:WEB. SL93 (talk) 21:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:WEB, notability is meeting any one of the criterias Wikipedia had set. For one it had meet the trivial coverage.

Another one is based on the section of No inherent notability. It states there that:

“

When evaluating the notability of web content, please consider whether they have had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education. High-traffic websites are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability. However, smaller websites can be notable. Arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger websites.

”

The article has significant or has demonstrated effects in the hip hop culture and of the hip hop entertainment industry.--Renzoy16 | Contact Me 01:02, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you prove that? SL93 (talk) 01:07, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The blog is a news type blog/website. Any news website that has a wide coverage (especially it's in internet and used by Google News as well) will surely make an impact in today's culture. Just because the site is not known (perhaps by non-followers/fans of hip hop), it doesn't mean it is not notable. I have cited lots of points here. I really don't know why, it is not still considered notable.

My point here is that, the article has meet one of the criteria found in WP:WEB. Wouldn't that ends this issue? The article is not a list of people! It's a list of perhaps the most influential people in the hip hop scene. --Renzoy16 | Contact Me 18:41, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Being in a Google News search doesn't show notability. I see many Wordpress blogs in Google News searches so that proves nothing, SL93 (talk) 21:56, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I found this:

HipHopBlog was a nominee of 2010 YGEA Awards. See this:
- YGEA Awards Ballot or
- YGEA Website 2010 Nominees
- Hiphopenquirer.com--Renzoy16 | Contact Me 00:19, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It also won the awards: Awards Result--Renzoy16 | Contact Me 06:00, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It has also been listed in with content descriptions different internet directories, such as:
AboutUs.org

ansearch.com

nonar.com

Thereby meeting the criteria of (Notability Web) trivial coverage such as content descriptions in Internet directories or online stores.--Renzoy16 | Contact Me 06:21, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, WP:NWEB states that "trivial coverage such as content descriptions in Internet directories or online stores" is not sufficient to base a claim of notability on. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 11:55, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to say Delete having reviewed points thus made. The notability of the blog itself seems to be debatable and, more pertinantly, the annual list itself doesn't satisfy me as having received significant coverage from multiple reliable sources. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 11:55, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Stroked my comment out, missed the except word. But anyways, sources stated above are notable.--Renzoy16 | Contact Me 01:51, 24 January 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 incentive program. Editors please extract content from the page history behind the redirect to complete the merge. Der yck C. 17:11, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Incentive sites[edit]

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

Long term without any sources, used to be a spam room. J u n k c o p s (want to talk?|my log) 16:29, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Incentive program. A quick search shows that the term is clearly notable. It is part of a more broad aspect known as incentive-based marketing, for which we have a (slightly) better article than this one. Suggest merging what is referenceable. Nageh (talk) 09:36, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Incentive program as suggested by Nageh. I'm sure most people using the internet have come across these sites in search engine results and banner adverts. No prejudice to recreating as an article if there is enough fully-cited material to make it worthwhile. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 12:06, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Incentive program - does not merit a separate article, but the term merits elucidation.DaveApter (talk) 16:04, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Battle of Gettysburg, Second Day. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:34, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anderson's assault[edit]

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

An attack by a single division does not seem notable enough to have its own article. This could be covered just as well at Battle of Gettysburg, Second Day. Wild Wolf (talk) 14:59, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This already IS covered in Battle of Gettysburg, Second Day. There is no justification to splinter the description of Longstreet's second day attacks into multiple articles. The strategic and tactical description of the Battle of Gettysburg has already been split into an overview article, nine major subarticles (first day, second day, Cemetery Hill, Culp's Hill, Little Round Top, third day cavalry battles, Pickett's Charge, Union OOB, Confederate OOB), and two campaign articles. This is substantially more detail than is written for any other American Civil War battle. Breaking down the description into even more subarticles does not make it any easier for the reader to understand this important battle. Hal Jespersen (talk) 18:58, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- the above 18:58 rationale is invalid, as this topic is a sub-article properly created per WP:MOS for splintering articles about distinct topics from parent articles, and it has an appropriate level of detail that is the same as the parent article (which is the one with too much detail by violating the WP style by not summarizing the topic.) Additionally, the poster of the above rationale admits that [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of East Cemetery Hill|"The Second Day article is deliberately structured to omit any of the battle details" (Hal Jespersen (talk) 18:19, 15 January 2012 (UTC)), so for consistency the Anderson's details need their own article. Target for Today (talk) 15:41, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, the 18:58 author in a previous Merge rationalization clearly such topics are encyclopedia-worthy , where he endorses the information being in a forthcoming encyclopedia. Conflict of interest (e.g., is he a contributor to that for-profit encyclopedia)? That would explain his opposition to this notable article--why buy an encyclopedia if one can see the topics online for free? Target for Today (talk) 15:41, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Battle of Gettysburg, Second Day. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 19:20, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The topic is notable, being covered in numerous sources. The way in which the complex and extensively documented Battle of Gettysburg is structured for presentation here is a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion and the nominator should please discuss that at the relevant pages for the battle. Please see WP:BEFORE. Warden (talk) 23:51, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the issue here is not if it can be referenced but if this is notable enough to have a seperete article from the Gettysburg article, which I believe is what Hal Jespersen is saying as well. Neither one of us believes that the battle needs to be covered in this much detail. (See the discussion on the MILHIST talk page here.) Wild Wolf (talk) 00:28, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Battle of Gettysburg, Second Day. I agree with the nominator's statement -- there's no need for an attack by a single division to have a separate article. More context and interrelation with surrounding events is provided if it's presented as part of a greater article. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:26, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- the above 10:26 rationale is invalid, as the number of troops engaged in this combat does not make the topic non-notable--actually the reverse. Wikipedia already identifies the military engagement is notable in the lengthy section of the parent article, and has the same rationale for keeping as the combat described with the same detail as at The Peach Orchard, which are: Target for Today (talk) 15:41, 22 January 2012 (UTC) [reply]
- Keep At the time of the nomination, it already had ample coverage found and listed in the reference section. Dream Focus 21:18, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Obvious Keep - Just as Battle of East Cemetery Hill (above) was adjuticated as meeting Wikipedia's inclusion and notability criteria and is a proper sub-article of the oversize parent article, which the opposers admit is a parent article. Target for Today (talk) 15:41, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Battle of Gettysburg, Second Day per nom. Mad Man American (talk) 15:54, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Battle of Gettysburg, Second Day per nom. 76.7.231.130 (talk) 16:30, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per the WP:MOS. We don't need a mile-long Gettysburg article. A412 (Talk * C) 18:44, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I realized that there should be a limit on the size of Wikipedia articles, but I really don't think that we need to be going into this much detail about a single battle. I don't see why we can't cover the basics of the assault on the Second Day page and refer anyone looking for more details to the appropriate source. Wild Wolf (talk) 22:32, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Battle of Gettysburg, Second Day. I'm not seeing that this article expands sufficiently on the existing subsection in that article. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 12:09, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Battle of Gettysburg, Second Day. Hlj, Wild Wolf, and Buckshot06 are correct. There is absolutely no reason why we need this level of detailed coverage of the battle.67.239.100.244 (talk) 16:41, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Battle of Gettysburg, Second Day 198.252.15.202 (talk) 19:06, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Battle of Gettysburg, Second Day. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:33, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Crawford's charge[edit]

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

An attack by a single division does not seem notable enough to have its own article. This could be covered just as well at Battle of Gettysburg, Second Day. Wild Wolf (talk) 15:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. See my remarks about Anderson's assault, above. Hal Jespersen (talk) 19:01, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Battle of Gettysburg, Second Day. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 19:20, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The topic is notable, being covered in numerous sources. The way in which the complex and extensively documented Battle of Gettysburg is structured for presentation here is a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion and the nominator should please discuss that at the relevant pages for the battle. Please see WP:BEFORE. Warden (talk) 23:52, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the issue here is not if it can be referenced but if this is notable enough to have a seperete article from the Gettysburg article, which I believe is what Hal Jespersen is saying as well. Neither one of us believes that the battle needs to be covered in this much detail. (See the discussion on the MILHIST talk page here.) Wild Wolf (talk) 00:30, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per my comment above -- more context provided if part of the Second Day article. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious Keep For all the notability and other keep reasons above for Anderson's assault. Target for Today (talk) 14:55, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Battle of Gettysburg, Second Day. Mad Man American (talk) 15:59, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Battle of Gettysburg, Second Day. 76.7.231.130 (talk) 16:33, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Battle of Gettysburg, Second Day (as with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anderson's assault) I'm not seeing that this article expands sufficiently on the existing subsection in that article. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 12:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Battle of Gettysburg, Second Day. See my comment for Anderson's assault above. 67.239.100.244 (talk) 16:46, 23 January 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 Culp's Hill. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:31, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Johnson's assault[edit]

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

An attack by a single division does not seem notable enough to have its own article. This could be covered just as well at Battle of Gettysburg, Second Day. Wild Wolf (talk) 15:05, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, although the material it duplicates is in Culp's Hill. Also see my remarks about Anderson's assault, above. Hal Jespersen (talk) 19:04, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Battle of Gettysburg, Second Day. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 19:20, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifying: It should be merged to Culp's Hill, right? Hal Jespersen (talk) 23:06, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The topic is notable, being covered in numerous sources. The way in which the complex and extensively documented Battle of Gettysburg is structured for presentation here is a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion and the nominator should please discuss that at the relevant pages for the battle. Please see WP:BEFORE. Warden (talk) 23:53, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the issue here is not if it can be referenced but if this is notable enough to have a seperete article from the Gettysburg article, which I believe is what Hal Jespersen is saying as well. Neither one of us believes that the battle needs to be covered in this much detail. (See the discussion on the MILHIST talk page here.) Wild Wolf (talk) 00:30, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is not sufficient reason to bring the matter to AFD. WP:BEFORE states "C. Consider whether the article could be improved rather than deleted. If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD. ... If the topic is not important enough to merit an article on its own, consider merging or redirecting to an existing article.". The essential question here is whether this article title should be a redlink. It seems easy to find the phrase "Johnson's assault" used as a title in sources such as this and this demonstrates adequate notability. Whether we have this as a section in a larger article or as a separate article, we would still have a blue link for the phrase and so deletion is not appropriate. Warden (talk) 11:22, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Culp's Hill - eliminate duplication. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:29, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The duplication is at Culp's Hill, which is a parent article and by definition, is to only have a summary. Target for Today (talk) 14:48, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious Keep For all the notability and other keep reasons above for Anderson's assault. Target for Today (talk) 14:48, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Culp's Hill. The amount of detail going into the Battle of Gettysburg is ridiculous. Mad Man American (talk) 15:58, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Culp's Hill. 76.7.231.130 (talk) 16:32, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Battle of Gettysburg, Second Day. See my comment for Anderson's assault above. 67.239.100.244 (talk) 16:47, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Battle of Gettysburg, Second Day. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:28, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

McLaws' Assault[edit]

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

An attack by a single division does not seem notable enough to have its own article. This could be covered just as well at Battle of Gettysburg, Second Day. Wild Wolf (talk) 15:03, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. See my remarks about Anderson's assault, above. Hal Jespersen (talk) 19:02, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Battle of Gettysburg, Second Day. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 19:20, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The topic is notable, being covered in numerous sources. The way in which the complex and extensively documented Battle of Gettysburg is structured for presentation here is a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion and the nominator should please discuss that at the relevant pages for the battle. Please see WP:BEFORE. Warden (talk) 23:53, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the issue here is not if it can be referenced but if this is notable enough to have a seperete article from the Gettysburg article, which I believe is what Hal Jespersen is saying as well. Neither one of us believes that the battle needs to be covered in this much detail. (See the discussion on the MILHIST talk page here.) Wild Wolf (talk) 00:29, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious Keep For all the notability and other keep reasons above for Anderson's assault. Target for Today (talk) 14:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Mad Man American (talk) 15:55, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Battle of Gettysburg, Second Day. 76.7.231.130 (talk) 16:31, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Battle of Gettysburg, Second Day (as with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anderson's assault) I'm not seeing that this article expands sufficiently on the existing subsection in that article. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 12:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Battle of Gettysburg, Second Day. See my comment for Anderson's assault above. 67.239.100.244 (talk) 16:50, 23 January 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 procedural keep, pending result of merge discussion. As an administrator I wish to raise two technical points:

It is suggested below that "the redirect is not required for attribution as it is already provided in the edit summary or ((merged-from))". This is impossible, because edit history (and therefore attribution) is lost at deletion.
That said, a WP:HISTMERGE can be performed to remove the redirect and preserve the edit history. I am happy to do the Histmerge myself if the merge discussion decides that we should do so. Drop me a line on my user talk page if that's needed. Der yck C. 17:21, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mary and Anne of Denmark[edit]

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

The fact that few of Queen Anne's children lived past infancy is notable, but I would doubt very much if the children themselves are. Both these ladies died before the age of two and so it is extremely unlikely the article will ever be longer than it is at present. All the content of this article not already duplicated at Anne, Queen of Great Britain was added to that article on 4 January, removing the purpose of a separate article. A discussion to merge has already been started, but no articles link here except their parents', so there's no need for a redirect to remain in place. Opera hat (talk) 14:55, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Since when was there a minimum age limit on notability? Daughters of a future Queen would certainly have been notable. Sionk (talk) 16:29, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As the merge discussion hasn't yet closed and the merge isn't finalised, I think sending this article to AfD is premature, to say the least. Nonetheless, it's here so I may as well comment.

I agree Mary and Anne are notable and worth mentioning for the reasons stated by Sionk. However, I don't believe they have independent significance. Their role in history is not on a scale similar to the Princes in the Tower. As the nominator alludes to, they are merely an example of Queen Anne's gravid misfortunes. The content of this article has been merged to their mother's article so a Redirect is probably in order. I'd like to agree with Operahat that a redirect is unnecessary but, being the source of a merge, we should keep it to provide attribution. Claret Ash 10:40, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Surely a Procedural keep until an outcome is reached on the merger discussion. This article should never have been nominated for AFD. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 12:26, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Procedurally, I think this nomination should actually be closed first, as we are instructed by the AfD template not to blank or redirect the article while the deletion discussion is in progress. On the substantive issue of the article: the content is duplicated; and the names of the articles are unlikely search terms as the girls were not actually called either "of Denmark" or "Oldenburg"; and the redirect is not required for attribution as it is already provided in the edit summary [11] and can be further provided by Template:Merged-from. DrKiernan (talk) 12:50, 23 January 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. v/r - T P 14:33, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kast-A-Way[edit]

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

This page came up as a random article and I thought I'd tidy it up a bit. However, as I went on I realised that there was little to denote notability. A Google search (and I know the limitations of such) returned little apart from the subject's own blogs, Facebook, Myspace and Twitter sites, as well as sites selling his material, which appear to be sites where performers sell but there is no editorial control. Most of the references in the aritcle are similar. I confess that this is not one of my areas of expertise, hence this AfD nomintion, but I have not been able to find any reliable independent sources to support notability for this self-promoted musician. It should also be noted that the article was created (and has mainly been edited by) User:Illblooded who has apparently edited no other articles. According to the article, Illblooded is an alias of Kast-A-Way, so there is a definite COI issue. Emeraude (talk) 14:36, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could find no significant coverage of his work in reliable sources. 86.44.31.8 (talk) 06:39, 19 January 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. Notability established by significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources, making it clearly pass WP:N. I suggest the nominator to read WP:BEFORE before nominating an article for deletion again. (non-admin closure) Bryce (talk | contribs) 01:31, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Homebrew Channel[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The entire article is referenced by wikis and blogs. Fails WP:NOTABLE Fluttershy !xmcuvg2MH 13:44, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There don't seem to be any reputable sources at all in this article. --Michaelzeng7 (talk) 17:26, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Reliable sources found: Kotaku, Lifehacker, About.com (not sure about the RS status of the latter one). Salvidrim!

Some more: 1up, Joystiq, Engadget. Salvidrim! 19:40, 15 January 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) 23:26, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per Salvidrim's sources. (Kotaku, 1up, Joystiq, and Engadget) Sergecross73 msg me 01:00, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Add Gizmodo and another about.com to those. Someone another 17:15, 16 January 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 Rock of Ages (2012 film). Tone 13:54, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stacee Jaxx[edit]

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

Does a character in a upcoming film need its own page? Bihco (talk) 13:13, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:31, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, oh my gosh delete! This is all original research written in a non-encyclopedic format. Too bad someone kept removing the template because this absolutely is what speedy is meant for. There's no reason for this to be kept and the assertion that it's an upcoming film role by a notable actor is not a good reason to keep it. Most of Cruise's roles aren't notable enough for an article to themselves (and some of them are very well acted) and there's no reason to think that this would be any different.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 14:31, 15 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Delete, non-notable, unsalvageable. CSD A7 doesn't apply, by the way, although I'd happily see this closed early through SNOW or IAR. Hairhorn (talk) 17:17, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the film. While it is indeed atrocious, nothing here is so bad that having it in the article history is actually causing harm anywhere. Jclemens (talk) 17:58, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rock of Ages. --Ifnord (talk) 18:01, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the film article can describe the character. Sumanch (talk) 19:08, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Let's wait until the film is not only released, but makes a couple billion dollars before we deem this a legendary character in the league of Scarlett O'Hara. Also, blatant copyvio of incredibly bad press-release writing. Nate • (chatter) 20:18, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Either redirect to Rock of Ages or delete. The character is not notible. — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 01:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Largely WP:CRYSTAL I have reinstated the AFD notice removed by an IP Arjayay (talk) 18:35, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Absolutely fails notability guidelines, not even close. Total ****ing mess to boot. Safiel (talk) 05:42, 19 January 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. with a leave for speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 10:27, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Festival Bienal Flamenco[edit]

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

I am having trouble finding substantial rs coverage of this festival. Tagged for notability for over a year, and for lack of refs for over a year (though it has two ELs). Epeefleche (talk) 23:06, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move to Bienal de Flamenco: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:28, 2 January 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, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 22:38, 8 January 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, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 12:33, 15 January 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. with a leave for speedy renomination, (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 10:28, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Umberto Milletti[edit]

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

This subject fails WP:GNG as well as WP:CREATIVE. Research shows mostly PR, some PR-like interviews, and lots of this subject speaking in his capacity as company president. He doesn't WP:INHERIT individual notability from companies he founded beyond a mention in those articles, if those companies are actually notable. JFHJr (㊟) 23:26, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - subject has been mentioned in passing in books and news but not with significant depth to meet WP:GNG. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:26, 1 January 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, Jujutacular ^talk 22:34, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep founder of two significant companies is sufficient. Adequate documentation. DGG ( talk ) 22:58, 8 January 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, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 12:33, 15 January 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. v/r - T P 14:32, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Murilo Rezende[edit]

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

Previously deleted via PROD and originally cited reason still applies (Previous PROD reason by User:Cindamuse: "No established significance or importance outside of his murder. Only citations are news reports of his death. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased individuals who do not meet such requirements. See WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:NOTMEMORIAL.) Zzarch (talk) 21:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 8 January 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, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 12:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 01:22, 16 January 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, default to keep. Der yck C. 20:32, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dupa Biskupa[edit]

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

The article was previously nominated for deletion, resulting in a move. Both it's Polish and English counterpart articles have barely any sources that verify the notablity of this card game. Fluttershy !xmcuvg2MH 22:24, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep The game is notable. It's well-known in Poland (I'm a member of the Polish society and hereby I can declare that the game exists because I say so... Lol. Seriously, If you don't know it, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist), there ARE third-party sites describing the game. Besides, what number of links would satisfy your soul? 10? 20? For such a short article!? And it's a f-r-i-e-n-d-l-y game. Therefore there aren't many sites describing it because why would anyone write about it? It seems just some people described it. "karty.EDU.pl" - is reliable enough, believe me. Ptok Bentoniczny (talk) 20:09, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- comment THIS has less sources and is considered notable (look at the AFD page of this). So, you create a pure nonsense. Ptok Bentoniczny (talk) 20:17, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - Ptok is the creator of this article. Fluttershy !xmcuvg2MH 23:10, 3 January 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, Rcsprinter (state) 20:42, 8 January 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, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 12:28, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the fact it exists is not in doubt and it will certainly have been described in published books about card games such as this one. Clearly it would help if the author of this article added sources like these, to avoid any future challenge! Sionk (talk) 16:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That "book" is simply a collection of articles from Polish Wikipedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:27, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - It clearly exists and I got 5000 G-hits although I wouldn't attest to the reliability of the website results (my ability to speak Polish is limited to greetings, profanities, purchasing alcohol and asking to see a woman's breasts).
Perhaps the author could find a few more Polish references (meeting WP:RS)? ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 14:21, 23 January 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. Der yck C. 13:54, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Domestic containment in post–World War II America[edit]

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

There are no reliable sources presented for any information which could be relevant to the article or the term. I doubt that they exist. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:24, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 8 January 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, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 12:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I thought for sure this was going to be a well-meaning college student trying to turn a term paper into an encyclopedia article. I was surprised to see this is a fairly old piece with a number of contributors in the history. The title is unencyclopedic — a neologism or unsearchable phrasing. Essentially, this relates to American domestic repression during the post-WWII "Second Red Scare." I think it is probably an encyclopedic subject, if structured correctly. I think it is probably also a fork of some sort that needs to be merged to one or more articles. No specific opinion at this time, this is a fairly complicated case. Carrite (talk) 19:30, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are numerous sources available for this including:
Finding these sources was just a matter of looking. Please see WP:BEFORE. Warden (talk) 00:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No two of those sources have the same definition for the term "Domestic containment". Certainly, none except Kennan, and possibly the Columbia history, have our definition. The second specifically referred to containing gender roles, rather than other societal roles. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:28, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Read the article, and looked through the news results. The L.A. Times [12] reviews Homeward Bound: American Families in the Cold War Era by Elaine Tyler May, and talks about containment of the Soviet threat as well as domestic "containment". Mentions the gender roles. St. Louis Post-Dispatch reviews the book as well, but is hidden behind a paywall. I believe this is a real thing, and this is the term used by reliable sources. Dream Focus 18:19, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm with both Carrite and Dream Focus here. First impressions were that the content had been adapted from a term paper, but this is largely due to its peculiar style and tone. The general subject itself does seem encyclopedic and sourceable, though, so I'm inclined to say that it's probably something we want to consider keeping around. — C M B J 04:10, 24 January 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 over validity of cited sources in establishing notability. Default to keep. Der yck C. 13:43, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sturt Mall[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

previous consensus 5 years ago was merge. Somehow someone recreated the article.However, I believe consensus for these small malls has now changed. Fails WP:GNG. Coverage is limited to its own town. Needs more than that to be a WP article. LibStar (talk) 12:34, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- it is my understanding that our guideline suggests that malls (as distinct from towns, for example) must meet GNG.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:56, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - ... and if you could point out to us the 'Local' clause in WP:N to back up the last 2 sentences, it would be nice. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 03:38, 9 January 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, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 12:17, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the 'local' clause is in WP:CORPDEPTH (which would apply to private shopping centres), specifically 'attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability'. Sionk (talk) 16:38, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

* 'Lean keep: Proud ambassadors - Rural towns heap praise on visiting stars, Daily Telegraph (Sydney, Australia) - March 7, 2002, Length: 1067 words (Estimated printed pages: 4) mentions the mall. Sponge city Wagga's expansion is slow but steady, Australian, The (Australia) - March 26, 2009, Length: 814 words (Estimated printed pages: 3) also mentions. Strongly suspect more sources in local media but it isn't digitised. --LauraHale (talk) 09:12, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are more sources that could be used from The Daily Advertiser. The way to find out is to search on Riverina Regional Library site. All the newspapers it has is on microfilm. @LibStar why wasn't any editor who have worked on the article notified about the AfD? Bidgee (talk) 09:21, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: All malls have local news coverage. Not all malls should be notable. SL93 (talk) 13:22, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That is an POV not supported by policy, why shouldn't all malls be notable, what if they have had coverage elsewhere? As pointed out by LauraHale, there are news stories outside the "local" area. Bidgee (talk) 13:30, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that not all malls are notable. They are required to meet GNG, per our notability policy. That requires substantial, non-trivial, non-passing coverage, among other things. The fact that an article "mentions the mall" is not substantial coverage. We need substantial RS coverage, not merely the suspicion of it.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When you've looked at the Australian sources, what has your conclusion been? And with national mentions, and the almost certainty of substantial, non-passing coverage in the major regional papers on sources not digitised, I think it would pass. Sources like this and this and this this this, this this this also help convince me it is notable. --LauraHale (talk) 21:11, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My views is now reflected in my !vote, below. IMHO, articles such as the first one you mention as convincing you as to the notability of this mall -- "Teen stabbed at Sturt Mall in daylight attack" (which is not about the mall, and is about a non-notable run-of-the-mill event ... by wp standards), fail to help this mall meet GNG, for the reasons reflected above and below. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:31, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LauraHale, you are missing the point of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Events such as the ones you listed in these sources do NOT help establish notability for the mall. They are considered trivial mentions. Significant coverage (which must be more than a trivial mention) mean the sources address the subject directly in detail. Clearly these sources do not. Till I Go Home (talk) 12:13, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Till I Go Home , you're missing my point that the coverage is not trivial, and as some one familiar with Australian sources, they can be used to establish notability WP:GNG wise for Australian related content. :) --LauraHale (talk) 12:19, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: After reviewing the sources, I think it passes WP:GNG. --LauraHale (talk) 21:12, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FYI -- you might want to change one of your two !votes to "Comment".--Epeefleche (talk) 21:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Epeefleche, users are not permitted to vote twice in one AfD discussion. Also, what you "think" is quite frankly irrelevant. Till I Go Home (talk) 12:08, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While this mall does having passing and trivial coverage, and coverage in local media, and coverage re run-of-the-mill events the type of which is common and non-notable vis-a-vis malls, I have not seen the level of substantial, non-trivial, non-passing RS coverage regarding the mall itself that is required to pass GNG.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:GNG doesn't state that sources must be non-local. The coverage in the local media would meet WP:GNG, since it isn't trivial. What would you call "substantial, non-trivial, non-passing RS coverage"? Bidgee (talk) 23:10, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As to local coverage, see comment and quote above by Sionk.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:13, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It "could" apply isn't a strong comment and is a rather open statment. Bidgee (talk) 23:26, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe he wrote "would". Not "could". And -- it does, IMHO.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bidgee, I think you should read WP:CORPDEPTH, which clearly states that "attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability". Till I Go Home (talk) 12:08, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: non-notable shopping mall with no assertion of notability. I was unable to find coverage in reliable sources that would create one. (Local coverage and trivial mentions do not count, see WP:ORG and WP:CORPDEPTH). Till I Go Home (talk) 12:08, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Daily Advertiser has at least 50 news articles on the Sturt Mall, locals sources are relevant and as point out by LauraHale, it has some non-local coverage! This is starting to look like a campaign by a small group of editors whom don't like shopping malls that they personally feel that they should have articles. Bidgee (talk) 11:11, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again.. "attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability". Till I Go Home (talk) 11:44, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An over used and abused policy for those whom have a goal to get what they hate, deleted.... Local sources CAN be used and as have been bloody pointed out by LauraHale, other sources do exist. 11:47, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Please refrain from making personal attacks. Likewise in your edit summary, suggesting that someone is "thick headed" isn't exactly assuming good faith, at all. And calling this "an over used and abused policy" is subjective and not what we are talking about. The policy is there for a reason, for editors to follow and apply to the relevant article. It clearly states that local coverage is not an indication of notability. Till I Go Home (talk) 11:52, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't a personal attack, your comment was thick headed. In fact I miss said it was a policy, it is only a guideline and WP:GNG is what matters. Since when did you start representing the Wiki community (re: "for us as Wikipedians"). Bidgee (talk) 11:59, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well obviously the policy/guideline is there for a reason.. it's not there for a show-and-tell, it's for editors to use and apply to articles... Till I Go Home (talk) 12:03, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Policies have to be followed, guildlines can be followed but are not a must " It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense". Bidgee (talk) 12:08, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well i'm not going to sit here and argue with someone who can't deal with the fact that a non-notable shopping mall is up at AfD. This discussion will close in probably < 24 hours so I'll leave it at that. Kthanksbye. Till I Go Home (talk) 12:15, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Till -- You've made your point, and two-thirds of the editors (so far) have !voted delete, so I think that leaving the matter as it stands is a sensible approach.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:22, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Consensus that there is coverage of the subject which satisfies the general notability guideline, also reference towards him having received a significant honour. WilliamH (talk) 14:54, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Iqbal Sacranie[edit]

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

This subject is not the subject of in-depth reliable coverage by multiple third party sources (WP:BASIC). Multiple reliable sources have given this subject some coverage because of his position at the Muslim Council of Britain, including controversial remarks while in an leadership position at the Muslim Council of Britain, namely in regards to homosexuals. I don't think this actually amounts to coverage of this subject, but rather coverage of remarks made by a knighted leader of the Muslim Council of Britain. The coverage and controversy inure notability to the organization. Assuming, though, that this subject does pass WP:GNG on the basis of his controversy alone, we're left with essentially a WP:BLP that's negative or an attack, with no real biographical material available once unsourced and trivial information is removed. If it helps, WP:GNG might establish a threshold for articles, but it does not require articles for everyone who passes for any reason at all. JFHJr (㊟) 01:53, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Muslim Council of Britain. He's already mentioned there. I also note that the current Secretary of the Council does not have his own article.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:05, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 8 January 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, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 12:05, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Very significant figure in the UK, has been covered in the media many times, and to cap it all has been knighted, which easily meets WP:BIO: "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor". It has always been held in every AfD I've seen that a knighthood certainly meets this criterion. Anyone considered significant enough for the honour of knighthood (only about 100 of them are conferred every year) is certainly significant enough for an article on Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:59, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —Necrothesp (talk) 15:59, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Very notable figure in the UK in his own right. Very frequently in the media on numerous issues, not just for one silly off-the-cuff remark about homosexuality. I'm surprised this article is this short, because there's loads of stuff that could be written about him from reliable sources. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:09, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Where are the multiple reliable sources by third parties giving in-depth coverage to this subject, as opposed to his organization or his position? You assert he is very notable, and that "loads of stuff" could be written from reliable sources, but what sources? Without giving examples of this coverage, your !vote looks a bit like just vouching for it; WP:ASSERTN. JFHJr (㊟) 19:00, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's this for starters. I've got 1,329 other GNews article to pick from, so let me know when you've had enough. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Muslim Council of Britain. He is already sufficiently mentioned there and, as someone noted above, the serving Chairman does not have his own article.GorgeCustersSabre (talk) 13:13, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This is the opposite of WP:OTHERSTUFF. The fact that current chair of the MCB doesn't have a wiki article doesn't necessarily prove anything more than no-one having got round to writing the article yet. (No-one, for instance, would argue Eric Morcambe wasn't notable because there wasn't an article on Ernie Wise, otherwise we'd have never written articles on either.) Also, Iqbal Sacranie was in the public eye for more than his successor, because in the aftermath of the 7/7 bombs, he was thrust into the public eye as the face of moderate Islam in the UK. Just because two people held the same position at some point doesn't make them equally notable - how many people would argue Nigel Farage was equally notable as Alan Sked? Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 09:59, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. His statements have been covered in media (meets WP:GNG) and he has been knighted per Necrothesp (meets WP:BIO). Not sure how it violates WP:BLP, doesn't look like an attack at all. A412 (Talk * C) 18:58, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as an obvious pass of WP:ANYBIO. If a knighthood isn't a well-known and significant award or honour then I don't know what is. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:12, 22 January 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. Der yck C. 20:37, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

StopWar Vancouver[edit]

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

very few if any RS in googleland. also, not really about vancouver, but canada. just doesn't seem notable Soosim (talk) 11:55, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - coincidently I came across this article last week and considered tagging it. It seems to be describing Canada's StopWar participants in Vancouver, and generally described as Vancouver's StopWar. Without compelling evidence that "StopWar Vancouver" exists, it's difficult to justify an article. Sionk (talk) 17:48, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; fails WP:GNG & WP:ORG. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:50, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 10:17, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arik Ascherman[edit]

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

not notable, no sources or RS in googleland at all Soosim (talk) 11:39, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:GNG, plenty of WP:RS, and any number of WP:Three Letter Abbreviations. Despite some misgivings, I do assume good faith for this deletion nomination. --Shirt58 (talk) 14:10, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added plenty of reliable sources to the page. He obviously is notable. Yoninah (talk) 23:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Satisfies WP:BIO in spades. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:54, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There may be no sources in googleland, but the ones now in the article satisfy the notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 20:02, 19 January 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. Der yck C. 20:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Phillip Graham Scott[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete due to lack of notability is accordance with the topical notability guidelines for actors or the general notability guidelines, which require significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources. Note that his actual name is Philip (with one "L"). Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 11:19, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or maybe redirect to Tracy Beaker Returns since that's his only appearance as an actor. Pichpich (talk) 15:51, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:29, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As nominator states, does not pass WP:ENT or WP:GNG. Perhaps WP:SALT too, considering the article has been deleted 4 times previously? ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 16:37, 23 January 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. Tone 13:56, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rizky Syawaludin[edit]

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

No evidence that he meet WP:NFOOTBALL, stats are likely false, article could be hoax Oleola (talk) 10:51, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:25, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:25, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 20:34, 15 January 2012 (UTC) [reply]
Delete. Looking at this it would appear he is real. However, the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 00:36, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rizky Syawaludin is real, but this article is a hoax. The real Rizky Syawaludin, as mentioned in Football Australia website, is an U-16 players while this article is about a fictional 22-year-old Rizky Syawaludin. — MT (talk) 17:49, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:59, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 16:43, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. --Reckless182 (talk) 12:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hoax article, the real Rizky Syawaludin is 16-year-old (as mentioned in the source) and there is no other Rizky Syawaludin that has scored 55 goals in Indonesia. — MT (talk) 17:49, 20 January 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. A couple of arguments that this is duplicated content and should be redirected, but other concerns that the article contains material which would be lost if a redirect was done. WilliamH (talk) 14:30, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of airports in the United States by passengers boarded[edit]

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

Duplication of data already included in List of the busiest airports in the United States

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 January 15. Snotbot t • c » 10:26, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's a needless copy and the lists at Busiest airports is far better laid out.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:47, 15 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of the busiest airports in the United States; no need for this as well as it's pretty much a duplicate. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep No reason to delete is provided as duplication suggests merger not deletion. Warden (talk) 00:17, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of the busiest airports in the United States, since the exact same content is already present in that article - there is nothing to merge. Hut 8.5 13:31, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. This list the top 100 and the other only has the top 50. Some information could be merged. A discussion on the talk page of that other article could determine what limit to set. Dream Focus 00:41, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge - no need for stand-alone list, info can be incorporated in List of airports in the United States Petebutt (talk) 09:23, 23 January 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 Radioactive (Yelawolf album). (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 10:11, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Radio (Yelawolf song)[edit]

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

unexplained removal of PROD. Concern was "Fails WP:MUSIC as uncharting modern song" Cloudz 679 08:31, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:23, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Radioactive (Yelawolf album) as non-notable song from notable album. No sources, too. What a pro. (talk) 08:47, 16 January 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. Tone 13:56, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Risk Devolution[edit]

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

Insignificant custom game modification for Warcraft 3, should be deleted due to its lack of notability. PaganPanzerfaust (talk) 08:31, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A search returns no significant coverage by reliable sources. Salvidrim! 19:38, 15 January 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) 20:19, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources in the article or on the talk page, searched the first 20 pages of results from the search "Risk Devolution" + "Warcraft", nothing resembling a reliable source covering this game mode in any detail. Someone another 17:27, 16 January 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:27, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FileCOPA FTP Server[edit]

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

Unreferenced article about a software product that does not demonstrate who the subject meets Wikipedia's standards for notability. Prod contested, so bringing here for discussion. Sparthorse (talk) 08:25, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Performing a web search will return hundreds of shareware sites listing this software, many of them with product reviews. As a network administrator I chose this FTP server over all others because it was simple to install and does exactly what I was looking for... to create multiple domain accounts on our hosting server. FileCOPA authors have a long history in the software industry and are current financial members of the Association of Software Professionals (ASP).Wallumbase (talk) 08:38, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:35, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I failed to find any indication of notability. Even cnet, which strives to review everything at least slightly above the noise level features only publisher's description. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:00, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As Czarkoff pointed out. -- Mecanismo | Talk 15:44, 19 January 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, default to keep. Despite a heavily slanted !vote count towards "delete", most of those who argued for deletion made no attempt in analysing the inherent quality of the cited Persian-language sources. It is an oft-forgotten Wikipedia policy that foreign-language sources should not be considered inferior to English-language sources, particularly in determining source reliability and establishing notability. The sourcing guideline merely suggests that if equivalent English-language citations are available they should be preferred. The result of this debate should not preclude anyone with competence in analysing the Persian-language sources from re-nominating the article for deletion. Whether this article should be renamed is now beyond the remit of AfD.

I hope to remind all editors participating in this debate that a lack of English-language sources is not a valid reason for deletion if foreign-language sources are given, nor is one's lack of ability to understand a foreign-language source a valid argument against the source's reliability. Der yck C. 14:07, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

15 Khordad (Paramont) Intersection[edit]

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

Nothing in the prose and no evidence from reliable sources to show that this particular intersection has encyclopedic notability. Contested PROD. Kinu ^t/_c 04:30, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If every intersection with a gas station and a shopping center is "notable" then open the floodgates and Katie bar the door. Everything would then be notable, and everyone can write an article about anything and everything. How about a rural intersection with no gas station and no shopping center? Why not? Ridiculous. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:46, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Cullen. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:51, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing to show that this is any more notable than any of the millions of other intersections in the world. JIP | Talk 07:24, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and possibly rename - This is a major intersection in a provincial capital that appears to likely be named after the June 5, 1963 demonstrations in Iran, which suggests that it's a pretty big deal in context. I'm inclined to believe that the subject is within the scope of our project, but should anyone disagree, we might consider recruiting a Farsi speaker for verification purposes and to determine whether coverage exists in the Iranian media. As a side note, the coordinates listed by this article seem to be incorrect — I'm seeing this as the most probable location. — C M B J 10:02, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update: "چهارراه پانزده خرداد" is one translation. — C M B J 05:56, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update 2: "چهارراه پارامونت" is another translation. — C M B J 09:56, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update 3: One resource confirms that many existing traffic junctions were renamed after the Iranian Revolution. If anyone can ascertain this intersection's prior name, it may reveal additional information of pertinence. — C M B J 12:18, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update 4: Two additional search terms are "چهار راه پارامونت" and "چهار راه پانزده خرداد". These are just based on another stylistic variant of the Farsi word for 'intersection' ("چهار راه" as opposed to "چهارراه"), but the content yield is fairly different. — C M B J 10:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Context aside, we can do nothing unless there are reliable sources to back up the page. I don't see any here. —Ed!^(talk) 00:21, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and burn with fire. If it's named after the demonstrations that can be mentioned as a footnote in the demonstrations' article. "Coverage in the Iranian media"? For a road intersection? Don't make me laugh. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:53, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's a fairly decent number of Iranian articles turning up that associate this location with contemporary political activism. From the best I can tell, demonstrations like this and this are reported to begin at the intersection on a fairly regular basis. — C M B J 12:41, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—can be covered in the articles about the demonstrations, but otherwise fails WP:GNG on its own. Remember, notability can't be inherited. Imzadi 1979 → 00:01, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When this nomination was made, it was, based on search results, impossible to discern whether the article was even true. We now have 14 sources—six cited in the article, eight on the talk page—that at minimum substantiate the veracity of this subject. We've got city officials citing it as a subject of collaborative, public-private transportation planning efforts in the area. We've got religious leaders proclaiming it as an effectual target for broadcasts via a new outdoor loudspeaker system. We've got community organizers routinely requesting permits from the city to convert it into a place of mass assembly, political activism, and mourning. We've also got at least 213,350 Google hits in Farsi, which are almost certain to turn up even more information.

In practice, many similar transportation and landmark survive AfD on the basis that they're intrinsically empirical and relevant enough to warrant inclusion when a reasonable amount of disparate material is available. In this case, we've already got tremendous linguistic and cultural barriers working against us, but we're still able to come up with a fair bit of detail. That's saying a lot. — C M B J 14:41, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of points:

There are six references without a translation of the Persian titles. There are eight more on the talk page, and with both sets of citations, I can't evaluate the applicability of these sources because I don't read Farsi script nor speak or read Persian. These references could be recipes published in the Iranian media for all I know. I take it on good faith that they are not, but I can't evaluate them.
These six references all support this intersection being the locations of protests in the last two years. Being the location of a notable event doesn't make the location notable. It is my personal opinion, with which you are free to disagree, that you haven't met the bar of WP:GNG to establish that this intersection is well known, in and by itself, as a demonstration space. It's a fine distinction, but it exists.
The other information you mention is not the in the article at this time, and I can't judge an article on "what-ifs" when I can't read the titles of purported sources used to support possible information. Add the information, and please give us some information so we can judge these sources.

Sorry, but in my opinion, this intersection can still be covered in the articles on the protests and it doesn't warrant its own article, at this time. Imzadi 1979 → 04:42, 6 January 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, Sandstein 08:22, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relister's comment: This discussion was closed as "delete". Following discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 January 7, I have relisted it for the following reason: Several people believe that the sources added during the AfD might have changed the outcome had there been more discussion, so it can't hurt to try and see whether that is indeed the case. Sandstein 08:23, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My initial recommendation to delete was criticized in the deletion review, and in hindsight, I regret that my comment attracted that criticism, which may have had some validity. At the time I made my comment, the only information available to me about this intersection was that there was a gas station and a shopping center located there. It has now been established that demonstrations assemble there. If translations of reliable sources can be furnished here that give significant coverage to this intersection as a notable place because of its connections to notable demonstrations, then I will withdraw my recommendation to delete. All I ask for is significant coverage of the intersection itself. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:44, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Clearly not notable. The intersection's only claim to fame is that there were a couple of relatively minor demonstrations there that didn't receive any significant new coverage outside of the country, and it hasn't become a by-word in its own right. Nothing special about the place itself. No new evidence has been produced establishing that the intersection itself enjoys any notability beyond that inherited from the demonstrations. It's just an intersection with a gas station. This is a far cry from Tienanmen Square, for example. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 10:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's actually known source material that doesn't pertain to the demonstrations, but it's still on the talk page since I wasn't notified when this AfD was relisted and didn't find it until just shy of a week later. I believe that more is likely available offline, so I'm also working to try and find someone in Iran who can help make that determination. As for several of the other arguments here, I'd suggest seeing here and here. If this were just another intersection, then I'd argue that it wouldn't have two distinct proper names. The fact that it was named at all arguably confers status as a geographical feature. We typically include articles on such places and I see no reason why this should be an exception. And it's largely irrelevant as to whether the place is or isn't known outside Iran, because that's not an indicator of notability. — C M B J 22:01, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Certainly not a hoax and certainly not trivial. There are many sources that in total come with a preliminary presumption of notability. However, the sources need to be high-quality due to their war-mongering content. As per WP:V, "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources." However, evaluation of notability is not necessary as the title of this article is not WP:V verifiable in the English language. There are no English sources in the article, and I could find no reliable English source that verified the existence of either "15 Khordad intersection" or "Paramont intersection". Unverifiable titles should be deleted. As per WP:FRINGE, "it is of vital importance that [articles] simply restate what is said by independent secondary sources of reasonable reliability and quality." Unscintillating (talk) 16:04, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see no claims being made here that would be rightfully described as exceptional. As for titles, they need not be readily available in English for an article to warrant inclusion; there is not, has not been, and should never be such a requirement. Translated material in any language is suitable for inclusion—see WP:GNG, WP:NONENG and WP:RFT. — C M B J 12:06, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, let me repeat that I've only looked at translations of three of the sources, but in these sources I saw war-mongering concepts. Do you deny that these sources are conveying war-mongering concepts? Is the war-mongering real, or is this printed propaganda, i.e., what evidence is there to separate the two? Does Wikipedia have articles on all of the Persian publishers being cited? Do you agree "it is of vital importance" that Wikipedia not be a mouth-piece for war-mongering propaganda, at least not without "multiple high-quality sources"? Unscintillating (talk) 12:55, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As for the veracity of claims, I do not have reason to believe that any articles I saw were factually compromised. Many of the articles were corroborated across multiple unrelated sources, with some events—like the 15 Khordad ones—even being available on YouTube from both first-person and helicopter perspectives. Other articles pertained to information like traffic planning, city permits and loudspeaker installation, so the chance of these being fabricated is very low. In terms of warmongering, I don't know for certain which of the three sources you're specifically referring to, but I honestly can't see how that in any way relates here. If you're somehow suggesting that we shouldn't describe rudimentary claims (i.e., X rallied for Y at Z) then I would have to disagree that this constitutes some sort of misdeed on our part. Lastly, we do not require that publishers have articles about them to qualify as a reliable source, but even if we did, it'd be a poor indicator of integrity for non-English sources. The ones we're dealing with here are pretty high quality on average; though, again, it's reasonable (and much more valid) to instead argue that they're trivial in relation to the intersection. — C M B J 14:02, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As for the idea that something in Persian can be machine translated into English and an idea that does not exist in the English language can be created by the English Wikipedia, not just as content but as a notable title; I find this to be contrary to our notability guideline, our verifiability policy and our original research policy, as well as our WP:UCS essay. IMO, we should be strict with the verifiability and WP:NOR policies regarding article titles. I've previously supported as a requirement of new articles that a source be provided on the talk page documenting the title. What source would you provide here? Unscintillating (talk) 12:55, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have very different opinions on several things you've said here, but I'll refrain from commenting for now because I want to stay on topic. With respect to what material I would cite for this article's prospective title, I'd say any kosher material with the most common native descriptor; which in this case is debatable between either Paramount Intersection (چهار راه پارامونت) or 15 Khordad Intersection (چهارراه پانزده خرداد). There is no original research involved in translating either of those names because they require no original thought. It is merely an act of presenting existing material in another language, which is a widely accepted practice. — C M B J 15:09, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Those are two proper names, not concepts, so they must be translated based on their semantic meaning. For
"چهار راه پارامونت" "چهارراه پانزده خرداد", "Four Way Paramount," "Crossroads khordad" is what Google comes up with, and anyone that says that those are proper names or could be used as proper names is creating the names, which is an origination of thought. It appears that people in the English-speaking world (or those that speak with encyclopedia-quotable authority) have no proper name for this intersection. And I don't see parentheses in either of the cited titles or in the resulting translation, and you aren't asserting that "15 Khordad (Paramont) Intersection" as a proper name exists, so we have consensus that that title is to be deleted. Unscintillating (talk) 16:12, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Translating this article's title does not involve the same original thought that would go into, say, the native name of a person or township. It's simply "پانزده خرداد" ("Fifteen" [پانزده] "Khordad" [خرداد]) or "پارامونت" ("Paramount" as in "پارامونت پیکچرز" or "Paramount Pictures") and "چهارراه"/"چهار راه" ("four" [چهار] "way" [راه], the same descriptor used for intersections/crossroads like چهارراه سیدعلی and چهارراه اسلامبول). Again, I reaffirm the position that a faithful representation of content from another language does not violate the spirit of our project's goals or accepted practices, but you do have a point in that we generally prefer proper names be presented in their transliterated form. I'm not sure whether it would be justifiable in this case or not, though I'll go ahead and work on getting the name anglicized by a native Farsi speaker so that we can have the option. And yes, we do have consensus for the parenthetical title to be superseded by a redirect to one that meets our usual style guidelines, assuming the article is kept. — C M B J 02:29, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be discussing a Move followed by a delete of the redirect left for 15 Khordad (Paramont) Intersection. The first problem is what to move the article to:

Fifteen Khordad intersection
Fifteen Khordad crossroads
Four Way Fifteen Khordad
15 Khordad intersection
15 Khordad crossroads
Four Way 15 Khordad
Paramount Pictures intersection
Paramount Pictures crossroads
Four Way Paramount Pictures
Paramont intersection
Paramont crossroads
Four Way Paramont
Paramount intersection
Paramount crossroads
Four Way Paramount
corner of Enqelab-e Eslami Street, Lotfali Khan Street and Qasrodasht Street
Shiraz rallying point
Shiraz gathering area
[transliteration from Farsi speaker for چهارراه پانزده خرداد]
[transliteration from Farsi speaker for چهار راه پارامونت]

I don't doubt that you can find editors that would agree with creating the article with one of these names, but from my viewpoint, the pressure to create unsourced article titles like this is why we need WP:Identifiability as a policy.

Second problem, as discussed, quality of the sources is difficult for English readers at AfD to assess, and the "activist assemblies" appears to me to have war-mongering content.

Third problem which I mentioned on DRV, the sentence, "Paramount Intersetion has been the rallying point of numerous public gatherings and activist assemblies." is not currently sourced in the article and appears to be WP:SYNTH. Unscintillating (talk) 03:43, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Once more, I'd prefer to refrain from engaging in extraneous discussion here and would strongly object to any new policy that further undermines our project in this area. With respect to this particular article, I realize that you're intentionally going for a hyperbole to emphasize your point, but:

~~Fifteen Khordad intersection~~ - I couldn't input the numbers "15" with that Farsi text due to bizarre software limitations, but we go by WP:COMMONNAME and "Fifteen Khordad" is virtually nonexistant (even when just referring to the occasion itself) in English
~~Fifteen Khordad crossroads~~ - same as above
~~Four Way Fifteen Khordad~~ - not realistic
15 Khordad intersection
15 Khordad crossroads
~~Four Way 15 Khordad~~ - not realistic
~~Paramount Pictures intersection~~ - "Pictures" is not a part of the title in any relevant material
~~Paramount Pictures crossroads~~ - same as above
~~Four Way Paramount Pictures~~ - same as above
Paramont intersection
Paramont crossroads
~~Four Way Paramont~~ - not realistic
Paramount intersection
Paramount crossroads
~~Four Way Paramount~~ - not realistic
~~corner of Enqelab-e Eslami Street, Lotfali Khan Street and Qasrodasht Street~~ - not realistic
~~Shiraz rallying point~~ - this is inaccurate and wouldn't fly for POV reasons
~~Shiraz gathering area~~ - same as above
[transliteration from Farsi speaker for چهارراه پانزده خرداد]
[transliteration from Farsi speaker for چهار راه پارامونت]

Naming issues are content issues and thus should usually not be definitive at AfD. With that said, if we're going to have that discussion and the dilemma is intersection vs crossroads vs transliteration, then we need to take a look at the relevant guidelines:

WP:UE: "Names not originally in a Latin alphabet, such as Greek, Chinese, or Russian names, must be transliterated. Established systematic transliterations, such as Hanyu Pinyin, are preferred. However, if there is a common English-language form of the name, then use it, even if it is unsystematic (as with Tchaikovsky and Chiang Kai-shek). For a list of transliteration conventions by language, see Wikipedia:Romanization. [...] In deciding whether and how to translate a foreign name into English, follow English-language usage. If there is no established English-language treatment for a name, translate it if this can be done without loss of accuracy and with greater understanding for the English-speaking reader."
WP:EN: "Names not originally in a Latin alphabet, as with Greek, Chinese or Russian, must be transliterated into characters generally intelligible to literate speakers of English. Established systematic transliterations (e.g. Hanyu Pinyin and IAST) are preferred. Nonetheless, do not substitute a systematically transliterated name for the common English form of the name, if there is one; thus, use Tchaikovsky or Chiang Kai-shek even though those are unsystematic. [...] It can happen that an otherwise notable topic has not yet received much attention in the English-speaking world, so that there are too few English sources to constitute an established usage. Very low Google counts can but need not be indicative of this. If this happens, follow the conventions of the language in which this entity is most often talked about[.] If, as will happen, there are several competing foreign terms, a neutral one is often best. The sections "multiple local names" and "use modern names" in WP:NC (geographic names) express some ideas on resolving such problems."
WP:NCGN: "There are cases in which the local authority recognizes equally two or more names from different languages, but English discussion of the place is so limited that none of the above tests indicate which of them is widely used in English; so there is no single local name, and English usage is hard to determine. [...] We recommend choosing a single name, by some objective criterion, even a somewhat arbitrary one. Simple Google tests are acceptable to settle the matter, despite their problems; one solution is to follow English usage where it can be determined, and to adopt the name used by the linguistic majority where English usage is indecisive."

Lastly, the sentence you find objectionable has been slightly rewritten to avoid synthesis. — C M B J 04:43, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

re: "...content issues...should usually not be definitive at AfD". I don't agree, AfD is only for content issues, deletion is only applied to content (I'm avoiding saying anything more here). Unscintillating (talk) 06:23, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"hyperbole" means "extravagant exaggeration" like "an ice cream cone a mile high". I think a technical list with a reason for each entry bears little relation to "extravagant exaggeration". Unscintillating (talk) 06:23, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence with potential WP:SYNTH remains unsourced. Unscintillating (talk) 06:23, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've not before seen what you have quoted from WP:UE WP:EN and WP:NCGN, so its probably best that I not try to respond two hours before this AfD is scheduled to close, but I think policies I've previously cited remain applicable:

As per WP:V, "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources."
As per WP:FRINGE, "it is of vital importance that [articles] simply restate what is said by independent secondary sources of reasonable reliability and quality."
As for the idea that something in Persian can be machine translated into English and an idea that does not exist in the English language can be created in the English Wikipedia, not just as content but as a notable title; I find this to be contrary to our notability guideline, our verifiability policy and our original research policy, as well as our WP:UCS essay.

Unscintillating (talk) 06:23, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Individually:

No, AfD is not a place designed to hash out titles and other regular editorial problems; it's for issues that explicitly preclude an article's existence. The argument that translated subjects inherently fit into the latter category remains unsubstantiated.
Suggesting that we would arbitrarily name any article Four Way Paramount Pictures is a hyperbole. It's against our naming conventions, it's against our stylistic guidelines, it bizarrely incorporates a word that never existed in any of the source material, and it's semantically bordering on unintelligible in the English language. I dare say it's giving that lofty ice cream cone a close run for its money.
The sentence you take issue with was modified in an attempt to avoid synthesis. If you still object to it in its current form, then I'd suggest simply rewriting it to your liking.
As for the idea that there's something exceptional being claimed here, I'm yet to see anything other than proof by assertion. Exceptional or fringe claims would be "the Iranians are secretly hiding a missile silo under the intersection", not "Paramount Intersetion has previously been the rallying point of public gatherings and activist assemblies".
I've been more than fair in undermining my own WP:N arguments (via the idea that the sources may be considered trivial) throughout this debate, but there's been nothing demonstrated to suggest that WP:OR or WP:V preclude translated articles on non-English subjects, or otherwise restrict translation, or apply to this article negatively in any way. In fact, we have WP:OR itself saying "Faithfully translating sourced material into English, or transcribing spoken words from audio or video sources, is not considered original research", a wealth of information contradicting the WP:V claim (WP:GNG, WP:NONENG and WP:RFT), and a policy (WP:UE) and two naming conventions (WP:EN, WP:NCGN) that deal directly with how to name articles when English titles cannot be reliably determined. — C M B J 14:16, 22 January 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. Tone 13:56, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tehran: Another Side[edit]

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

While this film exists, and there is a solitary gnews hit, I can't find sufficient substantial RS coverage to meet our notability standards. Others are welcome to try. Epeefleche (talk) 08:06, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete, this film must be verified and it doesn't at the moment, but if that can be overcome, keep.LuciferWildCat (talk) 18:43, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You say delete but tagged it for rescue. If you believe there is an actual chance references or other proof of notability can be found, then you use the rescue tag. Dream Focus 23:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I gather, from his comment, that he does not see refs that verify that it has notability (which is why he !voted delete), but is hoping that others will be able to.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:19, 15 January 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, Sandstein 08:06, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Available references consist of two brief mentions in promotional materials for film festivals where this film was screened. No significant coverage in reliable, independent sources has been identified. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:18, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Google search turned up nothing except PR material. Nothing adequate for establishing notability. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 09:34, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - After some searches, not finding coverage in reliable sources. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:25, 19 January 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. Tone 13:57, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Darwin vs. Calvin: The Battle of the Millennium (2009)[edit]

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

Article about a DVD with no evidence that this is notable and in particular the subject appears not to meet Wikipedia's notability requirements for films. Prod was removed without explanation, so bringing here for discussion. Sparthorse (talk) 07:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Google search turned up scant mention from low-level Christian sources, almost entirely promotional. No mention by anyone else. Clearly falls short of fulfilling any notability requirements, and certainly not WP:NFILM. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 09:39, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is just rummage sale material, not encyclopedic. History2007 (talk) 14:35, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 15 January 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. I don't know much about Catholic doctrine, but it appears consensus is that this is largely WP:OR. v/r - T P 01:28, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Immaculate Conception of Saint John the Baptist[edit]

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

Pure WP:OR no scholarly references for support, and cited references do not support the claims made History2007 (talk) 07:23, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The reference sources contain the Papal Encyclical from 1894, from the official Vatican website. An excerpt of Blessed Anne Emmerich's vision's published book as well as description of the Saint John the Baptist from New Advent: the Catholic Encyclopaedia (under the Section: The conception of St. John the Baptist) within the umbrella of the Immaculate Conception article. LoveforMary (talk) 07:34, 15 January 2012 (UTC)LoveForMary[reply]

Keep with reservations. Personally, I do not subscribe to this sort of religious belief, and it seems to me, based on what I have read, that it is somewhat "fringe" within the realm of Catholic doctrine. However, the article claims that it is not a heretical belief, and it seems justified by at least one papal pronouncement. I would feel better about the article if it was edited and referenced (and perhaps even renamed) by an editor with a good command of Catholic doctrine. However, I am not comfortable with deleting the article unless a much more compelling argument is made. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:34, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is how errors accumulates in Wikipedia. I am sorry Cullen, your statements are inorrect, but I guess you get to cast a vote. This is Wikipedia. Exactly where in IUCUNDA SEMPER EXPECTATIONE does the word "immaculate" appear? It does not. There is no papal support. That statement is just incorrect in the article and is incorrect here. And there is no reference to state that this belief is in anyway followed by Catholics at large. A good indication that this is just an invention and a WP:OR fabrication is that Ann Ball's book Encyclopedia of Catholic Devotions and Practices does not mention it at all, neither do Petrisko's multiple books. Neither do any other major Catholic devotional books. That is why it has not even been commented on. As for an "editor with a good command of Catholic doctrine" please find one. I am not going to spend time cleaning up pure WP:OR. This can not be salvaged for it is just incorrect. This is an example of how Wikipedia gets loaded with fabrications that then get quoted elsewhere. History2007 (talk) 08:49, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, since your comment Cullen, the article author deleted the claim about papal endorsement. There is no papal endorsement, and the papal item is irrelevant to that article. History2007 (talk) 09:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please note, History2007, that I expressed reservations about keeping the article, my support was clearly conditional, and I asked for a more compelling argument to delete. You are in the process of making a more compelling case, and point out the lack of discussion of this belief in named sources. The edit withdrawing the claim of papal support is another point in your favor. You do not need to criticize me in order to win your argument here - my desire to have a fuller discussion of this matter is a sincere one, and does not deserve your condemnation. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 09:38, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, yes, you did have reservations. But all of this eats time faster than Pac-Man gobbles up things. I have spent enough time on this now. But it is really WP:OR, e.g. the statements about Catherine of Sienna, etc. have nothing to do with conception, neither does Emmerich's etc. Just as a formality Google scholar shows zero support and Google books finds nothing on this topic. But then this is Wikipedia. Anyone can type anything to start a page and eat up time faster than Pac-man ... sigh... History2007 (talk) 09:42, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Pure OR and "creative" interpretation of sources. Google search turned up no evidence that the concept is a notable one in either Catholic or Orthodox thought. Delete in its entirety. There is nothing of encyclopedic value here. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 10:30, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article should be kept, but it should renamed as "The Prenatal Sanctification of St. John the Baptist." His sanctification was achieved after he was conceived but before he was born. He was conceived in a state of original sin. Immaculate Conception implies not being conceived in original sin. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 15:11, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are already asserting that the basic tenet of the article is incorrect. That is good. But you need to show notability for the new name if that one is to survive. But that also gets nothing on G-Books and is also not notable. So this can not count as a Keep vote for that new name is also not notable, and also does not correspond to the current content. History2007 (talk) 15:23, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to John the Baptist. It is clear that the article is misnamed. The sources currently provided that do mention this concept merely say that he was "sanctified in his mother's womb." One sentence can be added to the latter article and cited to the encyclical and Catherine of Siena. There is not enough for a full article and what we have now is mostly original research. Elizium23 (talk) 17:26, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per StAnselm's work below. Elizium23 (talk) 01:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is WP:OR and the author has now stated on the talk page that the article is an "invention----speculation". It may fit well in the John the Baptist page which alas is also full of errors, starting from his date in the infobox, as I said there back in October. If we don't spend time on this stuff, we may get to clean up the existing errors on that page. History2007 (talk) 17:33, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to John the Baptist. This is an original essay which should probably be distilled into a small subsection of the biographical article. Wikipedia is not a collection of theological essays. Carrite (talk) 19:38, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A "small" section in the John article may work provided the term "Immaculate" is avoided - for that is just incorrect. The term to use is "sanctification". But should the merge happen, the article title with the term Immaculate should still be deleted to avoid confusion when the term is searched. History2007 (talk) 19:48, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This article has already spawned a thread at Catholic Answers Forum. Elizium23 (talk) 20:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Check the Vatican website next week. It may have become a dogma by then.... History2007 (talk) 21:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No need to merge, since I have added the relevant quotes to the John the Baptist article. The article was never about John's conception, only his alleged sinlessness after being filled with the Holy Spirit. St Anselm (talk) 22:39, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A conception does not become immaculate by an event after the conception—the article title is nonsensical; or in Wikipedia terms, cannot be WP:V verified. Unverifiable titles should be deleted. Unscintillating (talk) 03:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but as Conception of Saint John the Baptist. The article deals with a feast of his conception and with the question as to whether this was immaculate, as certain Christians have allegedly believed. However, I doubt they believed it was immaculate in the sense that Jesus' conception was, as that would presumably mean that Zachariah was not his father. Merger should not be an option, as this would unbalance the target article. In response to what is above, an article about the views of recorded historical persons is not WP:OR. There is something here that is well worth rescuing. Note I am not a Catholic, and do not accept that the views expressed are correct, but that is my POV! Peterkingiron (talk) 18:14, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the article content is not about his conception, but talks about post-conception issues... And I am sorry, but I should note that the conception of Jesus is not considered immaculate by "any" group of Christians. It is the conception of Mary that is considered immaculate. So the article has created overall confusion even among those judging its merits. History2007 (talk) 09:31, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there may be a notable topic somewhere in the vicinity of what this article covers, but neither the article title nor its content is salvageable. According to the article's own sources, John's conception was not immaculate and wasn't all that notable either despite being the subject of a feast. John's supposed sinlessness throughout his life has nothing to do with the conception, and the article's coverage seems a synthesis from unrelated sources. Huon (talk) 21:19, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Regarding the feast and other ideas above, see Nativity of St. John the Baptist. FYI, Unscintillating (talk) 21:40, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Relevant subject seems to already be discussed at the Nativity of St. John the Baptist. The relevant basic content could be merged there, and then, if there is sufficient external notable discussion, could potentially be spunout at that time. John Carter (talk) 20:51, 22 January 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. Tone 13:57, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Masi aur malka[edit]

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

Zero refs, zero gnews hits, zero gbooks hits, zero response in over a year to the zero-refs-tag. Epeefleche (talk) 06:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Zero reason to keep, unless someone can provide evidence of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:49, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing on Google except TV listings and a few mentions on blogs. Doesn't seem to be all that notable in Pakistan, never mind globally. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 10:36, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 15 January 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 not deleted. Despite its likely origin as a content fork, the article has now been set out to cover a different scope as strict conditional. The discussion below has also come to an agreement that while the article should not stand as is, deleting the page altogether is not the best solution, with most arguing for "deletion" actually meaning to turn it into a disambiguation page. Therefore, I believe that in this situation, deletion is obviously not the correct outcome, and the decision about the future of the page has become a pure editorial dispute which is beyond the remit of AfD. Editors involved in this deletion debate should continue to discuss constructively about the future of this page. Der yck C. 16:43, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional statement (logic)[edit]

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

The author is competing with the Strict conditional article and had previously nominated that article for deletion. The discussion closed with the intent to make this a redirect to Strict conditional. Several editors have commented on verification problems, inclusive of all the sources cited, falsely supporting the author's admitted synthesis (or WP:OR). Please see the December 2011 discussions at Talk:Strict conditional and Talk:Material conditional. —Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 04:50, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 05:10, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. I am disturbed by this nomination. Almost all of the information in this article cannot be found in the article for the strict conditional. The article on the strict conditional says nothing about if-then form, other forms of expressing conditional statements, converses, inverses, contrapositives, when conditional statements are true and when they are false, and the comparisons of conditional statements to entailment. The missing information is very important to the topic and should not be deleted. All this information, which is in the current article, needs to be preserved. Also, the article under the given name is very noteworthy; many published sources refer to conditional statements and not "strict conditionals." This includes many of the cited sources on the current page. Many people will therefore be confused to references to strict conditionals when they are inquiring about conditional statements. At worst, this article should be merged with the article on the strict conditional. Hanlon1755 (talk) 05:38, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Hanlon 1755, and improve and expand as needed. Why should we delete a broader article with a broader and more common name, in favor of a narrower article with a less likely search term? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:52, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V? Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 09:04, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I should clarify, as the user's statements are misleading, (and a mockery of the concerns expressed in the AfD he brought against Strict conditional). It is not true that the author's synthesis is “broader”, although it is muddled. Their version is explicitly intended to be a replacement for Strict conditional, the product of well over 7 years of collaborative editing. If you would please review the suggested discussions in the three articles in which these tendentious edits have been attempted, and note the comments from various users who have reviewed them and the supposed sources… perhaps you'll also notice the user was just as emphatic about “strict conditional” being the better name.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 11:41, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Very notable item. Totally encyclopedic, and distinct from Strict conditional. And a simple fact to see for any logician. History2007 (talk) 15:09, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's very interesting as those who reviewed the material at the three articles came to distinctly different but no less obvious conclusions. Unfortunately, the user is not interested in collaborating, so I'm not sure I understand how an article expressly created as a WP:CONTENTFORK can, in fact, be maintained as a separate fiefdom. Conditionals in general have not simply been overlooked on WP… You're correct that they're not simply identical to the conditional in modal logic, confusingly however, you're arguing against one of the user's central contentions—a problem that remains evident in their article. Finally, I'll point out once again that the sources do not verify the author's admitted synthesis.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 18:35, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did not admit that my contribution was synthesis. I had actually argued against that claim. MachineElf is drawing too many similarities between this article for the "conditional statement (logic)," and the articles associated with the "strict conditional," that these similarities, especially considering what MachineElf alleges as synthesis, would constitute synthesis itself. Hanlon1755 (talk) 21:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can deny it all you want, but you described your WP:SYNTH/WP:OR in elaborate detail. I'm spoiled for choice; here's what I'm alleging you've "admitted" (though obviously refuse to acknowledge):

Talk:Strict conditional#Proposing Changes

OK. I am proposing to modify the article, in the manner provided through BRD, in order to ensure its completeness, accuracy, clarity and nonconfusion for future readers, and applicability to the appropriate fields of study (not just non-classical logic as the old version had been). This notably includes those fields of study that are known to use strict conditionals whether implicitly or explicity, but with different notation, and that are taught in many high school mathematics courses. As a high school student a few years ago, I became confused by the Wikipedia articles on "conditional statements." I was led to believe that the "material conditional" was the usual type of conditional statement; the type I had learned about in high school geometry and in other high school mathematics courses including Algebra II, Precalculus, and AP Calculus. I held this false belief for four and a half years. It was only through my own concerns, efforts, and research that I discovered I was wrong. The conditional statement I had learned in high school was actually the strict conditional, not the material conditional, and not some other type of conditional. I want to prevent confusion in future high school students that may be in the same boat as I. I want to include the more basic, high school side of the story in the article. Please aid me in these efforts by accepting my proposed changes to this article. Hanlon1755 (talk) 19:20, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most of your edits are your original research; however, all "strict conditionals" and "material conditionals" can be written in if-then form. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:57, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All my edits were cited. Every sentence I added was either explicitly stated in at least one source or was a logical consequence of what was explicitly stated in several sources. I have read the section on original research and understand that this may constitute orignial research (but it may not considering my conclusions are logical consequences and cannot be implied in any other way). If it does though, then that is really a shame because there are multiple sources here that have the conditional statement wrong. People are going to continue to be misled and possibly even hurt by this inaccurate content. I still recommend putting at least some of my additions into the article. Hanlon1755 (talk) 08:43, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was clearly explained to you thereafter that your edits did indeed constitute WP:OR. That didn't stop you from making the same false claims at Talk:Material conditional:

I dispute several parts of this article. I propose to modify the article, such that it agrees with the facts about strict conditionals. See Talk:Strict conditional for an overview of this overall discussion. Not all material conditionals can be put in "if-then" form, as this article currently suggests. "If-then" form is a type of expression reserved for only strict conditionals, not necessarily material conditionals. Furthermore, it is disputed whether or not a "material conditional" is even a type of conditional at all. What is instead the case is that all conditional statements (those that can be written in "if-then" form) are strict conditionals, which are not necessarily material conditionals. This article lacks pretty much any citations, never mind exact page numbers where this material can be found. Furthermore, it has been my expierence that some of the respected, notable, published literature on this topic is in error. Just because somebody said something about material conditionals is true doesn't necessarily mean it actually is, whether it was an "expert" or not. I want the part that material conditionals can be written in "if-then" form taken out of this article, because it isn't true. And if an entire section of this article can be about "paradoxes" or apparent "misconceptions," I propose to add to this article, at least, a sentence or two distinguishing between material conditonals and strict conditionals, and how the misconception that all material conditionals can be written in "if-then" form is not actually true. The article as currently written is very misleading and I myself am horribly a victim of it. Please aid me in these efforts to modify this article. Hanlon1755 (talk) 07:06, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You need evidence that not all material conditionals can be written in if-then form — this means from reliable sources, not just your imagination. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:03, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Every sentence I added was cited. It was either explicitly stated or was a logical consequence of what was explicitly stated in several sources. This includes the position that not all material conditionals can be written in "if-then" form. And all my sources were reliable sources. I still recommend modifying the article to improve its accuracy. Hanlon1755 (talk) 08:47, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is this your synthesis "argument"? (Not addressing me at the time… you quote your high=school geometry book?):

I am going to quote directly from Larson, Boswell, et al. 2007, p. 80, where "conditional statements" are discussed: "Conditional statements can be true or false. To show that a conditional statement is true, you must prove that the conclusion is true every time the hypothesis is true. To show that a conditional statement is false, you need to give only one counterexample." The key phrase there is EVERY TIME, as in IN EVERY CASE THAT, as in IT IS NECESSARY THAT. Therefore "conditional statements," as Larson, Boswell, et al. 2007 show, are strict conditionals. Therefore, your claim that "ordinary conditionals" are not necessary is untrue. I agree with you that several of my cited sources are not about strict conditionals, but it's important to note that I have those sources cited because I need to depict accurately non-strict conditionals in order to give a clearer notion of the distinctions between non-strict conditionals, and strict conditionals.

So they avoid the word NECESSARY? I wonder why… As I've confirmed, none of your other sources support your claim, aka, the "similarities" I draw too many of:

Talk:Strict conditional#Full Revamp

I think anyone can see that you've completely changed the meaning of the article, which is supposed to be about strict conditionals

\Box (p\rightarrow q)

. These are not the same as ordinary conditionals, and your references to Rosen and Larson, Boswell, et al, for example, are completely misplaced, since they are not discussing strict conditionals. The discussion at AfD should make you realise that the consensus of editors is strongly against your suggested alternate article, which is both incorrect and confusing. And since my PhD is in logic, I'm fairly confident of my position here. -- 202.124.72.122 (talk) 11:15, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree on your claim that "strict conditionals are not the same as ordinary conditionals." The ordinary conditional is the proposition that can be written in "if-then" form, but that is precisely what a strict conditional is to begin with! Refer to my sources if you need to. I also disagree with your claim that "Larson, Boswell, et al.,... are not discussing strict conditionals." While they may not use the explicit words "strict conditional," the conditionals they are using are nonetheless strict conditionals as defined by C.I. Lewis. They do not have to use the exact wording "strict conditional" to be using a strict conditional! The type of conditional they are working with has all the properties of the strict conditional, and only the strict conditional.

You've also been edit warring to redirect Logical consequence to your article, as opposed to entailment, as well as links, validity, for example… Perhaps History2007 briefly said it best: “What is going on here? Where is the sense of logic in this Afd?”—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 00:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And I will continue to deny it. Nowhere in your long rant do I admit that my contribution was synthesis. It actually shows me proposing an argument against the claim. Hanlon1755 (talk) 01:31, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To appease MachineElf, I have removed all alleged instances of synthesis from the article. I think MachineElf will be much more content with the outline of the article now. All stated facts in the article can be found, in their explicit form, somewhere within the cited sources. Given that none of the cited sources at any point explicitly drew an identity between conditional statements and the strict conditional, I do not recommend merging this article with strict conditional since that would in fact constitute synthesis and original research. Neither do I recommend merging this article with material conditional for the same reasons. I recommend keeping this article as is, without deleting or merging it. Although I have yet to come across them, it's very possible there are sources somewhere that would allow this article to be enriched further. Hanlon1755 (talk) 02:34, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is a clear case of WP:PolicyFailure. Ironically, there is no logic here, but a personal and emotional discussion. I will not comment on this further but suggest that you two guys ask on the project page for someone else to come and fix it and do not edit it yourselves. You will never agree. This is a "very simple" issue and there are far more complicated pages on mathematical logic which have better presentations. There is no need for fighting here. When a neutral party comes over (if ever) a brief mention of logical implication at the proof-theoretic level vs the issues from the model-theoretic perspective should be made. I will not watch this any more. I will just shake my head in disbelief now and walk away. History2007 (talk) 06:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The topic makes sense only as a dab page, covering Material conditional, Strict conditional, etc. The current material is a WP:CFORK of those articles. -- 202.124.73.101 (talk) 08:20, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Almost every generalization may be characterized as Content forking if one could delete something, not improve the Wikipedia. Of course, the notion of conditional ( ≈ logical implication ) does exist, although in the framework of mathematical logic some more precise definitions are required. BTW why "logical implication" redirects to entailment? Look at de:interwiki: there are both de:Implikation ( = logical implication, redirects back) and de:Konsequenz ( = logical consequence ≈ entailment ). And meanwhile conditional statement is a dab, although conditionals in programming are yet another variety of conditionals. So, I propose to kick a dab off "conditional statement", move the article there (together with de:Implikation interwiki link and "logical implication" redirect), and expand the article such that it will cover conditional (programming) too. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 10:22, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I just discovered such brilliant example of WP:CONCEPTDAB in mathematics as Triangle center. Note that is it an article, not a dab page. If we have an article even about such undefined notion as triangle center, then we necessarily ought to have "conditional statement". The basic thing it needs is a warning hatnote about unsuitability of inbound links from articles about logic. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:07, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the time being, I can go along with the idea of deleting the page and replacing it with a disambiguation page, as Incis Mrsi suggests. What would be helpful (to me, at least) is (1) no more TLDR posts on the AFD page and (2) a list showing all the articles related to conditionals. We often run into this sort of situation when we have a group of articles on distinct but closely related topics - the titles end up being somewhat nonsensical because they developed organically. I hope to have time before this AFD closes to look in more detail, but the dab option seems like it is a good solution to the content fork. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do not offer to convert an article to a dab, at least because in such case we do not solve the problem with de:Implikation. We ought to bind it with some article, along with ru:Импликация and probably articles in several other languages which are currently bound with entailment (some via redirect from logical implication). I am not sure that, in each case of linking "condition" an so on, we will be able to choose a target article with scientifically strict definition (from a list like: strict implication, material implication, entailment, conditional (programming)…), and I hope that there are enough RSs to make a pretty good outline article about the thing known as conditional/implication. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 13:26, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on my recommendation to keep. I don't think anybody here would agree that all conditional statements are truth-functional. Hardegree's Symbolic Logic: A First Course (2nd edition) (p. 42-43) is a good source which demonstrates this, but Barwise and Etchemendy (p. 178-179) also explains it. I therefore do not recommend merging this article with material conditional on the grounds that not all conditional statements are truth-functional. Neither do I recommend merging this article with strict conditional on the grounds that that would be a synthesis of the cited sources. Hanlon1755 (talk) 23:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm afraid you've misunderstood Barwise and Etchemendy. In any case, the definition of conditional currently given in the article is equivalent to material conditional, to which a merge might be appropriate. -- 202.124.73.135 (talk) 23:37, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's quite an outlandish thing to say considering I have the quote at hand, "As a result, many uses of if. . . then. . . in English just aren't truth functional" (179). Furthermore, I direct you to p. 42-43 of Hardegree. Non-truth-functional conditionals are also studied in modal logic, as can be seen in Hardegree's Introduction to Modal Logic, p. I-9. To quote Hardegree, "The problem is that, in elementary logic, we have no means of writing down a nontruth-functional if-then connective. Modal logic provides that connective." Hanlon1755 (talk) 00:29, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, not “outlandish”, articles already exist for English usage, for example, Conditional sentence. Good job removing the WP:OR, but with “(logic)” in the title, it should be merged to material conditional. That is to say, any relevant verifiable material not currently in material conditional should be contributed there, as I had encouraged you to do in general, at Talk:Strict conditional.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 00:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said and cited, non-truth-functional conditionals are studied in modal logic. Modal logic is a type of logic. Therefore use of "(logic)" in the title is only appropriate. This article should not be merged with material conditional on the grounds that, as I've already discussed, not all conditional statements in logic are truth-functional. Hanlon1755 (talk) 00:59, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That quote applies to indicative conditionals in English, not to propositions in logic, which the article is about. -- 202.124.73.130 (talk) 01:26, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about propositions satisfying which are "true if and only if the conclusion is true in every case that the hypothesis is true... false if and only if a counterexample to the conditional statement exists" (quoting the article). That is equivalent to the definition of material conditional. In particular, it does not refer to modal logic. -- 202.124.73.130 (talk) 01:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your conclusions, if true, would constitue synthesis. At no point on the cited pages do Barwise and Etchemendy ever use the word "indicative." Neither do the sources which contend that conditionals are propositions satisfying which are "true if and only if the conclusion is true in every case that the hypothesis is true... false if and only if a counterexample to the conditional statement exists" (quoting the article) state that such propositions are equivalent to the definition of material conditional. In fact, I actually disagree with that claim (although I can't write this in the article because that would be original research). I will quote Hardegree again about logical non-truth-functional conditionals, "The problem is that, in elementary logic, we have no means of writing down a nontruth-functional if-then connective. Modal logic provides that connective" (I-9). It is obvious from his quote that there are non-truth-functional conditionals in modal logic. He later on refers to such logical conditionals as "strict conditionals." But, as MachineElf and others (perhaps even you) had argued, almost all of the information currently in this article cannot be put into the article for the strict conditional because that would be synthesis and original research. It is evident given all of this that the information in this article is best situated where it currently resides: in this article. Hanlon1755 (talk) 02:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not so. Barwise and Etchemendy use the phrase "in English." They are therefore talking about English sentences (indicative conditionals, counterfactual conditionals, etc.) not propositions. This article is (or at least is stated to be) about propositions (i.e. material conditionals). Furthermore, your Hardegree quote makes it clear that conditional propositions are truth-functional. There are indeed non-truth-functional conditionals in modal logic, but this article is not about modal logic, and much of what this article says would be false if it was viewed as talking about modal logic. -- 202.124.73.130 (talk) 02:22, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Barwise and Etchemendy use the phrase "in English," but this is not the word "indicative." They need to explicitly use the word "indicative," otherwise it is synthesis and original research. Logical propositions can very well be written "in English." For example, for propositions a and b, the English statement "a and b" corresponds to the logical conjunction of a and b, which is itself a proposition. This article is about propositions, as you say, but it is about general conditional statements in logic. Modal logic is therefore included, being a branch of logic. In logic, there are both truth-functional conditionals (e.g. material conditionals) and non-truth-functional conditionals (e.g. strict conditionals). But I have already discussed the problems involving merging this article with material and/or strict conditional. It's apparent the best place for this information is right where it now is. Hanlon1755 (talk) 02:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Barwise and Etchemendy use the phrase "in English," meaning that they are talking about English sentences, not propositions. Mapping sentences to statements in logic is far from trivial. In fact, strict conditionals were invented as one way of doing so. However, given that the lede of this article (which you wrote) does not apply to modal conditionals, modal logic must be excluded. If this article was intended to be an overview of conditionals of every kind, it probably needs to be blown up so we can start over. -- 202.124.72.207 (talk) 03:34, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever the case may be about the phrase "in English," it is not and will never be the same as the word "indicative." The lede of this article applies to all logical conditional statements, so it therefore applies to modal conditionals. I see no need to blow up this article: the intent of the article to apply to all logical conditional statements is well written in the title and the lede. Hanlon1755 (talk) 03:47, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The word "indicative" is not the issue. Material conditionals are propositions; indicative conditionals and counterfactual conditionals are sentences (which Barwise and Etchemendy are talking about); strict conditionals are statements in modal logic. Not the same thing at all. The statement you wrote in the article "A conditional statement is true if and only if the conclusion is true in every case that the hypothesis is true. A conditional statement is false if and only if a counterexample to the conditional statement exists" is a rewording of the definition of material conditional. Conditionals in modal logic are defined differently, using possible worlds. Furthermore, you used the standard notation for material conditionals in the article. What exactly did you intend this article to be about? -- 202.124.72.207 (talk) 03:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

202 is correct… Halon, you deftly removed your WP:OR (I was calling it synthesis to be charitable, but if you prefer OR… so be it). Just because your source doesn't say something, doesn't make it synth, because countless other sources would make it perfectly clear. For better or worse, I've added sourced NPOV statements and quotations expressing the issue. As you've been informed, your source doesn't adequately address it, feel free to remove your source if you think it's synth.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 04:10, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The statement I wrote in the article, "A conditional statement is true if and only if the conclusion is true in every case that the hypothesis is true. A conditional statement is false if and only if a counterexample to the conditional statement exists," is not equivalent to the definition of material conditional. Here's an example: Let p be "I am running" and let q be "I am running northwards." Suppose both p and q are true. I am running and I am running northwards. The material implication p -> q is true. It is of the form T -> T, which is T. This corresponds to the first row of the truth table for material conditionals. But the conditional statement p -> q is false: a counterexample exists. I could be running, but running southward instead. Seeing that the material conditional has a different truth value than the conditional statement, it follows that material conditionals are different from conditional statements. Hanlon1755 (talk) 04:54, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is that a joke? If you assume both p and q are true, there is no counterexample. -- 202.124.72.2 (talk) 06:27, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just because p and q are true doesn't mean that they are true all the time. It is possible for p to be true, but for q to be false (aka, it is possible for me to be running, but for me not to be running northwards). This possible world (example) is your counterexample. So the material conditional p -> q is true, but the conditional statement p -> q is false. Hence the fundamental difference between material conditionals and conditional statements. Hanlon1755 (talk) 07:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Classic, I hope you don't mind if I quote you.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 18:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Go right ahead. I don't see anything wrong with that argument. Hanlon1755 (talk) 00:34, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, verify that nothing links to it (other than talk pages), and recreate as a disambiguation page. As noted above, it's a WP:POVFORK of strict conditional, so there's nothing here which needs to be or should be kept. However, strict conditional, material conditional, and probably others are all examples of conditional statements in logic, and so should be retained as a disambiguation page. Similarly, Conditional statement (grammar) should be created as a disambiguation including indicative conditional and contrafactual conditional, and possibly other examples listed in conditional sentence. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:47, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with that. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:51, 22 January 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 Golden Bay. v/r - T P 01:21, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Bay (district)[edit]

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

Delete. Golden Bay exists but there is no district or area known as "Golden Bay" as described in this article. There are other place names in NZ called "Golden Bay" but that is not relevant to this AfD. Also, confusion may arise with the districts of New Zealand which are defined political entities. Not sure if any of the content can be salvaged for relevant Tasman Region articles. I will use the map for the Golden Bay. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:31, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. —-- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:47, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There appears to be content here (though unreferenced) that does not appear in Golden Bay. Is any of this content useful in your opinion, Alan, and can it be referenced properly and added to other articles? I don't want to reflexively say "keep" but I don't want to eliminate useful content either. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 09:01, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think there is anything that is worth salvaging. I have used the images in the Golden Bay article. The content is covered by Tasman Region and related geographical articles. As I said, it will be an ongoing source of confusion and its existence has no basis in official naming. It seems that in common vernacular the plain adjacent to the bay is called Golden Bay but if that can be referenced (dfficult?) it can be added to the Golden Bay article. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 09:50, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note Golden Bay and Golden Bay (district) were once one article. I had split the articles assuming they were both legitimate topics. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 16:23, 15 January 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. Tone 13:57, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ridha Gataa[edit]

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

Dear Admin, This page was created (and deleted) yesterday as well by the same user (Mumenmaad). Please review. Thanks AKS (talk) 10:14, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete After a cursory WP:BEFORE check, doesn't appear to pass the professor test. Open to changing !vote if sources in other languages are shown to exist. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:17, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 6 January 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, Bryce (talk | contribs) 02:33, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Run-of-the-mill physician. Google search turned up nothing significant. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 10:52, 15 January 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. v/r - T P 14:27, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Sears[edit]

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

Even before I removed the resume from this article, there were no secondary or even tertiary sources establishing this person's notability, and I have not been able to find any. Drmies (talk) 04:53, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. It looked like a non-notable psychologist to me until I noticed tucked away in the info bar that he won the "Psychology Award (1998) Awarded by the Florida Psychological Association". Does anyone know if that is a significant honour? If so, that might sway me from weak delete to weak keep. --Legis (talk - contribs) 01:02, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The article as it was before the nominator and a previous editor committed major surgery on it was clearly over-promotional. However, a quick glance through GScholar seems to give the subject an h-index of about 28, which in most fields would be taken as fairly strong evidence of meeting WP:PROF#1. Though (particularly seeing the amount of multiple authorship in the subject's publications) I am willing to be told I am wrong. PWilkinson (talk) 15:53, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I wish I were smart or interested enough to learn about those indices (and figure out my own). I'll ask someone more knowledgeable than myself to weigh in. Thanks PWilkinson, Drmies (talk) 18:06, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Unless you have a very common name (such as many Chinese or Korean names or someone called Smith or Jansen), it's fairly easy if you have access to Web of Science: search for your publications and in the upper right hand corner you'll see a link "create citation report" and it will calculate your h automatically... :-) Scopus will also do it, but if you have publications that were published before 1996 it will underestimate your impact. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 18:37, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks. Next question (I'm not done with you yet!)--is this subject's h-index decent enough for notability? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. To me, this is a borderline case. GScholar often gives inflated citation rates and it is the same here. Web of Science gives an h-index of 17, which in a high-citation area like this is not exceptional and many more junior researchers will have a similar -or higher- index (the h-index tends to get higher as one's career advances). The highest citation counts are 269, 123, 82, but on the first paper he is just one of many authors (placed somewhere in the middle). The award does not really seem notable to me, there are many state-level associations and they all have awards. It would be differently if this were on the national level. I don't see any evidence that any one of the other criteria of WP:PROF are being met, either (named professorship, editor of a major journal, etc). --Guillaume2303 (talk) 18:48, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Guillaume. Now back to work--syllabus for me, red wine for you, no doubt. Drmies (talk) 19:10, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually a wodka martini (stirred, not shaken...) with a lemon twist. Finished a few grant applications today (which evil bastard dreams up a Jan. 5 deadline...), so I felt like celebrating... Will be even more so if they actually decide to fork over the dough... :-) --Guillaume2303 (talk) 21:55, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that GS gives inflated counts, GS gives between 1.5 and 2 times the WoS count because it includes a wider range of citing material. Which one is the better in a given area varies, but in any h values are meaningful only obtained in the same way and when compared with other people in the same field. I notice anb increasing tendency here to use them as absolute indications of notability. To know whether a citation record is significant, one has to at least look at the citing references and see where they're from, and in some cases, what the reputation of their author or even their actual content is. And when we do use citation records ourselves, we need to take into account the presences of extremely high counts as indicating notability regardless of the h index., which cannot tell someone with 20 papers with 20 citations form someone with 10 papers of 100 citations and 10 papers with 20. parer with 20. DGG ( talk ) 05:30, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep In this case, I notice that there is in fact one paper with 185 GS citations, published in a goof BMJ spin-off journal, [13], and one with 154 cites in a decent specialty journal. [14] They are reviews, and reviews are often cited, but I consider being qualified to write 2 such widely used reviews is an indication of notability, though nothing else much in the record is all that convincing--the prize is only state-wide, and consequently minor. I need to point out that Guillaume and I do not actually disagree on this one--the difference between neutral and weak keep is quite narrow. DGG ( talk ) 05:30, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, DGG and I don't really differ in our appraisal of this article. I admit that part of the fact that GScholar gives higher counts is because it includes more sources (contrary to WoS or even Scopus, GScholar tries to be all-inclusive). However, I do maintain that it routinely overcounts. Not only is there the case of Ike Antkare, but I also base this judgment on what I have seen for citation counts to my own papers, where I have seen, for example, a commentary that nobody has ever cited turn up several dozens of hits. GScholar is a nice first approach (if you don't find anything there, you won't find it elsewhere either), but for more exact counting, you need WoS. Of course, DGG is absolutely correct with his remarks on how citations should be interpreted (wish the beancounters would be so enlightened here), so exact counts are not that essential here anyway. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 08:01, 6 January 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, Bryce (talk | contribs) 14:31, 6 January 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, Bryce (talk | contribs) 02:32, 15 January 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. No one, except the nominator, argues for deletion of the article. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 10:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of people on stamps of Djibouti[edit]

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

None of the people in this list article are actually from Djibouti, therefore the article has no value in telling us anything about Djibouti. Philafrenzy (talk) 15:06, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: That is not the point of these lists. If we go down this path then we should probably have very careful look at all of the articles in this category Category:Lists of people on stamps for similar lists and perhaps even deleting every entries for people who don't actually come from the country that issued stamps of them. Otherwise the lists should be all renamed List of people from Foo on stamps of Foo. If the current structure stays then all such articles should stay. ww2censor (talk) 20:17, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This list has no sourcing given. I'm frankly dubious of the whole 'List of People on Stamps' series of articles - many are unsourced, and the notability is shaky in many cases. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:37, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have been meaning to improve these articles for some time but have been struggling with a failing computer so have barely made a start as yet. Daveosaurus (talk) 22:25, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How does this list help the encyclopaedia? It tells us absolutely nothing about Djibouti and as far as I can see there is not a single person actually from Djibouti on this list. I could understand if the list included Presidents of the country or similar but it is just a list of links to famous people well covered in other articles. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There was at least one person from Djibouti on the list (a former President). The article helps the encylopaedia by being a list of people that the government of Djibouti (and, previously, the French colonial administration) have considered sufficiently notable that they are depicted in official Government publications i.e. its postage stamps. Daveosaurus (talk) 22:25, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further to which, now I have had a go at the article I count at least three people with direct relevance to Djibouti (Governor Bernard, Léonce Lagarde and Hassan Gouled Aptidon), plus others with at least peripheral relevance (e.g. Félix Éboué). The difficulty now is that the stamps of Djibouti are poorly documented (my 2007 catalogue only lists them up to the late 20th century) and with so many modern African stamps available turning out to be fakes I am most reluctant to go any further without verification such as is provided by a reliable catalogue. Daveosaurus (talk) 02:40, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yes it needs improvement and I have made a start on referencing the article. Daveosaurus (talk) 22:25, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I do not object to the article if you can fill it with people relevant to Djibouti rather than Nelson and Princess Diana, but it is disingenuous to say that the government of Djibouti thought these people were important. Most of them only figure on the stamps because collectors in France and elsewhere will buy them as topical issues, and I would doubt that the Djibouti government had very much to do with the selection of subjects. Did Lord Nelson ever visit Djibouti? Philafrenzy (talk) 22:43, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A lot of work has been done on this article recently by Daveosaurus but none of it is addressing the fundamental notability of the subject, which I think is what we should be discussing. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:55, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one failing to address the fundamental notability of the subject by harping on about the utterly irrelevant issue of whether the people on the stamps have any connection to Djibouti. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:12, 21 January 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, Bryce (talk | contribs) 02:31, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think it's instances like this where a rigid adherence to WP:N doesn't accomplish anything but knocking arbitrary gaps in Wikipedia coverage. So long as the information on this list is verifiable, why isn't it enough that 1) there is widespread interest and coverage of stamps of the world, including their subject matter; 2) Djibouti, though tiny and perhaps little known to much of the world, is a real, independent nation that has issued official stamps. So do we complete coverage in this area by making sure all countries for which such verifiable information exists are covered in a way completely consistent with policy, or do we delete this just to say the WP:N-god has been sated? What would be accomplished, how would the encyclopedia be made better? Whether or not these people are "relevant to Dijibouti" seems to me completely irrelevant and not a demand based on any policy or guideline I can surmise, so I don't see much point in discussing that further. postdlf (talk) 04:08, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well referenced article very similar to others of the type. Just for comparison, I compared List of people on stamps of Ireland and found links to Pope John Paul II, Jawaharlal Nehru, Rowland Hill, and Mahatma Gandhi. None are Irish, but their inclusion is in itself notable.--Dmol (talk) 11:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. My objection to the article is not based on a narrow reading of any rules, rather it is based on a high-level principle that all content should have encyclopaedic value, which this list does not. The effort that has gone into referencing this list is a waste as all it means is that we have a well referenced list of trivia. I would be very surprised if any of these stamps had ever been anywhere near Djibouti. They are produced by foreign agencies for sale direct to collectors to satisfy demand for pictures of famous people on stamps. The stamps are invariably too large and too expensive for use in the named country and you usually find that there is a much smaller and cheaper range for actual day to day use. Do not be misled by the name of a sovereign state on the stamps, these stamps and many like them tell you nothing about the country they supposedly originate from apart from how poor it is and how much they need the cash from the sale of stamps that do not bear any relation to their own culture. I wish the same amount of effort had gone into expanding the main article on Postage stamps and postal history of Djibouti. Expanding these lists of trivia is misguided when the actual main article for the country is so lacking. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:27, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to your comments: "I would be very surprised if any of these stamps had ever been anywhere near Djibouti" If they had not been they wouldn't have been granted catalogue listing but instead been relegated to an Appendix as per the catalogue publisher's policies. "The stamps are invariably too large and too expensive for use in the named country and you usually find that there is a much smaller and cheaper range for actual day to day use". The Djiboutian franc is pegged at about 177 to the USD. The last page of stamps in the catalogue gives stamps of face values from 20 Fdj to 500 Fdj with the average being about 100 Fdj - quite compatible with the likely price of posting letters overseas - Djibouti has for example a sizeable French expat community see its article. Otherwise this is at its heart the difference between "commemorative" and "definitive" stamps and applies to most nations of the world, including the United States. "these stamps and many like them tell you nothing about the country they supposedly originate from" Actually if you read through a comprehensive catalogue of Djibouti stamps you will notice that the majority of them are directly relevant to the country, showing topics such as local landscapes, wildlife and activities. "Expanding these lists of trivia is misguided when the actual main article for the country is so lacking" WP:SOFIXIT. I don't have access to literature about the Djibouti postal service but I do have access to catalogues of its stamps. Daveosaurus (talk) 22:51, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 10:00, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Kennedy (1900s hurler)[edit]

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

Not notable. Only 1 line. No sources. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:16, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:23, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He played for an extended period at senior level. His notability is not a consequence of the quality of the article. RashersTierney (talk) 17:46, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the quality of the article is not up to supporting his supposed career, then he remains not notable. If anybody can be bothered improving the article quality, to notable levels (with citations) I would not object to it being revisited. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:43, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Subject has played at senior inter-county level and won multiple All-Ireland Senior Hurling Championship medals. Article meets Wikipedia:Athlete#Gaelic_games guidelines. - Teester (talk) 11:18, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prove it Maybe all this good stuff is true, but there's not an iota of proof anywhere in the article to back it up. Not 1 citation or wikilink even. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:42, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added one ref the other day. Perhaps time would be better spent adding more and improving the article rather than just arguing here. RashersTierney (talk)

A better use of time would be to construct a nice wee table listing Dan and all the other greats per team, per year. That ould be notable. This is just a waste of bytes. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:29, 11 January 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, Bryce (talk | contribs) 02:30, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A stub about a notable athlete of 100 years ago. Such stubs are useful, can be expanded as time goes by, and are not "just a waste of bytes" as the nominator unpersuasively argues. Instead, this is useful encyclopedic content. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 09:12, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article improved and ref'd to show notability since the AfD nomination. Lugnuts (talk) 10:18, 15 January 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. v/r - T P 14:26, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Erin Lavery[edit]

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

WP:ATD I know, but it is not possible for this topic and the article at all. List of All My Children characters contains original research and a very brief abstract of her background, so redirect may not be possible to me. "List of All My Children miscellaneous characters" is gone due to copyright infringements, so redirect is not possible. This article violates WP:PLOT and contains OR plot ever created. I tried to find third-party sources and sources independent from this topic, but I found no such luck. Even WP:Notability (fiction) is an essay and may be ignored officially or unofficially. No significant storylines were made, impact from this character is zero, and her appearance lasted for about one year. This topic does not pass WP:N requirements in any way. WP:WikiProject Soap Operas is currently discussed in its own talk page about its own guidelines. George Ho (talk) 07:31, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Sorry, I am a little bit unclear - why can't the article be changed to a redirect to List of All My Children characters, and then the references to the character in that article be improved (real question)? --Legis (talk - contribs) 00:58, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure right now if this article is worth saving or preserving, let alone improving, considering the lack of notability of this character. I don't know how long the list will last, but to me it is a deeply flawed page. --George Ho (talk) 01:08, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 21:38, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This fictional character is non-notable - only featured in the series for a short period of time and has looking around there is next to nothing in terms of sources for the character - limiting any chance of improvement.Rain the 1 04:03, 8 January 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, Bryce (talk | contribs) 02:29, 15 January 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 Mosman, New South Wales. v/r - T P 01:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Middle Harbour Public School[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

K-6 school. Convention with such schools is, as I understand it, to delete and/or redirect. Appears to be non-notable. Delete (w/redirect to whatever makes sense would be fine) appears to be in order. Epeefleche (talk) 00:17, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mosman, New South Wales. In the AfD previous discussion the school was kept based on references, but clearly they had less stringent criteria for what constitutes significant coverage back in 2007. --MelanieN (talk) 01:29, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm inclined to say keep because the school has had multiple coverage in the Mosman Daily and the Sydney Morning Herald, for example [15]. It was the school that set the precedent for Australia for 40kph school zones. Sionk (talk) 01:39, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - why is this being relisted for deletion anyway? The previous debate resulted in a KEEP decision. Sionk (talk) 01:48, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, our standards have changed in the past 4+ years, and convention today is that such articles (K-6 schools) not have stand-alone articles (absent unusual circumstances). This seems to be broadly agreed, though there are some different opinions at times as to whether closes should be delete or redirect or merge.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:58, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unless, obviously, the school meets WP:CORPDEPTH... Sionk (talk) 02:28, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Meagre article that should be expanded, updated and sourced. It does not look unsalvageble at first glance. Night of the Big Wind _talk 02:07, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notability claims in the article. Needs to be expanded, yes, but not deleted. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 07:28, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Notability claims are enough to prevent a speedy deletion, but they are not enough to prevent an AfD deletion - unless they are substantiated by significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. --MelanieN (talk) 17:22, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep although this may be a minority viewpoint I believe that the deletionists are being foolhardy in their blind opposition to schools articles. Every school office I have been to has dozens of newspaper articles about the school framed on the wall. This clearly meets GNG as they are multiple non-trivial sources. Therefore based on NRVE the only decision should be keep. Some schools are lucky enough to have these sources on google news but many older and in fact more historically notable ones do not and that is a shame. Microfilm is just as important. Based on this experience it should be clear that all schools are notable. Also at the very least this school should be merged into the relevant diocesan article, not deleted outright. This preserves the edit history for when sources are found. It should also be noted that this is part of a mass nomination and that should be frowned upon by the community as it shows there was unlikely a committed effort to find proper sources before nomination. I don't think even a PROD was tried first here. =( Also in this case the school meets GNG as it has multiple non-trivial coverage in RS.LuciferWildCat (talk) 18:53, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Articles is the local newspaper are not always considered to be reliable sources. But indeed, redirecting or merging can be a viable alternative for some cases. Night of the Big Wind _talk 20:53, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Equally, that would make most secondary schools un-notable because the majority of their coverage will be in the local press. Let's give evary article a ..erm ..level playing field. Proactively setting out to delete all primary school articles is hardly a positive strategy! Sionk (talk) 00:47, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The relevant notability guideline is WP:ORG, which says "On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary." Few elementary schools get such nonlocal coverage, so they fail the relevant notability guideline. Additionally, most of the local coverage falls into the "Trivial or incidental " types as enumerated in that guideline. Getting mentioned in the local paper is not that impressive, considering that every grocery store, gas station, and fast food restaurant also gets mentioned from time to time in the local newspaper for trivial, incidental and run of the mill things, or gets press releases reprinted about upcoming events. High schools frequently get regional or statewide coverage, since their sports, arts and academic programs are in competition at the regional and state level (in US terminology, but the principle is worldwide).Edison (talk) 04:38, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That last part seems altogether too arbitrary. It would result in Grong Grong PS (which, for some bizarre reason, traditionally has a good showing in state athletics carnivals in NSW; their athletes and team have placed regularly over the last decade or so) getting a page, despite the fact that it has 9 students. Schools are primarily about the academics; we should be finding academic reasons for notability (and if that's the case, Middle Harbour PS gets pretty good scores in standardised testing). You can see the results at [16], but I can't link directly to their entry. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 04:56, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Edison -- thanks for that thoughtful comment, which was impressive both in its reference to guidelines and in its thoughtful treatment of the subject.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:58, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Out to dinner, on a whim decided to google around. First news source I checked: [17]. Check the first link that comes up.

This has descended into a farce. By your own admission, you have submitted "150 or so" school AfD's, and I'm very concerned that you have not done the legwork required before submitting them. In fact, you go on to say that you don't have time to look around for what's been done before with school articles (seriously, what's the rush?).For one article, you didn't read the opening paragraph. You haven't done a cursory search for sources that could indicate notability, instead relying on others to do it for you. You are, in fact, shouting down everything that schools would generally rely on for notability, not that you found them yourself. No matter how many people tell you. Nor how many times. Your scattershot approach is even hitting high schools. And, (badly written) school regions!

Epeefleche, I'll ask you, plainly, have you complied with sections B, C or D from WP:BEGIN (or points #8 and #9 from WP:Guide_to_deletion#Considerations, whichever you prefer), yes or no? ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 09:52, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I routinely conduct a wp:before search before nominating an article for AfD. As you have seen. Now -- might I request that you: a) stop quoting me incorrectly (as above, and elsewhere at AfDs just this week), b) stop asserting that I have or have not done things where you are incorrect (as above), and c) stop making ad hominem personal attacks (as above and elsewhere)? Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:15, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While most primary schools are not notable, I am leaning keep because it meets WP:GNG. Bearian (talk) 21:05, 12 January 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, Bryce (talk | contribs) 02:28, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:ORG for reasons stated above. Edison (talk) 03:02, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable elementary school, per long-standing consensus. Here's the big notability hook for this school: "In 1995 the school became the first in Australia to have a 40kph speed zone on a multi-lane arterial road..." That would be trivia, not matter of substance. Carrite (talk) 05:05, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or redirect as appropriate) per Epeefleche, MelanieN, Edison and Carrite. LuciferWildCat, please be aware that I am not a deletionist, have advocated keeping (and have expanded and improved) dozens of articles up for deletion, but support established consensus that most primary schools are not notable by Wikipedia's standards (though they are notable to the little shavers in attendance this year). The "dozens of newspaper articles about the school framed on the wall" that you mention must be considered apocryphal unless you furnish solid evidence of their existence (and significant coverage of the specific school in question). Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 09:26, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - two local newspaper sources and one regional newspaper source are cited in the article. This satisfies the requirements of WP:CORPDEPTH unless, like some people, you think the safety of Australia's schoolchildren is trivial. This debate seems to be descending into a pincer operation by a group of admins who think all primary schools are non-notable regardless. Sionk (talk) 20:10, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable primary school. Claiming notability on the basis of a speed zone is farcical. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 11:10, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (with blanking and merging of appropriate content) to its locality or school authority, per standard procedure. Non notable schools are generally not deleted; instead, as demonstrated by 100s of AfD closures and Category:Redirects from school articles (not up to date), they are redirected to the article about the school district (USA) or to the article about the locality (rest of the world). deletion is recommended only as a last resort; the 'delete' !voters may not be aware of this and the hundreds of 'redirect' closures for school AfDs.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:51, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most if not all of the delete !voters have been involved in AfDs where you've left the same note, so I think it is fair to say that they may be aware of your view.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:26, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is so much better for people searching for information on something to just find nothing. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 08:00, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't address which view is the better one. That's not my point in the least. I only addressed the suggestion that the delete !voters "may not be aware" of what was stated above. As a second point -- interestingly, the charge was not made as to the keep !voters.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:06, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE for closer: if this AfD is closed as 'redirect', please remember to include the ((R from school)) template on the redirect page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:51, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: :A search through "Newsbank, Australian Newspaper has 322 results when the name is put in quotes. Sources exist to support WP:GNG inclusion.--LauraHale (talk) 09:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That argument, actually, has been identified as an argument to avoid at AfDs. See WP:GHITS.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:30, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So has everything else Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 19:47, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: K-6 school's coverage is generally either local, routine or fleeting; so notability isn't really established Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 19:47, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The school is well within the top 50 schools in the state as noted by a national newspaper and one of the key RS' for Australia (SMH), as I mentioned above. This is not "local, routine or fleeting". ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 01:59, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're apparently mistaken. The source you provide does not list the school in the top 50 for the city, never mind the state. The other sources you've listed are about a speed zone and a government grant to fix the boy's toilets. Nothing here even comes close to establishing even a shade of notability. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:27, 18 January 2012 (UTC) even a shade of notability. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:33, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From the source I commented on above:

On page 4-5:

Top 50 schools for Reading in Year 5
...
Middle Harbour Public School Mosman 49

On page 5-7:

Top 50 schools for Writing in Year 5
...
Middle Harbour Public School Mosman 32

On page 11-12:

Top 50 schools for spelling in Year 5
...
Middle Harbour Public School Mosman 39

On page 15-16:

Top 50 schools for Grammar and Punctuation in Year 5
...
Middle Harbour Public School Mosman 44

Or, you could use this source (which I decided against in the article because it wasn't especially informative besides giving the rank):

Middle Harbour Public School Mosman 55 30 49 32 39 44 65

So, have you had a problem opening the file or with Ctrl-F? ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 04:23, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You've conveniently omited the only list that counts here: the overall list, which this school does not make. And it rates only 55th place in the other source you list. Hardly indicative of notability. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 04:26, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking at the sub-rankings, and how well it's done on the literacy tests. Even so, let's put this into perspective: 55th, even, out of >2000. I know that you're salivating for AfD blood here, but that's what we call notable.

By the way, you could have fixed the wording rather than undoing me, but I suppose removing attempts to actually assert the notability of the article doesn't work for the deletionist mindset, yeah? WP:POINTy much? ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 05:11, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Watch it with the personal attacks buddy. You're way out of line.

The school is not notable because no one has ever written anything significant about it. It's that simple. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 05:31, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deliberately removing referenced information asserting the notability of the school is disruptive and pointy. You're way out of line. I'm sure you don't need ((uw-delete1)) to tell you this.˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 05:36, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to the appropriate suburb article. A garden variety primary school, saying that it's notable because of a handful of passing mentions over the years and the fact that it (may) be in the top 50 schools in the state is drawing a pretty long bow. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:06, 22 January 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. v/r - T P 00:40, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

South Island Party (2008)[edit]

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

The only thing notable it did was apply for broadcasting funding. That is the only thing found outside the primary sources. Everything in the article is sourced to either Richard Prosser or Elections.org.nz. New-Newbie (talk) 00:07, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In general, New Zealand parties which never stood candidates in elections have not been kept (the exceptions being long-standing left-wing parties which had a base in the trade union, student or similar movements). In this case, there do not appear to be sources independent of the party's founder which do more than say that Prosser intended to form the party.-gadfium 19:26, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to NZ South Island Party, as it's a similar group of people doing basically the same thing. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:55, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The NZ South Island Party appears to be a separate entity with a similar aim so it should not ne merged or redirected there. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 11:12, 15 January 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, Bryce (talk | contribs) 06:22, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, a similar party Reform New Zealand went to AfD last year with the result being no consensus: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reform New Zealand. Mattlore (talk) 22:33, 12 January 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, Bryce (talk | contribs) 02:25, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleteper nom. Insufficient refs. Most it is from Prosser making a lot of noise. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 11:12, 15 January 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. v/r - T P 00:39, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Holy Sisters of the Gaga Dada[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/The Holy Sisters of the Gaga Dada

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

After lengthy research, I regret to say the subject of this article does not meet general Notability guidelines. The one reference is a dead link, also. SarahStierch (talk) 18:19, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I also found lots of things on the net that aren't WP:RS, and a handful of singular mentions in reliable publications. This doesn't approach WP:BASIC requirements, and doesn't pass WP:BAND either. JFHJr (㊟) 19:38, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:34, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Quick Google search turns up substantial coverage found in two LA Times articles [18](1987) and [19](1986), plus a few mentions in magazines and scholarly works for which I can see only snippets e.g.[20][21]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 06:07, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Arxiloxos. The two LA Times articles are just enough to meet criterion 1 of WP:BAND, and a third notes that "The Holy Sisters of the Gaga Dada are featured in "Once Upon Her Time," a TV program about women in the '80s airing on the Lifetime Cablevision Network". Gongshow ^Talk 08:57, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets criteria 1 and 10 of WP:BAND. Ronald Joe Record (talk) 08:30, 22 January 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, Bryce (talk | contribs) 02:24, 15 January 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. Tone 13:57, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby and Steve's Auto World[edit]

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

Not only the article is about an unnotable chain of gas stations, it's also written in an incredibly spammy way: the vision of the company was to build something that had never been seen before. It was at that point that the vision for the "Auto World" came to life and Bobby & Steve's was born, really? Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:52, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find plenty of coverage that mentions that something happened at or near one of their gas stations, but not coverage about the chain. -- Whpq (talk) 17:16, 12 January 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, Bryce (talk | contribs) 02:23, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:CORP. LibStar (talk) 03:33, 18 January 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. Despite attempts by article creator to address issues, the subject has not met WP:GNG. I've reviewed all of the sources and they are either 1) Primary, 2) Trivial mentions of the subject without substantial coverage, or 3) No mention of the subject. As an administrator, it's my responsibility to weigh the validity of !votes against Wikipedia policies. In this case, Faizanalivarya hasn't demonstrated a reason for keeping the article that complies with Wikipedia guidelines. Closing as delete. v/r - T P 14:23, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mahmood Parekh[edit]

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

Non-notable, no significant coverage in reliable sources. None found via Google. Was prodded, prod removed by author without improvement. Huon (talk) 21:31, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Dear Admin, I have uploaded the Secondary Sources and tertiary sources as well his interview on different TV channels and Newspapers which claims that he is very notable personality in Pakistan and I must say a legend because he is the only person in Pakistan who started Healthcare Advertisement in Pakistan. he is Entrepreneur in Pakistan as he is one of the Vice President and Coordinator of International Advertising Association (Pakistan) IAA Congres [22] therefore most of advertising students in Pakistan always want to know about him and as in Wikipedia we believe in free Encyclopedia I think with his article we can help so many advertising students in Pakistan therefore this article should be improve rather deleting.--Faizanalivarya (talk) 13:31, 8 January 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, Bryce (talk | contribs) 02:21, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - Mahmood Parekh fully qualify under Wikipedia notability people policy and written with full respect of all Wikipedia policies therefore I should be kept here however it need few correct citation which would be added time to time as I said he is only pioneer of healthcare advertisement in Pakistan and most of marketing and advertisement students always look for his personality and willing to write an article on him therefore Wikipedia can be very useful for those Pakistani students. --Faizanalivarya (talk) 22:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You can't !vote twice. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 09:57, 22 January 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. Tone 13:58, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dino Fazlić[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Does not meet WP:NFOOTBALL in my opinion and there may be copyright infringements too... seems to be copy & paste. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. According to the article he made 14 appearances for SV Werder Bremen II in the 3. Fußball-Liga, which according to WP:FPL is a fully professional league. However, the article does not contain any sources that cite his appearances so I will refrain from voting at this time. Mattythewhite (talk) 03:36, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're point would be valid, except that it says he played for Werder Bremen III, who play in the fifth division. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:11, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, so I see. Well then, delete, on the grounds that the subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 10:41, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:00, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 16:39, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. --Reckless182 (talk) 12:41, 20 January 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. Closing per WP:SNOW - there's a clear consensus to keep this article, which has been considerably expanded during the course of the discussion such that the original reasons for the nomination has been addressed. WJBscribe (talk) 11:26, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Costa Concordia disaster[edit]

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

Article is almost a complete duplication of Costa Concordia without adding anything of substance (cf. Sinking of the Rainbow Warrior which expands hugely on its parent article).
Confusion is created for readers as the mention on the Main Page directs specifically to to Costa Concordia - it's there that people will go to get information. They don't need it slightly reworded on another page.
Main article is not so large it demands being split - all information should be kept within that article.
Per WP:NEWSEVENT, no indication thus far of a major, lasting impact. Coverage is currently large but routine for an event of this nature.
Other articles on ships to suffer disasters (e.g. MS Herald of Free Enterprise, MS Estonia, MV Doña Paz) comprise primarily of information on the tragedies, so clearly the precedent is to contain such information on the ship's article except in cases attracting massive attention and a lasting effect (e.g. Rainbow Warrior, Titanic).
As notability is not temporary, if the event is later proven to have enduring historical significance then the article can be recreated (and not simply as a copy of existing material). ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 01:45, 15 January 2012 (UTC) ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 01:45, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 01:47, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 01:47, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - Clearly passes WP:EVENT notability criteria because it has enduring historical significance as the largest passenger ship grounding in history with at least six human fatalities and hundreds of millions of euros of vehicle damage, and meets the general notability guideline with 14,200+ Google News hits already. As a developing current event on the front page ITN, the article is already several kilobytes larger than the section of the article it was split from. Selery (talk) 01:55, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not eligible for a Speedy Keep - see WP:SK. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 02:06, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, this nomination is "obviously frivolous" per criteria 2.1 because no evidence was presented that the article does not have an enduring historical significance or that it doesn't meet the general notability criteria, the two elements of WP:NEWSEVENT. Speculating that it might not be historical is not evidence. Moreover, the event is listed on the front page. Selery (talk) 02:12, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not listed on the front page, Costa Concordia is. Your argument that the nomination is "obviously frivolous" has no basis. As for historical significance, the event took place a day ago and thus trying to claim it will have far-reaching effects is simply crystal ball gazing. Once again, this AFD is not eligible to be closed speedily. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 02:20, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Easily foldable back into the main article on the ship. In a few weeks, we'll know if this is significant in history or just another boring news cycle darling. siafu (talk) 01:58, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Although ill be accused of crystal balling and i am too a small degree the incident is clearly significant meets WP:EVENT and over the coming days this article will be greatly expanded as more info comes to light and will very likely be too big to fit in the main article Something as significant as this should have its own article. It will have basis on the future of the industry as its looked into why safety measures which are used industry wide failed. OH and does meet [[WP:GNG)) In its own right. Edinburgh Wanderer 02:14, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'd rather see the section in Costa Concordia rewritten as a WP:SUMMARY and linking to this event. This event is notable and will have long lasting effects. Putting all of this into the Costa Concordia would effectively repurpose that article for this event by sheer weight.--v/r - T P 02:44, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "The 114,500-ton Costa Concordia is the largest ship ever to sink." -- USA Today Selery (talk) 02:35, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's actually from http://www.expertcruiser.com/, which is of dubious reliability. Goodvac (talk) 02:53, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - That it's the largest passenger ship ever to sink, run aground, or be destroyed in service is corroborated by [23]. Selery (talk) 02:59, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - So far, the ship has only run aground. It has not yet sunk. Goodvac (talk) 03:04, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Actually it's not the largest ship ever to sink. The SS Atlantic Empress was 128,399 GT. The Costa Concordia hasn't actually sunk either. ShipFan (talk) 07:45, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This WP:BREAKING NEWS article seems to have been created in anticipation of its notability i.e. with the expectation that it will meet inclusion guidelines, before the duration of coverage or any lasting effect is certain, see WP:ANTICIPATION. Once you get pass the hyped up "Titanic" comparisons (groan), the facts of the event as described in the original Costa Concordia article are adequate. Nothing suggests that it is (at this stage) independently notable.-Kiwipat (talk) 02:47, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP FOR NOW!! I feel this way for FIVE Reasons. There is still a lot to unfold here. 1.) It is the largest ship to ever sink. 2.) It will most likely become the largest ship ever raised, or re-floated. 3.) The death could rise significantly. 4.) This truly was a Miracle on the High Seas; This should have been much, much worse, 4200 people were very, very lucky on a Friday the 13th. & 5.) This can very likely turn into an environmental catastrophe. So I say KEEP FOR NOW, and lets see what happens. No matter what happens though, this article should be renamed though.--Subman758 (talk) 02:49, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Luxury liner with 4200 on board hit reef and capsized, with multiple fatalities, and allegations of mismanagement. Got worldwide coverage. Far more notable than an airliner crash in the realm of transportation disasters. The ship was notable in and of itself, as the largest Italian ship, and by satisfying GNG via multiple reliable and independent sources with significant coverage. Plenty of room for both an article on the ship and an article on the disaster. (What was nominator "unintelligible signature" thinking?) Edison (talk) 03:05, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per v/r and Edison. Surely this will have enormous coverage, and the ship is notable in and of itself. It doens't make sense to keep this in the ship article, because then the ship article will only be about the sinking. Calliopejen1 (talk) 03:11, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is at the size where a standalone one on the incident is appropriate and desirable. Having this much information squeezed into the main article about the ship would be undue coverage of this accident in relation to the ship itself. See WP:WHENSPLIT.
"Foundering of Italian cruise ship raises safety worries" from The Miami Herald and "Will Titanic-Like Images From Italy Change Behavior?" from Forbes describe the economic implications of the grounding and illuminate the magnitude of this incident. Goodvac (talk) 03:35, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep pretty clear this isn't a case of non-notable breaking news and will have enduring historical significance. RadioFan (talk) 03:46, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This event has involved at least three deaths, so this article must be kept. And agree per support voters above as well. This news is also notable in many countries (e.g. the Philippines). Kiddie Techie (talk) 04:46, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite the section on the main article per WP:SUMMARY. This is only going to get bigger as more facts are established - the largest passenger vessel to capsize isn't a slow news day filler piece. Quite possibly this is the most significant incident involving a passenger vessel in European waters since the MS Herald of Free Enterprise capsized in 1987. I know this final comment is crystal ballery, but the comments I'm reading on the BBC News about their not having been a lifeboat drill and the difficulty in launching the lifeboats mean there is a high chance of this having significant consequences within the cruise liner industry. Thryduulf (talk) 05:08, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep The captain has reported that this rock was not on the charts. I don't believe it but this justifies a separate article by itself. When you are sailing at night close to rocks you had better know where you are going. This will continue to be a newsworthy article for sometime and will stand the test of time. Trojancowboy (talk) 05:12, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Back From what I see with the article in its current state still largly overlaps the parrent article without hardly giving any extra detail to this incedent. Therefore I say merge the little bit of extra content back into the parrent article. 166.137.142.131 (talk) 05:20, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep I see the vfd on this, and my first thought is 'You've got to be kidding.' This is a big event. It's not going to get smaller or fade any time soon. Merging it back would pollute the parent article. This is an emerging event with significance large enough to force a world wide rewrite the safety rules for passenger shipping. The consequences of this event should be recorded separately from the history of the ship itself. The section in the parent article should be shortened significantly and summarized as someone above said, rather than merged back. --ssd (talk) 05:31, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A no-brainer; we always have these articles as they are likely to grow too large to be accommodated by any parent article over time. Daniel Case (talk) 05:33, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Recommend snowball close so that the much more detailed article can be linked from the ITN item on the front page. Selery (talk) 05:38, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep with the parent article trimmed and this article expanded. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:04, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've trimmed the Costa Concordia article to a better summary-size section. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:11, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. This is encyclopedic and deserves its own article to cover the timeline of the disaster as it has only just begun. The parent article should link to it and summarize its contents. 108.72.62.226 (talk) 06:10, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep nomination is for the content of the article, not the subject itself. Content that does not violate any policy is an editing issue, not a deletion issue.--Paul McDonald (talk) 06:45, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for a few weeks to let story develop and see where this article goes. I expect this article to become a useful encyclopedic summary of the news articles, and of intense public interest for a period. In 4-8 weeks, evaluate again to see if the material still seems worthy of its own article, or if it seems better condensed and put back in the main article. We don't have space limits, this is a current event. Let's relax and wait. --Jdlh | Talk 06:48, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Silly discussion; it's going to be written about quite a bit, and will develop as the incident is investigated. It needs renaming; discussion on article's talk page. Q: what are they going to do with the rock and when is someone going to start an article on it? Alarbus (talk) 07:05, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball keep. The article clearly meets all inclusion policies/guidelines and does not violate any policy. It is highly likely to grow, e.g. following an official inquiry. The original rationale for nomination ("almost a complete duplication") is no longer valid and the nominated article has since been substantially expanded. ShipFan (talk) 07:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is only likely to grow in size as investigations continue. Canuck_{My page}^{89 (talk)}, 08:54, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Kneejerk AfD. Lugnuts (talk) 09:56, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable incident. Tupsumato (talk) 10:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. per WP:SNOW Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:03, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Attempted murder of Michelina Lewandowska[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS - There is nothing about this case to indicate that the inclusion criteria for events are met. SmartSE (talk) 01:44, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No lasting impact except to those involved. The viciousness of the would-be killer is exceeded only by his sheer incompetence. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:39, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete out of consideration for Ms Lewandowska, per the spirit of WP:BLP. She's a private person and this event was wholly negative and horrific rather than an accomplishment, and it's reasonable to presume that she'd just as soon that general knowledge of this fade into the historical background as the years and decades pass. If the article remains it'll quite possibly live in Wikipedia mirrors and whatever form the Wikipedia database evolves into for decades at least. The notability of the event, which is not historically significant, is outweighed by the cost to Ms Lewandowska. (It is true that we have many very similar articles about actual murders, but in that case the victim is dead and that makes a big difference.) Herostratus (talk) 03:49, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It would be nice if Luciferwildcat would learn that it is poor practice to attempt to simply turn any headline about a crime into a WP article. Thousands of people are murdered worldwide every days, and probably tens of thousands are victims of attempted murder. This one made headlines because of the brutal nature of the attempted killing, not because it has any lasting importance. And I agree with Heorstratus--this perpetuates the harm done to the victim. This idea that all we have to do is call the article "Attempted murder of Person X" instead of "Person X" to avoid WP:BLP1E is ridiculous. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:13, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Delete. Let's avoid compounding the BLP issues caused by the existence of this article, in violation of notability and blp policies, by having it snow-deleted post-haste.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:28, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:VICTIM. --AJHingston (talk) 09:17, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: an attempted murder, one of thousands in the world every day though attracting temporary notoriety by its unusual technique, and neither the criminal nor his victim have any encyclopedic value. PamD 09:42, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:NOTNEWS. SL93 (talk) 19:01, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this doesn't harm anyone, it is an extremely unique murder attempt and escape and the notability of this murder is here. The comments about some of the involved parties should be disregarded as the article is about the case not the buried alive girl.LuciferWildCat (talk) 23:22, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Snow close - there is precisely zero notability here and regardless of what the article is titled there are still WP:BLP issues. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:19, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no lasting significance to this crime demonstrated or even suggested fails our inclusion criteria Mt king ^(edits) 01:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Per WP:VICTIM, this person only notable as a victim of a crime. No notability otherwise. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:36, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Delete - Per WP:VICTIM. WP:BLP1E, WP:NOTNEWS, and common sense. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 05:59, 16 January 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. Tone 13:58, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Raja Ali Mardan Khan[edit]

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

Wonderful stories. But wholly unreferenced. Zero gnews hits. Zero gscholar hits. Lacks substantial RS coverage. Non-notable, by wp standards. Tagged for zero refs for over 2 years now, without any being supplied. Epeefleche (talk) 01:43, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Actually, per policy, this falls under WP:BLPPROD--since there is no indication that the person is living or dead, we must presume he is living. But even if we verified that he is dead, this still fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO without refs. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - looks like a folk tale to me, like William Tell but set in Kashmir and featuring ear-ripping rather than apple-shooting. Nothing to indicate this hasn't just been made up. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 00:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom's fiindings.--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:35, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — per above. X.One ^SOS 05:01, 17 January 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. JIP | Talk 05:08, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Web storage (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Sole author of disambiguation page requests deletion, since a single link at the top of the Web Storage article (a "hatnote") suffices. Speedy was declined. Bxj (talk) 01:17, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy was declined on a silly technicality. This should be speedy deleted per ((db-disambig)). 124.168.91.7 (talk) 01:34, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G6 per the IP. The G7 decline was correct, but the page falls under G6 as it is an orphaned disambiguation page. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 01:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip guys! Will be more careful next time. --Bxj (talk) 03:18, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 09:55, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Amen[edit]

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

I’ve come across a page within Wikipedia, that in my opinion, does not reflect the spirit of Wikipedia as a whole. I did a bit of research on the page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines, and within the ‘Not part of the encyclopedia’ section, it distinctly states that: Wikipedia has many policies and guidelines about encyclopedic content. These standards require verifiability, neutrality, respect for living people, and more. The page that I’ve come across is on a Daniel Amen, which can be found at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Amen A subjective commentary on Dr Amen’s work is presented but it turn quite ugly with strong allegations, to the point of slander, on the part of a reference from quackwatch.com. In my opinion, this is not within the spirit of Wikipedia and this page should be removed. The person involved, Daniel Amen, is being criticized within a forum he has no recourse for rebuttal. I have tried to remove links to quackwatch.com, as I find them self-serving but on several occasions they have been reverted back, so simple editing has had no effect. Fthomas137 16:18, December 9, 2011‎ (UTC)

Keep. First of all, this venue is not at all appropriate at this time. There has been NO DISCUSSION by this newbie about the issue on the article's talk page. Secondly, there have been many attempts, often vandalous in nature, to remove notable criticisms found in reliable sources. That violates our policies here. Criticism is not the same thing as libel, and our NPOV policy requires that all sides of the subject be covered, including criticisms and controversies found in reliable sources. Fthomas doesn't understand our policies here well enough to be starting a deletion discussion. Other issues must be dealt with first, and that always starts on the talk page. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:34, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Close this AfD as improper. I request that an admin close this AfD and also remove the AfD notice from the article. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:38, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that my request is justified. I may be a newbie, but that doesn't change the initial issue one bit. It seems to me from the information I quoted out of Wikipedia's own rules, that Wikipedia has many policies and guidelines about encyclopedic content. These standards require verifiability, neutrality, respect for living people, and more. In my opinion, this entry does not reflect this high standards at Wikipedia. Fthomas137 9:41, December 12, 2011‎ (UTC)

The problem here is partially a procedural one. Unless you have already attempted to deal with the matter on the article's talk page (Talk:Daniel Amen), your attempted deletion is improper. You must first discuss the matter there, and you need to be specific. Vague allegations won't do. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:12, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that is fine. You do mention that my facts are vague. But if you read this entry it puts Daniel Amen in a terrible light. I've done some research on this person and this wikipedia page does not reflect who this person is at all. It really comes across as an attempt to slander this person on a very public forum. For example, did you know that Dr Amen has had four New York bestselling books? Or that he has compiled over 70,000 scans? This is the tip of the iceberg but it is not presented. I've looked into the delection records for this page and these pointers were presented by others in the past and all have been deleted. Only the negative comments have remained. This makes this wikipedia entry a very biased and 'non-neutral' reflection of Daniel Amen. Fthomas137 8:00, December 19, 2011‎ (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.18.208.21 (talk)

This conversation should be happening at the article's talk page. Until then, this will go nowhere. You simply fail to understand our NPOV policy. It doesn't refer to content, but to editorial behavior. Editors must keep their own opinions out of the editing process. They must edit in a "neutral" (aloof from the subject) manner. They must not editorialize, but present the facts and opinions that are found in reliable sources as they are, regardless of how negative or non-neutral those facts and opinions may be. That's why whitewashing (what you've been doing) is not allowed. Positive content is certainly allowed. It just needs to be found in reliable, third party, sources. Instead of complaining, how about finding such content and improving the article? Just keep in mind that we don't write hagiographies here. We tell the good AND the bad. NPOV requires that. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:40, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article does not provide a neutral/unbiased view of the person. It does not provide enough information about the person. It is negative and it seems personal. Research hospitals, labs, and universities are all using SPECT scanners to diagnose the dysfunctions of the brain that is linked to abnormal behaviors. It's an easy search on google to see that there are many researches going on with SPECT scan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clockworks9 (talk • contribs) 19:35, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but remind editors about WP:BLP Hi, I came to this article after reading a post about this AfD on the admin noticeboard. I've never heard of this person before, but googling this person's name seems to indicate sufficient notability. However, the section titled "Criticism and response" seems to have some problems. First of all, Wikipedia articles shouldn't have criticism sections, let alone for BLPs. Second, this section seems to engage in the dispute, rather than report on it in a disinterested and dispassionate tone. Roughly 50% of the article is devoted to this section. That's not good. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:06, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: Relisting for a full 7-day period, starting today, as this AfD nomination was never completed. --MuZemike 00:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --MuZemike 00:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep I don;t think we could possibly delete a perthe discussion of son who is a Distinguished Fellow of the American Psychiatric Association, and who has published multiple important books on his field.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is not an article to delete, as there are sufficient reliable sources to support notability. The problem is that the criticism section has taken over the article, and that is not right. Either the criticism section should be contracted, or the section about his work and career is to be expanded. Also the criticism section should be lowered, so that it is more at the end of the article. (I will do that now). MakeSense64 (talk) 09:39, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This is best dealt with on the talk page, but the problem is, is that there aren't any sources discussing Amen's research positively AFAIK. As I explained here there are better sources (in academic journals) for the criticism section. SmartSE (talk) 17:08, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep and watch. We are not likely to delete the article on a Distinguished Fellow of the APA, even if some aspects of it have been criticized. We are required by policy to make the article fair.The criticism section, as it stood, was not fair, giving allegations as statements of fact and relying on very weak sources. I have done some reorganization to facilitate further editing, but more work is needed, as Smartse suggests, this includes better references. I do not think we now regard Quackwatch as a RS for BLP, so unless what they say can be clearly backed up by better sources, it needs to be qualified or perhaps removed. If criticisms of his work on diet are included, it must be said just what his work on this subject is, both in his latest book and in earlier publications. We cannot say there are no scientific studies demonstrating it, though we can quote someone responsible who has said it in a peer-reviewed publication--that does not include QW. All this needs to be addressed. But through editing, not deletion. DGG ( talk ) 09:13, 16 January 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 Anti-Japanese sentiment in the United States. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 09:54, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jap hunts[edit]

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

There is no instance of "Jap hunts" in any of the supplied sources. The article Anti-Japanese sentiment in the United States is the proper place for well-cited text regarding the notional topic. Unfortunately, the Jap hunts article contains little worth keeping or merging. Binksternet (talk) 00:21, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Anti-Japanese sentiment in the United States. Not quite sure how much would make the cut in that piece as it already seems to be pretty well done, but that is the encyclopedic title and that would be the merger target. I do appreciate the efforts of the content creator of this piece, there is a real effort being made to contribute encyclopedic and footnoted material about a serious topic. A very poor choice of a title doomed this one, frankly, but it would seem to be a fork in any event. Carrite (talk) 04:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Wow, this is an old piece (2007) with a sizable number of editors. Interesting. Carrite (talk) 04:58, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Anti-Japanese sentiment in the United States - Not enough content for a stand-alone Article, even with well-resourced content, but concur it will certainly add value in a merger. Title is badly thought out to say the least. Jun Kayama 16:17, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect to Anti-Japanese sentiment in the United States. There were a number "jap hunting" licenses printed during WWII, so the redirect would be useful, especially if there were some citeable material about WWII anti-japanese propaganda to add to the target article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:29, 16 January 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.