The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. One would have to make a case it's problematically promotional or fails WP:N, since an inspection doesn't make it obvious that's the case at all. Merely asserting it makes me say "What is this person talking about?" If it can't make sense of an argument, I can't lend it much weight. WilyD 08:38, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Casnocha[edit]

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

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

Conflict of interest. I created the page, but then recalled that, since the subject of the page is an associate of mine, this likely fails to adhere to one of the guidelines (although not an official policy) for WP:Notability, and vanity pages. Davemcarlson (talk) 21:28, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:Promotion. RobHC (talk) 21:40, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I applaud you for doing this, but I do want to caution that having a conflict of interest doesn't mean that an article automatically has to be deleted, even if the content could have been promotional in tone. This isn't really all that promotional sounding, although it does need more sourcing. In any case, you might want to look into potentially userfying the page if it does end up getting deleted and getting someone from Wikipedia:WikiProject Business to help you out and avoid any potential issues of COI. I haven't made up my mind either way, just saying that a conflict of interest doesn't guarantee a deletion.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 02:33, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Uncertain - Insufficient sourcing is certainly not a problem here but I notice that several of the news articles simply repeat the same information. Google News and Google News archives provided additional results that either repeated the same information or were small mentions. However, I lean towards keep as a result of the Businessweek achievement though keeping the article solely because of this would not be sufficient. What interested me is that it appears that he also achieved an Inc. Magazine "Entrepreneur of the Year" but this New York Times article claims otherwise. As I mentioned above, because several of the news articles mentioning the same information, I'm concerned that he hasn't achieved anything significant recently aside from Comcate and appearing at conferences and presentations. As a result of this, I am not certain what the fate of the article is. SwisterTwister talk 23:24, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Ditto on the uncertainty. I had the same thoughts myself, to be honest.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 12:57, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete: The subject does not seem to be very notable and I believe that if currenty fails WP:GNG. Thegreatgrabber (talk) 23:39, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The sourcing is pretty good for this. The in-depth profile in USA Today and ABC News are quite notable, top-tier national outlets. Same with the good mention in the New York Times, book reviews in Motley Fool, the CNet article. The 2006 BusinessWeek award is also notable. These are multiple independent reliable sources that show consistent coverage in major news outlets. COI is a non-issue, the sources and content speak for themselves. Handle COI concerns through the COI Noticeboard, not AfD. If the subject of this article wants it deleted, there might be ways to do that, but it's not done through an AfD. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 23:23, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. The article is linked from the Main Page; please wait until it's no longer there, should you decide that -- even after this brief discussion -- the AfD is still warranted. -- tariqabjotu 04:28, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hallucinatory realism[edit]

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

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

"Hallucinatory realism", unlike magical realism, is not a genre. The two words have been combined in a few sources, but it's clear in all of them that "hallucinatory" is an adjective being used to modify "realism," not a statement that the writer, filmmaker, or visual artist creates in a genre of "hallucinatory realism," and that the occurrence is coincidental. As well, none of these sources define or discuss "hallucinatory realism"; being reviews or analyses of the works of specific individual artists, they merely discuss those artists. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:58, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Article is thoroughly sourced and the topic appears to be notable. If the article were to claim that HR was a genre then we would have a problem, but it doesn't. Tigerboy1966  00:16, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it's not a genre, on what basis do we have an article on it? As a neologism? Neologisms also require discussion (not simply attested use) in reliable sources in order to be notable, but this is simply a random phrase that happens to have been used to describe more than one author's way of writing realism. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:58, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not a neologism- refs date back 30+ years. It's not an accidental collocation either- it's used as the (partial) title of two sources. Tigerboy1966  06:32, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or merge with either Mo Yan or Magic realism. There has been a good amount of discussion in the talk page and in its merge suggestion as to why it shouldn't even be an article. It has very little substance and was created right after the term "hallucinatory realism" was included in his Nobel citation. The term is simply a pair of words that describe his writing and it is not notable enough (e.g. Tear down this wall!, We will bury you) to merit itself as a phrase that hasn't just been quoted as part of the citation. 8ty3hree (talk) 01:38, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Couple thoughts:

• Though we assume this is the same as magical realism, we don't know - I suspect this term has more currency in Germanic critical studies of the 70s and 80s and may have a life separate from (though related to) magical realism. Why did the Nobel committee choose this term over magical realism? Is it another way of saying MR, or is it a form or type with more significance? We might need a German(ic) literary dictionary or expert.
• There is substantial sourcing already in the article and more could be found. It's a neologism but has been in use nearly 40 years (or more) and keeps re-appearing suggesting it will continue to be used in the future. This article given a chance could develop if the right knowledgeable person comes along.
• There is lots of room to expand the article. I wrote a summary of the Peter Weiss article but I think the other "examples" could similarly be expanded to show the various meanings and applications of the term in its evolution. This is more than dictionary definition.

--Green Cardamom (talk) 03:08, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• You're proposing a new article that is based on a hypothetical term used in German literary criticism instead of the neologism or even adjective-noun pairing it makes itself out to be. In that case, why would the new subject suitable for inclusion if it is simply an obscure term? 8ty3hree (talk) 05:59, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm voting keep because the existing sources are strong. The sources are not hypothetical. One of the sources suggests the term is/was used in German literary criticism, actually shows it directly, though only one instance. So it would make sense to explore this. The Germans after all invented the idea of magical realism. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 08:15, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Then how come the same cannot be said for Descriptive landscape imagery, Galvanic imagery, or Dogmatic dystopian? They were all used in various critical reviews, "Descriptive landscape imagery" likewise used to title one. Perhaps Shelley created the idea of Descriptive landscape imagery, but how come it hasn't been discussed as a valid genre? 8ty3hree (talk) 03:43, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Magic realism. They are the same thing. See Talk:Magic realism#merge Hallucinatory realism. --Neo-Jay (talk) 03:44, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "They are the same thing" - cite? -- Green Cardamom (talk) 04:23, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, it's not a defined term, and there is no connection to magic realism. It's a misunderstanding that the Nobel motivation referred to a genre, it just described a personal style (which uses influences from Chinese classics rather than magic realism). Smetanahue (talk) 04:53, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: some instances of "adjective + realism" with more Internet hits than hallucinatory realism, these shouldn't have articles either:
  • ugly realism - 20,900
  • amazing realism - 17,400
  • uncanny realism - 17,000
  • stark realism - 15,700 Smetanahue (talk) 05:08, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Probably best to stick to what our sources say about hallucinatory realism. See WP:GHITS "a lack of search engine hits may only indicate that the topic is highly specialized". -- Green Cardamom (talk) 08:15, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I didn't mean that hallucinatory realism has too few hits - quite the other way. I meant that the matches are incidential, the various things which have been described with that phrase lack any relevant connection - just like with the phrases listed above. If there indeed was a German movement with that label in the 70s, and if it was prominent enough and has enough coverage to warrant an article, then it would be extra important to remove all the other instances, since they clearly all belong in different contexts. Smetanahue (talk) 15:59, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, now all the world would like to know the meaning of hallucinatory realism. The actual state of the article gives an honest answer. This worldwide interest gives the article a chance to a further development as well. Karmela (talk) 10:22, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The world will probably assume, as most of us did, that it is the word "hallucinatory" in front of the word "realism" and that both of those words have their usual meaning. Please see WP:ITSINTERESTING. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:47, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The term seems to be introduced from Ingmar Bergman^[1] in the late 1940s, and used later as well^[2][3] Karmela (talk) 15:35, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All of these sources use single-quotes such as 'hallucinatory realism' which is a way of signifying a pre-existing term or concept (ie. not the author's wording). (BTW I'm not sure the source shows Bergman introduced the term?) -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:02, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I interpret the text so, that the term was either of Bergman adopted, or even introduced of him. Karmela (talk) 16:58, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep this is definitely a keep moment because the public conversation about it has made the term sufficiently notable, that we can't ignore it. Unfortunately, that leads to another, probably insignificant, subdivision of genre... but that is a problem for scholars to confront, not us. Sadads (talk) 17:32, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for good sourcing, with no prejudice against later merging. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:19, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This should have been closed as speedy keep per WP:CSK#5. However, the link is now off the main page so the point is now moot. Still, I'm surprised no-one mentioned this. Modest Genius ^talk 20:08, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There seems to be a contingent of editors who have developed the mistaken belief that hallucinatory realism is a figment of Peter Englund's imagination and that he must have concocted it over breakfast on Thursday morning. This article has shown since very early on that hallucinatory realism has been around since 1981 (this has since been improved to 1975), and has been applied to everyone from Peter Weiss to Peter Carey, aside from Mo Yan. It contains multiple reliable sources spread across five decades. --86.40.101.112 (talk) 21:26, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:16, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abandoned & Little-Known Airfields[edit]

Abandoned & Little-Known Airfields (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

• Delete. Non-notable website. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:04, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:49, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:49, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral, leaning towards (very) Weak Keep - If this site does meet the notability requirements, it just barely clears the bar. While I can't find too much that talks about the site in depth, doing the usual searches brings up a number of books and articles that mention the site as being a source used by them. And then there is this, a book from the AOPA that does talk directly about the site for a bit. Not a whole lot to go on, but I'll see what other editors can come up with. Rorshacma (talk) 23:22, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:36, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Keep First of all, thank you for notifying me of this discussion, as I really appreciate not knowing when an article I write is up for deletion. I once wrote this article because a lot of the pages here use the site as a source for the existence of the page. It was successfully PRODed, and I held a discussion with Kelapstick here on it, below the speedy tag that you placed on it a few months ago. The page is linked to on over two hundred pages, and there are links on hundreds more. It also has gained sufficient coverage, as Rorshacma pointed out above. This was something which I used when deciding on how to build the article, so I fail to see why you see this as being a non-notable website. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:12, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 23:55, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Uncertain - I share the same thoughts as Rorshacma. Considering that the website houses information about the history of airfields, this may suggest notability but I haven't found any significant sources, with most of them being references to the website. Google News provided small mentions here, here (third from the top), here, here (first from the top) and here. Google Books provided results from books using the website as a reference. Additionally, I believe the article will always be a stub as the only achievements would be awards, and yet, the website hasn't achieved any. With this to mind, I lean towards keep (there are far worse articles than this). SwisterTwister talk 20:31, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Found some references that establish notability^[1][2]. I guess this is enough to establish notability.-Wikishagnik (talk) 00:10, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Wikigeekery aside, there aren't a ton of real historical references about the small airfields; most places consider the airfields a nuisance unfortunately and so they are disappearing steadily. Also there is little web presence containing information about the important "hidden" parts of aviation like types of navigational aids used over the years such as optical beacons, non directional beacons, A-N radio ranges, OMEGA or on the historical aspects of air traffic control and weather services. Aviation has changed a lot in the time it has existed and we are losing much of the detail about that history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.85.199.242 (talk) 21:15, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 04:12, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oleg Czougeda[edit]

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

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

• Delete. Too many problems. Poorly copied from the French WP. Best to delete and start again. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 10:55, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:15, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:15, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The spelling of this article's title appears to be a strange hybrid, with the "Cz" suggesting a transliteration into Polish and the "ouge" into French. A more standard transliteration into English would be Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:54, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 21:08, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Keep. The UCI Road World Championships results very clearly meet WP:NCYCLING and, while the online results don't seem to show it, his 1984 win in the Milk Race should almost guarantee WP:GNG - at that time, British newspapers gave the Milk Race a lot of coverage. As Phil Bridger notes, the spelling of the surname in the article title is a very odd transcription - but it does seem to have been common in Britain at the time of his Milk Race win (see the one GBooks result on the standard search for confirmation). However, plenty of other transcriptions were also being used, so it might make sense to move the article to a more standard one. As for the standard of the article - it is distinctly poor but almost certainly easier to improve from where it is now than to compile again completely from scratch. PWilkinson (talk) 12:44, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 23:54, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Keep - This person appears to pass WP:NCYCLING. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:48, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:17, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rotary International District 3140[edit]

Rotary International District 3140 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unnotable organization. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of rotary districts out there, and I fail to see why this one is more notable than the rest of them. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:45, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete due to non-notability. The classification of Rotary into different districts is an internal thing. It is not notable to the public. --Anbu121 (talk me) 18:10, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 23:53, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Delete lacks notability and significant coverage. Kooky2 (talk) 13:14, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 04:12, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Baker Program in Real Estate[edit]

Baker Program in Real Estate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable college course (PROD contested with no edit summary and no improvements). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:46, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no reliable independent sources to meet the WP:GNG. Might be a good redirect to something about the main university. Vcessayist (talk) 01:24, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A Top Real Estate Program in US, Joint Program of Seven Cornell Colleges, so doesn't fit neatly under any of them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smw336 (talk • contribs) 02:59, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where are the independent, reliable sources, showing that the subject is notable? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:25, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a rather small, but indepentent program of high prestige, and I dont; see where in the large units of the university to m It might help if someone collected out the notable faculty and alumni of this program from the main cornell listings DGG ( talk ) 08:14, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 23:53, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Delete as there are no independent reliable sources to meet WP:GNG.--Charles (talk) 18:43, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:17, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bannin'[edit]

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

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

Original research. AutomaticStrikeout 23:50, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEO GILO   A&E⇑ 00:02, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• This appears to be either a neologism not in wide use or something made up in school one day. In any case, it is a dictionary definition with no indication of wider encyclopedic interest. Delete Cnilep (talk) 01:49, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Absolutely zero evidence to show that this word has been used as slang for "hyper". Wikipedia is not a website for original and unreferenced thought. SwisterTwister talk 04:11, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:53, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Optical Express Challenge Cup[edit]

Optical Express Challenge Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Matches are essentially pre season friendlies with no enduring notability. Sources do not go on to show any notability as all Clyde FC. Blethering Scot 23:43, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Just a one-off pre-season match. These are never notable. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 02:26, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in Scottish task force's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 10:10, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per nom non-notable one off pre-season competition fails WP:GNG. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 10:19, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 10:35, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – an article about a pre-season friendly which fails WP:GNG. – Kosm1fent 17:39, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I haven't found any evidence of notability through third-party sources. SwisterTwister talk 04:16, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:GNG, as the topic has not received significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. --Mentoz86 (talk) 09:11, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus. This debate has turned in to the classic argument of whether something in the news and seemingly quite important now will continue to be noteworthy in the future. From a strict policy reading this article should be deleted, but consensus doesn't exist for that. Since no one here is psychic, reevaluate it in a month or so. Prodego ^talk 18:56, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suicide of Amanda Todd[edit]

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

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

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Contested PROD, the article fails WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and WP:BIO1E there is no indication that this tragic event goes beyond a local event. The article is nothing more than a rehash of news reports without any encyclopedic analysis. Mtking ^(edits) 23:10, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article is on the events leading up to the event as well as the event itself. Note, the article is on an event and not a biography of the person. Given it's relevance and as the story unfolds I believe the article should stay in place unless deemed not a suicide, at which point, I may revise my opinion as then it way better fall under the criteria stated. Piandcompany (talk) 23:20, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are missing the point, there is no indication either here or in the article as to why this event is of encyclopedic note, your comment "relevance and as the story unfolds" makes my point, this is a tragic news story and nothing more at this time. Mtking ^(edits) 01:21, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I feel we need to look over this argument in the coming week to see how the page develops. Piandcompany (talk) 01:33, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete Doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Non-notable. Leontopodium alpinum (talk) 03:32, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article should stay as above, sources increasing all the time, far far too early to PROD/AFD. ^Alex J _Fox^(Talk)_(Contribs) 23:30, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per exactly what has been stated by Piandcompany. Lots of sources can be found on the subject (which I will be adding). -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 23:32, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep' I started the article after inspecting the three other such articles at Wikipedia:

• Suicide of Jamey Rodemeyer
• Suicide of Ryan Halligan
• Suicide of Tyler Clementi

Such cases tend to give rise to prevention campaigns, criminal charges, and possibly changes in the law. I suggest doing what we can to expand this. Then it will Google to the top of the pile, drawing further edits. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:18, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a reason to keep, WP is not a newspaper and any claim to prevention campaigns or changes in the law is pure speculation (see WP:CRYSTAL) at this time. Mtking ^(edits) 01:24, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Her suicide has attracted a massive amount of coverage, literally hundreds of articles have been written about it. Instead of taking the time to start up a discussion to delete this article, perhaps being productive and improving the article would be a better use of time. Bruce Campbell (talk) 03:38, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep - Her suicide is awareness to cyber-bullying and putting an end to it, it has extensive media coverage, and the similar articles are posted so to not include this post would be ridiculous." 109.144.154.134 (talk) 23:42, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• KeepIn reviewing WP:PEOPLE guidelines, I found this guideline in favor of keeping a biographical sketch of a person: "For Wikipedia:Notability (people), the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice" – that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded"[1] within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life. "Notable" in the sense of being "famous" or "popular" – although not irrelevant – is secondary."

This person is 'of interest' as a case study for Wikipedia articles that are currently written about cyber-bulling, youth suicide, and cyber-stalking legislation in Canada. It deserves attention because it appears that it may lead to new or tougher legislation against cyber-bullying. As such, this is a "first draft of history."

Whether the article should be rewritten is another matter. This reads more like a first draft of a secondary-school student essay. (I apologize if the author feels this is an insult; none is intended. More editing and rewriting will improve it. It should be shortened.)

I agree that the suicide of a young person is not in itself worthy of a standalone article in an encyclopedia. However, incidents like these which involve social media can be significant, culturally as well as historically. Further, this incident apparently has been initiated as a consequence of these very same technological innovations, producing a case study that demonstrates how social media has dramatically impacted the way in which humans communicate -- and the cultural, legal, and perhaps technological reactions thereto. That in itself is a noteworthy topic.

Throughout history similar seemingly 'minor' incidents have served as important drivers of legislative and cultural change. This may be one such incident in Canada. Certainly watching the story unfold and modifying the article if or as needed will be necessary. But I think it worthy of keeping for now. Bancheromedia (talk) 06:34, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A notable abstract: Pediatricians are in a unique position to help families understand these sites and to encourage healthy use and urge parents to monitor for potential problems with cyberbullying, “Facebook depression,” sexting, and exposure to inappropriate content.From the American Academy of Pediatrics: Clinical Report: The Impact of Social Media on Children, Adolescents, and Families. Gwenn Schurgin O'Keeffe, Kathleen Clarke-Pearson, and Council on Communications and Media. Pediatrics 2011; 127:4 800-804.http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/127/4/800.short Bancheromedia (talk) 14:53, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • Can? May? These words sound dangerously like you might be peering into your crystal ball... -Joey- (talk) 03:00, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Since being increasingly covered in international media, this article satisfies WP:N in my opinion. The "encyclopedic analysis" can and more than likely will improve over time. DrNegative (talk) 07:26, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- per all the above, specifically WP:INDEPTH. _{I would write a long rambling passage, but it's already been written.} Theopolisme 13:43, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Teenagers commit suicide every year all over the world. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia; not a place to post the list of every suicide story that has ever taken place. There is no significance whatsoever for having a Wikipedia article for the suicide of Amanda Todd; no cultural, historical, legislative, etc. impact beyond tweets and facebook groups. She is not the first teenager in Canada to commit suicide over bullying. This is a perfect example of how insignificant events should not have articles. Just because it is a trending news story does not mean that overly-emotional people can create a Wikipedia memorial. Warsilver (talk) 08:13, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a high-profile case -- the highest of its kind in Canada I think. Other such cases in the US have resulted in the rise of numerous organizations like the It Gets Better Project, Anti-bullying legislation such as The Anti-Bullying Bill of Rights, the Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act, changes to numerous existing laws, United States v. Lori Drew, several major broadcasts including a PBS Frontline piece, indictments, criminal charges, convictions, fines, and prison sentences.

Also, the police are still looking for the blackmailer in this case, who is likely an adult, and if so, a pedophile.

Considering that there will likely be consequences stemming from this, it passes WP:PERSISTENCE, and as the notability of this event is likely to endure for quite some time, it easily passes WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. And because this is about the suicide and events surrounding it, and not specifically about the person, it also passes WP:BIO1E. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:51, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I get that people love to throw the term "pedophile" around loosely to refer to adult sexual attraction to any minor under the age of consent or age of majority; even the Pedophilia article notes that, but pedophilia, as the Pedophilia article also notes, is technically the sexual preference for prepubescent children. If the perp is a legal adult above 19, the police are looking for an even bigger scumbag than if he's just an underage teenager, but they technically aren't looking for a pedophile (at least if only basing his sexual attraction on this girl who was either in late puberty or finished with puberty, as most 15-year-old girls are). I want him caught and imprisoned, even if he's her age or otherwise underage. 115.111.7.248 (talk) 02:48, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep IMO she is notable for her strong communication skills in creating a video about an important topical issue, for a youth to create such a video is significant and extraordinary, and given the culmination in her violent death this persons life has captured the public imagination in a manner likely to trigger global law changes and awareness raising about paedophiles if the suspicions aired about her main bully are true. I think facebook will lobby strongly to have the whole incident written out of history as they are highly ineffectual at stopping abusive posters and pages and won't want the debate for commercial reasons. The girls life and death are notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.59.228.216 (talk) 13:26, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Amanda's suicide is getting significant media coverage in both Canada and around the world. A full police investigation is also underway now with calls for new laws, etc., so it will likely continue to be in the news for now.Michael5046 (talk) 14:44, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Removed per No personal attacks policy -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 18:12, 13 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BKman74 (talk • contribs) 15:16, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I fully agree per the nomination. An article is not appropriate for a single event such as suicide due to cyber bullying. If an article was made for everyone who committed suicide or was a victim of Cyber-bullying Wikipedia would just be a Obituary. At most this would seem more appropriate to be at Wikinews. I am willing to change my opinion if people suggest arguments against my reasoning. If the article does in fact increase in appropriation for Wikipedia I will change. John F. Lewis (talk) 15:40, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The writing style of this entry is very poor and not encyclopedic. It reads like a "Yahoo Answers" entry and not a serious encyclopedia entry. It is also extremely biased. 50.131.41.41 (talk) 21:56, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I redacted a grossly insulting comment from this person's vote. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:01, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Her suicide is gaining media attention, it is also the basis of an anti-bullying campaign. Whilst lots of people do commit suicide, lots of young children also go missing and Miss McCann has her own page too.adamlonsdale (talk) 16:41, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per WP:ONEEVENT. Nothing separates her suicide from that of any other depressed teenager and while it's gaining speed, it's only because of the fact she killed herself. She's not notable and does not warrant an article in the least.Giants27(T|C) 17:50, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment Several !votes here reference WP:ONEEVENT, but it doesn't actually seem applicable to this article. WP:ONEEVENT only states that separate articles should not be made about people who are only notable for one event, that the article should be about the event itself instead. It doesn't say an article shouldn't be written about an event when that's the only thing a person is known for, just that a separate article shouldn't be written about the person involved. ("When an individual is significant for his or her role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both. In considering whether or not to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and the degree of significance of the individual's role within it should be considered. The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person.") If this were an article about Amanda Todd herself, rather than about her suicide, then yes, WP:ONEEVENT would apply. But since this article is about the event (the article is called "Suicide of Amanda Todd", not "Amanda Todd"), that guideline isn't relevant here. Of course, there's still the open question of whether the event itself is notable enough for a Wikipedia article, but that's a separate issue. WP:ONEEVENT has nothing to do with it, and is completely irrelevant to this discussion. --Smeazel (talk) 04:50, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Clearly notable as indicated by the plethora of sources reporting about it. This is not run of the mill news. Coverage is indeed worldwide: here is an Italian newspaper report on the story, for example. The "encyclopedic analysis" bit is nonsense: the article is a "rehash" of news sources? Well, it's exactly what it should be then, for WP:ORIG and WP:SYN. We are not supposed to make stuff up. In any case, if an article is not perfect, it means it has to be edited, not deleted. --Cyclopia^talk 19:36, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The case surrounding this girl is similar to the Phoebe Prince and Megan Meier cases. Let`s keep it here, because these teens are a warning for the others of what bullying can do to us. They are all messengers in their own way. Of course, lots of other teens commit suicide every year in the whole wide world and they do not get coverage in media, but despite this we need to admit that there are certain cases, which emerge from the other cases and this is one of them. So keep it where it is. Lassoboy (talk) 19:46, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: While Amanda Todd may not have been notable in life, her suicide is, and as such, she is now (sadly) notable in death. As teens and young adults lives have become tightly entangled with social media technology such that privacy is becoming antiquated, it has become critically important to raise awareness and information in this area. --Thoric (talk) 20:52, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep it .... as this is an invaluable education for parents and teens alike. 03:50, 14 October 2012 User:Tom2day— Tom2day (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• STRONG KEEP as we all learn more about what has happened, we should all be willing to learn from this experience, there may be 1 simple clue that helps another parent, or Teen from going down the same road.Livewyer (talk) 20:08, 13 October 2012 (UTC)— Livewyer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep - You have kept these articles- Suicide of Jamey Rodemeyer, Suicide of Ryan Halligan, Suicide of Tyler Clementi. It seems that Amanda Todd is disqualified because she was Canadian "nothing interesting ever happens up there" - I say keep 24.108.61.172 (talk) 20:27, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The importance of this article is not necessarily in recording the event itself, but the affect is it is having broadly on discussions surrounding the growing issue of teenage suicide and bullying via social networks. Whilst it is certainly not the first time such events have taken place, it is resulting in an unprecedented, and very much global debate - I'm writing this from Melbourne, Australia, where at least a dozen people I know are also involved in similar discussions. This case is quickly becoming a household discussion (between users of social networking, at least), and I would not be surprised if Ms Todd became something of a Kitty Genovese in the context of cyber-bullying.

• Keep. WP:BIO1E states that a separate article is appropriate "if the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one". The event is significant; whether or not it deserves to be, given the fact that teenagers commit suicide every day all over the world and this is no different, is irrelevant - the fact is that the event has been covered by many major news organisations worldwide (see the references in the article). Seeing as the event is her suicide, she obviously plays a large role within it. Thus BIO1E does not apply. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 23:37, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, while the individual is not notable the event is clearly notable. It has been covered by numerous sources and many of these are in the article. meshach (talk) 23:42, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. - The fact is many people suicide each year. Wikipidia shouldnt delete this page because this is something people should be able to learn. People need this kind of information to be INFORMED to them. This is something hundreds of thousands people care about and Wikipiedia should keep it for the sake of a better world. People will be able to learn from this. There is a high percentage of chance that a bully will become a friend by reading this article. 1 bully can make a huge change. The question is not should we delete this article. The question is should we save many lives and unwanted situations from children and teens lives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.254.56.123 (talk) 23:51, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep - for reasons above, plus this article is properly referenced and the media coverage on this topic is extensive. There are similar articles on suicides, this is a notable one. --Jethro B 00:49, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep while I think it's obvious at this point why the article should be kept, I'm adding my vote. Her suicide is now prompting governments in Canada to reassess or initiate anti-bullying laws. This is a significant event. BashBrannigan (talk) 01:57, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - An event that has caught coverage all around the world, and if the event is promting governments to make change, there's your "significance". I'll also note, that people shouldn't argue that suicide isn't notable... "happens all the time" etc. because obviously the media has picked up on it, we are in no position to just disregard material. The article can and most likely will be reworked over a few weeks. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 02:23, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Delete this page, this girl has had no significant impact on the world and therefore doesn't deserve her on wikipedia page. I mean, everyone dies every day, so why is she so special? 75.90.125.189 (talk) 02:39, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Articles may start out as a stub or need improvement, but this can be done for the Amanda Todd suicide article. Hopefully this information will help prevent sexting, and especially suicide. --LABcrabs (talk) 02:55, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP - This is a significant event that I'm sure will be remembered for a long time to come. Kids today do Terry Fox runs, and one day they will be doing Amanda Todd runs no doubt because her Mom has already started a fund for anti-bullying. ~ CarrieLeeKlein — Preceding unsigned comment added by CarrieLeeKlein (talk • contribs) 03:24, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 03:30, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:ONEEVENT. Many kids commit suicide and nothing separates her suicide from that of any other depressed teenager. She is not notable and does meet Wikipedia standards for an article 204.101.190.178 (talk) 05:04, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:INDEPTH. Of obvious national importance and interest, and "encyclopedic analysis" can be developed. Bretonbanquet (talk) 07:52, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep I can see nothing in the 'Reasons for deletion' section of the Wikipedia Deletion policy that mitigates removing this article. I strongly disagree that "there is no indication that this tragic event goes beyond a local event". Given the enormous reaction and trending on social media sites - particularly Facebook and Twitter - it is obvious that this story is being followed globally. It is not fair to assume that an encyclopedic value be attached right now since the story is still unfolding. More details are emerging by the day and this article should be given time to develop naturally and accurately. In addition, some further analysis of the overbearing issues would be appropriate. Finally, there is considerable mis-information in posts and web sites which have given rise to a great deal of polarised viewpoints. I feel it is important to capture as many facts as possible in order to accurately explain these events and the fate of this young girl. Paulid 11:04, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Remove the article. It's creating drama on the internet and many people commit suicide each year whilst making a drama on youtube first. This just encourages others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.216.254.69 (talk) 11:32, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This incident is one of its kind, and people should know about it. It might be better to make it an article about Amanda Todd herself, rather than about her suicide — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.110.243.23 (talk) 11:49, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• STRONG KEEP The article gives facts only. Relevant topic.MiMo-2012 (talk) 13:47, 14 October 2012 (UTC)— MiMo-2012 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Strong delete - This is using Wikipedia as a memorial website. Her death is tragic, but so are so many others. It is way too early to say this is a significant event. At this point the media is using this for pageviews and individuals as a bandwagon to jump on. When actual province-wide legislation gets passed, then this event can be redirected to that article. Also, missing white woman syndrome. --mboverload@ 14:45, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete - This is a non issue. Just because an event was a tragedy, doesn't mean that it warrants a wikipedia page. The child made a horrible decision.

• STRONG KEEP - Article information is factual and any tragedy in which a young person takes their own life should be notable, especially when they post videos on Youtube before they commit suicide. 23 editor (talk) 15:43, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the many well-reasoned arguments above. 38.109.88.133 (talk) 16:40, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep Everything that I would want to say has been said. It has attracted literally thousands of people and the sadness goes far beyond a local community. Being said, although many events similar happen this has by far touched the most people.It has given many others hope and the fact of the video she made was what took it over the top. The article only mentions relevant points and information. I believe this should NOT BE DELETED! Danielj27052705 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:48, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There is nothing notable outside of this only event. If, perchance, her suicide starts something like It Gets Better Project, then of course, a mention of the event, and sources in the appropriate section of that article would be warranted. 74.77.201.49 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:12, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination and the fact that suicide is a day-to-day occurrence worldwide.  Fiossa 17:30, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, as per WP:INDEPTH. The amount of coverage, particularly in Canadaa, guarantees Macleans and others will be doing feature stories on it. -- Zanimum (talk) 17:28, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Come on, guys...This has been in the news (on a rather limited basis) for about 2 days now; that doesn't mean it's notable. I read about things like this every day, and I'm willing to bet that we won't even be hearing about it a week or two from now. If this event ends up prompting a large campaign like Rachel's Challenge or a change in legislation, then this may meet WP:Notability, but, for now, it's simply a local event that's been the topic of one or two copypastas. Get rid of it now. Rockhead126 (talk) 18:15, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Poorly elaborated reasons for deletion. Article well in line with WP:INDEPTH and notability criteria. --Asterion^talk 19:53, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOTNEWS, WP:GNG and WP:ONEEVENT. A very tragic case, but few references outside Canada. From a UK perspective the story is mentioned by the Daily Mirror and Sky News, but I've just checked the BBC and they have nothing. It's certainly too early for this to appear as it only happened two days ago. Maybe if this becomes notable at a later time we can restore the article, but at this precise moment it shouldn't be here. Paul MacDermott (talk) 20:01, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't have to be internationally notable, of course – notability within one country is sufficient. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:04, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It helps with something like this though if sources such as the BBC are picking up the story. The incident may go on to become a defining moment in legal history (for example if it leads to anti-bullying legislation), but it's too early to say at this stage. Paul MacDermott (talk) 20:07, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Paul. Someone said that Suicide of Megan Meier must also be deleted, if this is. If I recall correctly, that led to a large court case and, later on, some new legislation. For now, this article is simply not notable enough. Rockhead126 (talk) 02:19, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Also, this article demonstrates why we need better guidelines for dealing with new pages concerning the deaths of individuals. They crop up with alarming regularity, and two days on from when the incident happened, we're unlikely to have a clear picture of the reasons why these events occurred. Paul MacDermott (talk) 20:36, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete Not notable at all. For the sake of consistency on Wikipedia this article has no basis being an article of encyclopedic importance. 173.243.36.225 (talk) 20:52, 14 October 2012 (UTC)— 173.243.36.225 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete for the reasons stated in the proposal. --DannyDaWriter (talk) 20:54, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, wide coverage. – Connormah (talk) 21:11, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable at all for an encyclopedia. ALSO, I SHOULD ADD, the sheer number of keeps should be given very little weight as it represents a lot of supporters of the girl. The overall arguments for keep along WP is very limited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.243.43.66 (talk) 21:29, 14 October 2012 (UTC) — 173.243.43.66 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

You may say that a sheer number of keeps should be given very little weight as it represents a lot of supporters of the girl but sheer number of deletes may also be a lot of "haters" of the girl. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 21:35, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Weight of numbers does not count for much in this debate anyway – what matters is the strength of the argument, and 173.243, you haven't provided an argument based in any policy. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:50, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have. Search above for "This is a high-profile case -- the highest of its kind" Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:23, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you – I was addressing the IP above, 173.243.43.66. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:28, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Cheers. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:23, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep Delete this page and you may as well pack up Wikipedia and go home. BarbarellaTwo (talk) 21:42, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is a major event in the topic of online (and general) bullying. Schools and parents are most likely going to use this event as an example, and Wikipedia needs to have the events information. Dominiktesla (talk) 22:07, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Obvious keep. Subject of international news and debate. Bueller 007 (talk) 22:28, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I live in the middle of nowhere and know about this. It's massive. Doesn't matter if it's the discovery of a sentient species or if someone's pet bunny went missing. If communication channels are filled with it, it's notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.55.83.190 (talk) 22:29, 14 October 2012 (UTC) — 190.55.83.190 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Move I think deleting this entirely would infringe freedom of speech, but it's in the wrong location. I believe it should be moved to a different Wiki. Is there a social tragedies Wiki or something? It kind of marks a huge movement on the internet, whether you agree with it or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TehGamerXeo (talk • contribs) 23:03, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello, moving to another Wiki would not be possible due to the fact that we would not redirect to a non-Wikimedia project thus moving would result in a delete on Wikipedia. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 23:07, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Obvious Delete. This discussion about this page has really already happened. When the Thomas Ball self immolation was deleted from wikipedia, despite its significance, it set the precedent for the removal of this type of article. I'd rather be a thistle in a hedge that a rose in your grace. (talk) 23:50, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Seconded. I would wager good money most of the keep votes on this discussion page are based on emotional feelings towards this incident rather than evaluation of notability here, and wikipedia is not and never has been the place for building memorials... -Joey- (talk) 03:00, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Been in the news. Independent sources exist. Notability of the person may not established, but the notability of the event, on the other hand, is firmly established. At very least this is merge material. If it is a "rehash of news" and not "encyclopedic analysis", we have a pesky policy that requires us to leave the "analysis" at the door, last I checked. It leads to unfortunate stylistic choices. Need to wait until some more analysis-minded folks elsewhere wake up. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 00:15, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Just for some perspective: First, I'll say that the link I am posting is censored so don't revert this post because this a serious comment worthy of discussion.

- If you see here: [redacted per policy -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 01:12, 15 October 2012 (UTC)] You will see that there are reports of her doing way more than the media are currently reporting. It's sad she died and it's sad she was bullied, [redacted per policy -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 01:12, 15 October 2012 (UTC)] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.243.43.66 (talk) 00:31, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell has that got to do with anything? One thing this discussion doesn't need is your judgement on the subject's behaviour, or any misguided belief that it affects the article's notability, and another thing we don't need is two "delete" comments from you. You have already made your delete point above. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:38, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uh yes. The only shred of notibility this thing could have is how she was an innocent victim. She wasn't. She did it again and again. Her bad choices brought on the verbal and cyber mistreatment. This is not a notable situation nor is a teen suicide. [redacted per policy -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 01:12, 15 October 2012 (UTC)] This is not notable. So hate to break it to you bud but that's relevant here. 173.243.43.66 (talk) 00:49, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your failure to understand anything about this process, or of what constitutes notability, is of no interest to me. But you still don't get to make two delete comments. I think everyone else here can see the value of your comments for themselves. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:53, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A teen posting naked pics of her on numerous occasions and having promiscuous sex is not notable. Neither is being made fun of and insulted on the internet. A teen suicide isn't notable too. The only possible claim for notability is that she was innocent. She obviously wasn't. 173.243.43.66 (talk) 00:55, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uch can you please post such comments on some other website, not here? --Jethro B 01:05, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Being an innocent victim or not does not change the notability of the article. All content in the article is written to what the references say. There is no possible way that you can be saying that this wasn't suicide because it was. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:55, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter to the notability of the article whether she did it 1 time or a million times. (she also doesn't say in the video that she only did it once). It also doesn't matter to the notability of the article whether she was a good person or not. Just because you don't like her doesn't mean it isn't notable.Michael5046 (talk) 00:57, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Same as said above: the moral compass of the person involved in the event isn't relevant, we're talking about the notability of the even itself. Also, since your link could be considered as child pornography (and is anyway irrelevant in this discussion), I removed it. 88.138.207.159 (talk) 01:09, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep - When everyone here agrees that things should not have got this bad...It is logical to keep this page and amend it to chronicle preventive measures that schools and government agencies implement. Since removing is easy I agree with Alex J Fox "far far too early to PROD/AFD" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.230.86.101 (talk) 01:34, 15 October 2012 (UTC) — 117.230.86.101 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Strong Delete - The only reason this has had any publicity is a youtube video and social media going viral, there's nothing significant about the case what so ever, and the article itself is extremely biased and and hould be deleted/re-written on that basis alone. It gleans over the distribution of her own underage sexual pictures and other important information. At this point in time, this article is nothing more than a glorified obituary
• Keep - while my understanding of WP:NOTNEWS indicates that this article ought to be deleted, there are a number of precedents on Wikipedia where the consensus was the opposite. For consistency, keep. Rank-one map (talk) 03:46, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• VERY STRONG KEEP.....Everyone should be made aware of what bullying can lead too. This girl gave her life, lets not make it be in vain...the word about what happened to her needs to be out there! ....s.burris — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.113.106.207 (talk) 04:21, 15 October 2012 (UTC)— 97.113.106.207 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete or Merge. Many teenagers commit suicide because of bullies, and we can't make an article for each one of them. Delete or put it in an article about bullying as a notable case. Not that I think it's notable, I don't know how this is different from other cases.--Krystaleen 04:48, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it does happen all the time and most do not have a Wikipedia article. But most do not receive significant coverage from reliable sources. This is the qualification that makes a subject satisfy WP:N and have an article. This subject clearly qualifies. meshach (talk) 05:05, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP...okay, i am going to view and comment on a point of view as a student. Such topics are often chose by teachers and schools as a current affair and exam topics, thus students often need to research on this topic....as students, we all know, when it comes to research, wikipedia is always the 1st website we come to. Thus, keeping this article will at least be beneficial to students.
  ---Kira1998freedom —Preceding undated comment added 06:39, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP This article is not, as some have suggested, merely a biography of a person momentarily in the news. Rather it describes a suicide due to bullying that is of particular significance because it has become very widely known and has triggered a great deal of news coverage and debate here in British Columbia and elsewhere in Canada. The case is also notable because it is a relatively pure case of cyber-bullying, in the sense that it seems that it was not simply a use of social media by acquaintances of the victim. Furthermore, the article does not appear to fall into any of the four cases discussed in WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. By bringing together information from many sources, going into more detail than a newspaper typically does, and giving a broad overview of the topic rather than focussing on the latest development, it performs a function that newspaper articles rarely perform. One useful function of Wikipedia is that of providing a means of learning in more depth about, and obtaining a more coherent account of, a current event. One often reads a news item that doesn't give enough background or is too short to be clear. This is not a traditional function of encyclopaedias, but that is because traditional encyclopaedias were so slow to appear. It seems to me that it is a valid encyclopaedic function even if it is one that has only recently become possible because of advances in technology.Bill (talk) 07:05, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep: Right now, most of the news coverage is of (1) the police investigation into Ms. Todd's suicide, (2) Premier Clark's interview, and (3) in-Wikipedia coverage of the YouTube video. I'm a little worried about how much of the article is about Wikipedian's own interpretation of the YouTube video (WP:PRIMARY!), but -- if this story remains in the headlines -- more thorough journalistic and police investigations into this horrible event will generate enough secondary sources for a solid Wikipedia article to be built up around it. If not, it'll probably languish as a second rate article, which would be a real pity. -- Gaurav (talk) 07:23, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There is no reason to be holding an obvious teenage suicide on an ENCYCLOPEDIA page. It will never be deemed as foul play because she clearly took her own life. Why waste the time? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.131.238.18 (talk) 07:36, 15 October 2012 (UTC) — 180.131.238.18 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• This has been in the news for 3 days. It seems a bit early to be deciding whether this meets WP:EVENT or will fade into the background. →Σσς. (Sigma) 07:42, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - This article should be kept- the valid reason being that the main purpose of Wikipedia is to provide information to inquisitive readers. As Wikipedia provides a compiled page for this particular topic, this article has to kept. A justified reason is that the suicide of Amanda Todd is a famous event, so even though I respect the opinion of people who say that the page has to be deleted because she is not the only person to commit suicide because of cyber-bullying, she did make it to the international television. She has also been gaining a lot of controversy on the social networking websites, so there is no doubt of her being noted since this event is known by over a million people it deserves a rightful place on Wikipedia. Whether or not Amanda Todd has done the right or wrong thing has nothing to do with this article. Wikipedia has to keep her article alive, and not because it "sets an example to others," but merely because it's famous. The article is an event which is known to like 1/4th the internet, and any famous event, no matter who or what it's about has to be in an encyclopedia. 07:59, 15 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magakriv (talk • contribs)

• Strong Delete This page and incident are attracting too much wrong attention, and some have even said that it encourages suicide due to publicity. Truth is that many people commit suicide under these circumstances,, but this one just happened to be picked up by the media. Not notable per WP:NOTNEWSPAPER . 96.245.204.218 (talk) 10:39, 15 October 2012 (UTC)— 96.245.204.218 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Strong Delete and merge. A normal case of suicide. where is the relevance and the notability?--Louisbeta (talk) 11:52, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. The article meets the primary guidelines: A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. There are multiple Australian newspaper websites carrying stories relating to subject. Mjpotter (talk • contribs) 12:01, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. Poorly elaborated reasons for deletion. Article well in line with WP:INDEPTH and notability criteria. --Pinnecco (talk) 12:17, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep No reason for deletions, The article meets guildlines. Information are realiable and correct, it is rare cases of suicide of cyberbullying. It should deserve attention — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leroyhung (talk • contribs) 12:28, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete - One off events like this aren't relevant enough to be remembered in this way. One girl who didn't have the intelligence to not expose herself on the internet, then not tell her parents when she was blackmailed, then not go to the police when she was attacked by all those people, then didn't have the intelligence to not publicly kill herself doesn't need to be remembered. She needs to be forgotten lest anyone else thinks to follow her 'example'. I agree with Warsilver, this isn't a place for bleeding hearts to set up memorial pages about attention whores. They have MySpace for the bleeding hearts and Facebook for the attention whores. JamesM123 (talk) 12:46, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's freaking harsh, man. Speaking ill of this girl like that, just as bad as her bullies are doing even now that she's dead. I see nothing to indicate that the girl was an "attention whore." Like you stated, she didn't even seek help in a way that could have brought her greater attention...other than the YouTube video. Wanting someone to help, that kind of attention, doesn't qualify her as an attention whore. 37.72.10.253 (talk) 04:04, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. She was 15 right? A kid. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:17, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep While I often cite WP:NOTNEWS in my delete votes, it is premature to apply that here. It is possible (likely, in my opinion) that this will have lasting reverberations unlike many other murder/suicide articles. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:18, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Regardless the groundswell of popularity Amanda Todd received after her death, the issue of online harassment and sexual exploitation of children is real. Would recommend that the article be further developed to include details that lead to her suicide particularly the treatment she received and the issues she faced. To quote her mother, "Amanda’s moment of indiscretion was not unusual for someone her age: Sexting and using webcams to share sexual photos is a growing trend among children, some so young they are still in grade school."Shaw, Gillian. "After Amanda Todd's death, Christy Clark says new laws may be needed to combat bullying (with video)". Vancouver Sun. Retrieved 15 October 2012. This is true, and the article should weigh heavy on this because it helps to demonstrate the social impact and to help bring awareness to how this story unfolded. From all accounts I've read, she was a normal, healthy girl who was interested in becoming a cheerleader until she was cyber-stalked and fell apart emotionally as a result. If the decision to delete is passed, in the very least, merge this story with others similar in scope such as Megan_Meier. Honestly though, these two stories are similar enough in nature, this article should be left intact just as Megan's was.Tragicfame (talk) 15:54, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep: it is a true story, notable enough, many news being quoted -Elijahhee (talk) 17:40, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep: While the reasons for keeping it may not be obvious now, at some point they will be. As someone else noted, "this will have lasting reverberations unlike many other...articles" in this encyclopedia. When I think of an encyclopedia (in an ideal world), I think of a source that would give me quick access to important and salient information on a topic. In the case of cyber-bullying, access to the names (and stories) of prominent victims would be just the sort of information that a researcher would need. Elizabeth Blandra (talk) 18:12, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Addendum to my previous comment asking Wikipedia to keep this article: I found two articles that in my mind address the need to keep this young girls story. Teen’s death prompts father of a bullying victim to speak out 1)‘Gang mentality’ at school resists adminstration’s efforts to effect change http://www.calgaryherald.com/life/Teen+death+prompts+father+bullying+victim+speak/7389263/story.html 2) B.C. teen's suicide nets hundreds of tips to policeMounties say about two dozen investigators working on the case CBC News http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2012/10/13/bc-amanda-todd-suicide-charges.html
• When I was young, the encyclopedias to which I had access changed my life -- they opened my eyes and mind to the realities of the world. Why would Wikipedia want to narrow one's view of the world, when it holds such power to expand it? Please retain this girl's Wikipedia page. Do we want a sterile, narrow compendium of information that we call an encyclopedia... or do we want an encyclopedia with the power to change the world? It's the latter, I would contend. Elizabeth Blandra (talk) 18:25, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Well put. -- Zanimum (talk) 18:39, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I fail to see how this event is of much encyclopaedic value. It will very likely be forgotten by most people in no time and it doesn't seem like it would be of much importance for anyone in the future. After all Wikipedia is still an encyclopedia and not a generic news site that needs a filler or a lurid front page story. 217.86.185.221 (talk) 18:47, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I accept that other suicides do not get Wikipedia articles, but most other suicides don't get this sort of media attention. Simple fact is, this one HAS recieved the media attention, therefore it has become a notable event, worthy of a well sourced, Wikipedia article. 90.213.151.194 (talk) 18:56, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (speedy) given the high level of media coverage. // Liftarn (talk) 19:15, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• STRONG KEEP: The fact that the unfortunate suicide of Amanda Todd is what many claim to be of only regional interest is irrelevant. This event has sparked legislation in the Canadian government which, if eventually passed into law of some sort, would be of encyclopaedic value. Many times, it is BECAUSE of occurances like this, not in spite of them, that social and/or legal changes that affect a nation come about, and if such arises from this tragedy, then it is certainly as worthy to hold a place as the story of Adam Walsh is. It would be historically noteworthy for future generations to be able to understand the specifics of why such legislation came to be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.50.83.200 (talk) 20:12, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "and if such arises from this tragedy" --> "if" 217.86.185.221 (talk) 22:28, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• STRONG KEEP very important to know about the reasons and show the blind society that mobbing is not just a "hard teasing" between youngsters these days. This article should be a way to open everyone's eyes that mobbing destroys more than meets the eye --Saviour1981 (talk) 20:33, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• That's not the purpose nor the job of wikipedia. 217.86.185.221 (talk) 22:28, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete - Memorial websites or appeals for political action (in this case against cyber bullying) don't qualify for Wikipedia pages. --Memarshall (talk) 22:21, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi arbitrary section break[edit]

• Keep Like it or not it's now part of history, covered in major news. Delete this and then you'll have to delete articles like the Suicide of Megan Meier. Anynobody(?) 22:33, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate was included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration on the 15:21, 15th October. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:18, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - With the article in it's current state, it's more a biased obituary. This needs to be re-written in an objective manner. Currently it's nothing more than a viral case of something that happens on a regular basis. should anything significant stem from the event, it should then warrant having an article. Until then, this page is nothing more than a glorified obituary. It might sound heartless, but from an objective point of view, the event isn't significant enough, beyond going (slightly) viral on the internet. If we had pages for every tragic event that went viral on the internet, wikipedia would be an on line obituary, as stated by someone above. Some English Guy ^{Talk To Me} 23:25, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This does seem to be reliably sourced and well above GNG requirements. Insomesia (talk) 00:00, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Mocctur (talk) 00:18, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Referring back to the nomination, this has gone beyond just being "a local event" and has received significant worldwide coverage, as well as being mentioned in parliament, becoming a catalyst for a possible government study on bullying.Zhanzhao (talk) 00:38, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's reported in numerous 3rd party sources, and has gained international recognition. ScienceApe (talk) 01:48, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete wikipedia is not the place for tales of schoolyard conflict, not notable 129.81.211.115 (talk) 02:21, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's made international news and is influencing parliamentary matters in Canada. She's become a person of interest. As others have said before, this article isn't much different from other Suicide of's. Most of the negatives seem to be brushing it off as a "local story" and "inconsequential suicides," clearly this is no longer the case. Celynn (talk) 02:29, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Note to closing admin - if I counted correctly, there's about 65 keep votes and about 25 delete votes. #s certainly aren't consensus, but I think we definitely do have consensus for a keep here, similar to other "suicide of" articles. --Jethro B 02:45, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete Not notable. Not even vaguely. Many people die, many people commit suicide, a fair few get into the news but that doesn't by any means make them notable enough to need wikipedia articles. Give it a year and the only evidence of this absurdly commonplace event will be the 4chan crew cracking the odd inside joke about her. -Joey- (talk) 02:50, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Arguments both for and against notability are crystal-balling the likelihood that this will spur significant, long-lasting anti-bullying efforts. We don't know yet. "That an event occurred recently does not in itself make it non-notable", and given the worldwide attention currently being given to the event (and I'd argue the question is whether the event, not the person, is notable) for the past 5 days would seem to warrant avoiding a rush to deletion. I don't see any other serious arguments against notability. An unscientific, but numeric and thus perhaps useful gauge regarding the current attention is that a google search for Amanda Todd Suicide returns 104,000,000 hits, and a google search for Bully returns 127,000,000 hits. Thus, currently 82% of Bully-related hits are Amanda Todd Suicide-related hits (unless there are any Amanda Todd Suicide hits which fail to mention Bully or Bullying, which I would suggest is highly doubtful). Gmporr (talk) 05:18, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete Not notable and not worth mentioning especially on Wikipedia. If we are to keep this article, then Wikipedia would have create article for every single person who has committed suicide in the world. Most are known for their work or contribution to something. She has not done anything notable, she only committed which is not worth writing on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is the place for information and knowledge; this is the news and not educational. Many people die, many people commit suicide, where are their stories and articles? (talk) 01:34, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Ample media coverage for this event. No doubt it'll be used as a case example when the media talks about this sort of thing in the future. Nothing gained by deleting it. This article has gotten 760,034 views in the past three days since its been created. [1] Dream Focus 07:45, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable event meets WP:DIVERSE --Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 11:25, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTNEWS pbp 13:04, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - WP:ONEEVENT, and not likely to be repeated. But seriously, this is a sort-of variation of missing white woman syndrome, the media's endless fascination with pretty white girls that have Bad Things(tm) happen to them, whether it is being spanked by a father, gone missing in Aruba, or off themselves with a bleach. Tarc (talk) 13:37, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tarc correctly points out that the media has some racial bias and might not have covered a more poignant death of a black girl. Unfortunately, Wikipedia cannot correct that racial bias. We can't say we ought to have an article on events we don't have reliable sources about, and we can't give up covering articles just because we think the reporters "should have chosen different things to cover". I also think that highlighting such events seems ethically dubious - it might glorify suicide or make it work as a kind of powerful tool to get people punished, thereby increasing future suicides. But that again is not our call; we're here to report the facts, not change them. Personally I think the real take home lesson here is that if people would follow the example of New York and Ontario and recognize women's equal constitutional right to toplessness, then the photo wouldn't be shameful and the girl wouldn't have died. But I can't put that argument in the article just because I feel like it, and nobody should be allowed to take stuff out or delete it because of their bias either. Wnt (talk) 16:13, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can engage in such editorial discretion if it is to the benefit of the encyclopedia as a whole though, i.e. an WP:IAR defense. Are we a better, more whole encyclopedia by including an article about a girl who died, just because the Nancy Graces of the drive-by media have made such a stinking shit-fit over this story? Or are we better by not including what is at it's core just a simple, tragic death? Tarc (talk) 17:23, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IAR is about making an encyclopedia, not deleting one! If the Nancy Graces of the world have taken a run-of-the-mill story and turned it into a juggernaut, well fine then, document that! How news becomes news is absolutely worthy of serious academic inquiry. Same as the Million Dollar Homepage, which is nothing at all on its own. Wnt (talk) 20:01, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Not news. People commit suicide with a depressing regularity. However if the premier's comments about using this to open up changes to legislation on cyber-bullying turn out to be more than empty words, it will be worth re-visiting. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:54, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. "NOTNEWS" is invariably abused, and this time is no different. I see a whole bunch of serious sources here that aren't going away. I'd happily vote to Keep this story even if it were about a girl who committed suicide during the earliest days of daguerreotype photography, given the same kinds of sources, even if no law ever was passed based on it. "BIO1E" is also misused here, since the article is about the event, not the person. Wnt (talk) 16:13, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are exactly right noting that Biography-One Event is misapplied here. The question at hand should be about the lasting notability of the event, not a technical objection on a matter of biography. Carrite (talk) 18:38, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Under ordinary circumstances, I am loathe to keep articles on news stories, but this case has certainly touched a major nerve within Canada, and beyond. Anonymous is already involved, and politicians across Canada are making calls for changes to anti-bullying statutes as a direct result of Todd's suicide. [2], [3]. This case is already far different than a random murder with no lasting consequences (aside from the obvious). Resolute 16:37, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; Since the involvement of Anonymous, her story has become one of international interest since it's tied to greater issues of online vigilantism; as well the "outed" person is possibly guilty of a number of serious criminal offences. As an incident alone I would say this does not warrant an article, but like the death of Mohamed_Bouazizi is has become a touchstone and and a story of great importance. --Tsylos (talk) 16:49, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - international news coverage, major police investigation into the long chain of events preceding her death (criminal harrassment, blackmail, distribution of child pornography, etc), plus international hacktivist group Anonymous has investigated too. This is not like other suicides, and coverage will continue as investigations are completed. Sadly, this will be a great case study for modern media, privacy, and social issues ColtsScore (talk) 16:50, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; This is an international story of lasting importance. Don't Be Evil (talk) 16:55, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It is funny that many of those who vote Delete only use the argument "many people commit suicide." But many people are also killed or go missing every day, yet a small number of them get extensive media coverage (yes, usually they are pretty white girls). But the fact remains that this suicide did get extensive media coverage from major news sources worldwide, and just because you think it shouldn't be news doesn't change the facts.Michael5046 (talk) 17:01, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Close as No Consensus Without Prejudice To Renomination in 60 Days: And save us all a lot of time. We can discuss again when furor dies down and be more rational about it.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:16, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see about 74 Keep and 34 Delete. Somehow I came up with four more deletes on a count than Jethro in his "note to closing administrator" above, but I still see that as a strong consensus to Keep. It would disrespect 74 volunteers to go back and say their votes didn't really matter - we should be done here. Wnt (talk) 17:41, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not disrespecting anyone. I'm respecting people's time - we don't need a single more vote; the average AfD gets about 4 votes. And the outcome is not a a vote anyway, so we're told. If it was 74 delete and 34 keep I wouldn't suggest it be deleted, because that wouldn't be a consensus either. Like Balloon Boy, if you wait a few months and see if it really was notable, no one complains on the 2nd AfD (if one even occurs).--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:08, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I like the idea of respecting people's time by closing this as a Keep. Wnt (talk) 20:05, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• STRONG KEEP - My opinion is that this is only one incidence of a very important topic on Bullying, but this is an illustration of a very typical episode, and so should be kept for educational purposes. Also, bullying is a hot topic with anthropologists and other social scientists alike, considering its study in the context of gender, class, race, etc. So, I think this should be linked to a discussion such as that. Finally (Am I asking for too much? First time doing this), This page should be linked somehow to a discussion on Kleinman's Illness Narratives, as Amanda has told her story on how she developed depression from peer abuse. 75.94.26.142 (talk) 17:54, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The question is whether this is an example failing WP:NOTNEWS or whether the event is of lasting historical or sociological importance. While the jury is necessarily out due to recentism, I am inclined to thing this is probably a case of the latter rather than the former. There certainly should be no scramble to delete until the smoke clears. Carrite (talk) 18:35, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Wikipedia is a place for general knowledge, not news. Even-though this story has reached a large amount of media attention does not grant it encyclopedic importance. Wikipedia would become filled with useless articles if it documented every major news headline. -- Sleegi^[✆Talk] 19:08, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UNENCYC, WP:NOTPAPER, WP:USELESS may be good reads for you. --Cyclopia^talk 19:58, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep - This case has every ear mark for becoming a landmark event that changes anti-bullying laws around the world. It is apparent to me that this has grown to noteworthy status. Crazysane (^T/_C\^D) 19:36, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP: Wikipedia has grown to be known as a place to get detailed, straightforward information. Although it is a public-edited site, there is a certain level of trust associated with the site. Having recently heard of the Amanda Todd incident, I found google searches to reveal very little about what actually happened. As usual when looking for information on a topic, my go-to place is Wikipedia, where I was able to read the history of the issue. It has been argued that there is little encyclopedic analysis of the issue, and that it reads more like a news article, and to this I say, perhaps so, but Wikipedia is a place to gain information, and even if it's reported information on a very current event, it may be more relevant and accurate than various short online news clips. I say keep it, because relevant, clear information compiled on events has a practical use for those who search for info on these events. Though it is an Encyclopedia, Wikipedia should recognize the adaptation of its function as a source for information on current-history news events, not simply discussions of long-past issues or academic topics. FranzPattison (talk) 13:44, 16 October 2012 (PDT)
• Keep - this is international news now - David Gerard (talk) 22:19, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Very STRONG KEEPThis case will change laws in child pornography, child stalking, blackmailing a child, child sexual exploitation and child annoyance by an adult. Amanda Todd may not have found the help she needed but her case may well save/protect other children. TalkAbout (talk) 22:46, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An article can be written about the law if you wish, providing it has significant coverage. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:50, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (or change focus to the law) This should be at wikinews, not here per WP:NOT#NEWS. If the law is notable then Amanda Todd can be mentioned in connection with that. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:50, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• VERY STRONG KEEP - I cite the case of Amber Hagerman http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amber_Hagerman where the public was moved by her tragic death and thus laws were changed and thus the Amber Alert national system was born. As stated above this case has wide implications within various areas of the law and thus meets the criteria for a 'notable' article. Once the laws are passed, I am sure her article can then be linked to said laws, or changes in current laws or newly introduced laws. Regards TalkAbout (talk) 23:04, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't vote twice, I've striked your extra vote IRWolfie- (talk) 23:17, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the correction, didn't mean to vote twice. I haven't participated in a deletion discussion in years. Regards. TalkAbout (talk) 23:23, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Providing informative, well-sourced articles about notable topics are part of Wikipedia's mandate. This nomination smacks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. If you don't like this article or this topic, the answer is simple: find another article to edit. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:51, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Important topic, important person, touching story. Worthwhile for wikipedia to exist, so that more people find their way to watch the youtube video. Forget providing all the info fit to print in an encyclopedia; eliminate everthing else and just reduce Wikipedia to providing this article. (Maybe a bit of an overstatement, but...) --doncram 00:22, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, with no prejudice against recreation if the event turns out to be notable. As it currently stands, it isn't. Normally, I would be happy to let this sort of thing slide a while until notability is gained/not, but I can see this article causing more trouble than it's worth if we do so. 2birds1stone (talk) 03:33, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The event might not meet notablity criteria right now, but there is reasonable probability it might do so in a few days or weeks. It is wasted energy to delete the article now, then have to re-create it in a few days time. Please note that 'just another teenager commiting sucicide' is not an appropriate description of the events, either factually or in terms of politeness and respectfulness to persons concerned. --Inkwina (talk · contribs) 04:11, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The event is notable. The article is well-referenced. ~ Editor182 (talk) 04:59, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I live in another continent and this story was on the frontpage of the main national news website[4]. Being interested in the tragic subject of gender violence and stalking, I went looking for more background information, I checked Wikipedia and I was glad to find this entry. For whatever reasons, it has attained notability on a much wider scope than stated in some pro-deletion comments. --MauroVan (talk) 08:05, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Article is well-sourced. Portillo (talk) 09:38, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - This might be a historical (because worldwide reported) cyberbullying event :( --Dadu (talk) 10:19, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Wikipedia should have an article on this topic. Notable, especially in Canada. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 12:16, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep First basically because of the weakness of the "delete" !votes based on "other people commit suicide all the time". We do not determine notability on rareness of the event, it is based on third party coverage. And there is a huge amount of third party coverage, every single news outlet of any type of media format is talking about this event. It is notable and has coverage for an article. I am saddened by the delete comments and some of the crassness towards suicide. Just when you think that this event is making a difference in the world, one comes to Wikipedia and notices that yes, there are dicks left in the world who are untouched by this moving event.Worldjustice (talk) 13:52, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep While I am usually against keep news like articles. This story has gone far beyond just a news story. It has hit a major nerve here in Canada. Has had pretty major repercussions already and its likely to only snowball. This clearly isn't a case of notnews. -DJSasso (talk) 16:10, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Not BLP1E, since this is an article about the event, not a biography of the person. So the question is whether the event was notable, and there seem to be adequate coverage, including indications of lasting repercussions (e.g. discussions of the implications of cyberbullying), that it is. Rlendog (talk) 16:57, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow Keep per all keep arguments above. It might not have been clear when the early delete votes were cast, but this has attracted massive worldwide coverage, and is of considerable encyclopedic importance due to its cultural impact. Unless one wants to help haters and bullys, there's nothing gained by destroying this article. God bless Amanda. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:40, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep? are you kidding? There's been 40 odd delete votes, that's not snowing. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:54, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per the above, several of the delete statements are now obviously counter factual ("local coverage only" etc...). Others have little relation to policy, the degree of coverage in independent reliable sources determines notability, not delete voters irrelevant personal analyses of how frequently an event occurs. AfDs are not decided by vote counting. FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:30, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the keep votes are not policy based. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:43, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Changing my vote to a weak keep. We already have articles on other individuals' suicides, so it would be hypocritical to delete this one considering it garnered so much media attention. - TALL^eN ^talk 20:18, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for having the flexibility to change your view, if only other delete voters would, now their rationale no longer applies due to the massive expansion of coverage. FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:30, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Vitor Mazuco ^Talk! 20:26, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I agree that in general teen suicides reported in the media should not be made into articles, even when they are reported in the media. However, this case has attracted continuing international coverage, with over 30,000 Google news hits. Much of this coverage is about the reaction to the suicide, including debate in the Canadian parliament and the involvement of "Anonymous". As one columnist explained, while noting that other teens have killed themselves in similar circumstances, "in her death by suicide Amanda Todd, a 15-year-old from B.C., has become an international symbol of a problem as pervasive as the internet itself."[5] The response to this AfD is a good indication of the high profile this case has. TFD (talk) 20:44, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The idea to delete a well researched article on a high-profile story is a complete madness, unfortunately, prevailing last years in Wikipedia. Such "deletionist" attitudes of many editors (mostly, ones who contribute very little) makes Wikipedia a cesspool of censorship and bigotry, often less informative as years go. Tiphareth (talk) 22:07, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Considering that everyone and their grandmother knows who she is, and it's very notable, it should be kept. --Rockstonetalk to me! 22:09, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Same reason of all articles of this category: Category:Victims of cyber-bullying--AeroPsico (talk) 22:12, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Supporting the general "keep" sentiment that this is a widely-reported and high-profile case with far-reaching consequences on not only societal attitudes towards bullying, but potentially government policy. The B.C. Premier speaking out on it should be notability enough. Maybe then there would be a case for deletion if it fizzles out quickly, but considering the sheer impact of the event, it's not likely going away any time soon. The Legend of Miyamoto (talk) 23:31, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article's subject has achieved widespread notability, appearing in news in multiple countries as well as becoming well-known on the Internet. The event behind the article is significant and relevant to the topics of bullying, electronic harassment, Internet crime and teen suicide. I think the article's subject is important and should be remembered to help prevent the same. AUN4 (talk) 02:08, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP. I am actually disturbed that some people want to delete this, especially since afaik the cyberbully has not been found yet. D is for... (talk) 02:15, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary Break (call to close)[edit]

I didn't number this break because hopefully there isn't a need. Though I called to delete, as this sort of article is a product of the lowest common denominator of drive-by media swill, it doesn't have a prayer of actually being deleted given the piling on above. Can we just call this one early and move on? Tarc (talk) 23:35, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please. This should be closed as an obvious Keep now. There is no need for further discussion. --doncram 23:37, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, some admin do it, please. I seriously considered NAC closing it myself, but that would probably induce drama. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colorado balloon incident is a good precedent though I would call it keep for now.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 23:42, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A NAC would have been quickly overturned since this is not an unambiguous AfD. I'm not sure how "no consensus" sets a good precedent. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:42, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, close friend. Remember that all non-article work is overhead to our project; this discussion is an extreme undue amount of overhead. In a few months, people will be calm and can rationally assess whether this article makes sense.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:09, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I would close it but I'm not an admin... --Rockstonetalk to me! 00:09, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Close A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:22, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Close per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colorado balloon incident. Tijfo098 (talk) 10:57, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary Break #2[edit]

• Week Keep The topic is still in media coverage, if it settles down over time then delete it, but let it stay for the time being till people are searching for it and while key developments are still happening. We don't know where this will lead to, it's too early to call anything. Achshar (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:28, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Amanda Todd was a good person who had a hard life. Maybe the article should be on her whole life, though, not just focusing on her recent death. -Wahula- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wahula (talk • contribs) 23:59, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS, WP:ONEEVENT, WP:TOOSOON, WP:CRYSTAL and WP:TENYEAR. This event just happened a couple days ago, and the only sources that exist are half-baked news reports. There are, of course, no sources that could testify to the lasting significance of this event. When, in the future, such sources arise, the article can be recreated, but as for now, there is no adequate sourcing to establish notability in the grand scheme of things. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:19, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, couldn't have put it better myself, DV. Completely agree. Forteblast (talk) 14:59, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:53, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kayla Carrera[edit]

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

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

No longer passes WP:PORNBIO with her AVN award being a scene award. Still no reliable source coverage to satisfy the general notability guidelines. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:56, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:13, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Nom is correct. Fails PORNBIO. No substantial reliable source coverage found in search. • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination statement. Fails WP:PORNBIO. No reliable sources found. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 15:42, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:19, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

King Khan (documentary)[edit]

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

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

Probably a WP:HOAX. If not, it fails WP:V and WP:N because I can not find anything on this documentary film. What is certain is that Shahrukh Khan did not direct it as stated by the infobox, nor did Aditya Chopra produce it. The only reference links an article about another SRK documentary, The Inner and Outer World of Shah Rukh Khan. jonkerz ♠talk 21:39, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable documentary. But I don't feel that it is a hoax, judging by the language and tone of the article. --Anbu121 (talk me) 07:50, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for failing WP:NF and redirect to Shah Rukh Khan. I do no belive it a hoax, as it seems to be veiewable online,[6] (not gonna watch it) but it certainly did not receive any coverage. At least the stub at The Inner and Outer World of Shah Rukh Khan is improvable, while this is not. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:15, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I should have avoided the word "hoax", but 1) I still cannot find any info on a documentary with this name (the link you supplied only contains a link to the Amazon search results for "King Khan" and its content is sourced from and attributed to WP). 2) The closest match is this 8 disc DVD box of SRK films, distributed by Yash Raj Films, and it is not a documentary. 3) The article creator is blocked. 4) The reference does not contain any info on this documentary. And, 5) Some info is false, including production credits and the fact that it was followed by The Inner And Outer World of Shah Rukh Khan (it was stated in the first draft that this film too was made by SRK.) I do not think a redirect is needed here. jonkerz ♠talk 01:31, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Minor Indian films have little to no available English sourcing. And I am unable to find out how this may have been titled in its native language. Redirects are cheap, and do not require for the redirected title to be determined as notable. If readers wish to know more about the subject of this film, a notable actor and director who has made numerous, often self-serving, documentaries, many non-notable by our standards, sending them to the article on the purported fimmaker serves the project and the reader... after this one is deleted for having major issues. Note, I am by no means suggesting retention of any of this article's probelmatic contents... only that we send readers to the one place where they might be educated about the filmmaker. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:01, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep as per positive consensus that affirms WP:GNG requirements are met. There are no calls for deletion outside of the nominator. A non-admin closure. And Adoil Descended (talk) 01:33, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hospitality Lane District, San Bernardino[edit]

Hospitality Lane District, San Bernardino (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unsourced permastub about a small cluster of non-notable hotels next to the San Bernardino Freeway. Had only 3-4 sentences BEFORE I had to remove one that violated POV pbp 21:20, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:42, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I found plenty of news coverage of this district, which I added to the article. It's experienced an economic boom lately and it's one of the few prosperous parts of San Bernardino, and it now clearly passes the GNG. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 23:56, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not clearly...all your sources appear to be local papers pbp 00:18, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They're regional papers, and considering Riverside-San Bernardino is America's 13th largest metropolitan area, that's pretty significant. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 01:36, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Major economic district for America's 13th largest metro anchor city, San Bernardino. It's actually more of a neighborhood now with housing anchored around the 92408 zip-code. House1090 (talk) 00:55, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - There appears to be plenty of secondary coverage of this district. When an article is currently un-sourced that can be sourced, per WP:AFD, AfD is inappropriate.--Oakshade (talk) 01:10, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This topic appears to pass WP:GNG per the 9 sources now in the article. Thanks to User:TheCatalyst31 for expanding the article and adding sources. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:52, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep article has enough significant coverage in reliable sources to be an article. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 15:45, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:19, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

World of Fallorn[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:GNG. No secondary reliable sources covering the subject in detail. SMS ^Talk 20:38, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Can't find sourced to satisfy WP:GNG. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK
• Delete – definitely exists, with a handful of websites and forums dedicated to it, but there's no coverage in reliable secondary sources. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 12:49, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - sources do not establish notability. - MrOllie (talk) 17:55, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Makes no attempt to establish notability, and a cursory search shows why: no independent, reliable sources. czar · · 21:59, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE Mark Arsten (talk) 03:08, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lancaster Pollard[edit]

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

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

Non-notable company - 76 employees, privately held, most references derive from press releases. John Nagle (talk) 06:57, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Article is basically an ad created by a WP:SPA. On a strange note, Barnes and Noble has a self-published book that appears to be a copy of the article.[7]. --John Nagle (talk) 07:04, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:18, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:18, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 07:07, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ΛΧΣ21™ 18:42, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:20, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stars of Barathrum[edit]

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

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

Subject of the article is a game that has not yet been released. Sources are based on rumors. Delete per WP:CRYSTALBALL SMS ^Talk 17:38, 12 October 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 October 12. Snotbot  t • c »  18:11, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --Anbu121 (talk me) 18:28, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 22:36, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:36, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Could very well be a scrapped project. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[1] 10:21, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL; all sources seem to based on the same rumor. Not notable until an official announcement. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 14:21, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - All that we have is a working title, concept art and rumors. I'd say that we can redirect this to Valve Corporation and if and when this mysterious title is announced, we can re-direct to that page. Regardless, this page certainly does not warrant its individual existence right now. DarthBotto _talk•cont 07:24, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:VGSCOPE #8 (Rumors and Speculation) and, accordingly, WP:CRYSTAL. I'm also opposed to merge since the little non-speculation is unsourced. Topic is not yet in a state of notability. czar · · 21:36, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:52, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In house vacation[edit]

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

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

Original research. AutomaticStrikeout 17:48, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:ONEDAY. Lugia2453 (talk) 17:50, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete original research and WP:MADEUP --Anbu121 (talk me) 18:03, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete on grounds of fictitious/invented material. The Illusive Man^(Contact) 18:21, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:34, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:MADEUP Thine Antique Pen (talk) 15:53, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete sounds like slang for the portmonteau, staycation. Bearian (talk) 21:34, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete under G11 and salted. Anbu121 (talk me) 20:32, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tomorrow's Company[edit]

Tomorrow's Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Speedy tag was removed by the author and some refs were added. But, most of the refs doesn't even have the name of the company. Google News doesn't give out anything significant about the company Anbu121 (talk me) 17:32, 12 October 2012 (UTC) Note:The Author has removed the false refs after I mentioned about it here --Anbu121 (talk me) 17:57, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete - non-notable organisation, verging on articlespam ukexpat (talk) 18:34, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Very strong delete - Notability is questioned, especially after looking at their Twitter account. I nominated it again for a speedy delete under A7 and G11. --GSK ● talk ● evidence 19:49, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:08, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eqela[edit]

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

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

Software platform that does not meet WP:NSOFT or WP:GNG. It's a new piece of software that, as far as I can tell from a search, has not been noticed and given significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Batard0 (talk) 18:26, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:33, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete software does not meet the WP:GNG. It's mentioned by a few sources, but nothing significant enough to write an article that would meet the WP:GNG. Vcessayist (talk) 01:55, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 17:31, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Delete No reliable 3rd party references to establish notability of this software - refs included are developer's sites and a slideshow. Created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 07:16, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Way out of the purview of Wikipedia. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:23, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:07, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Snapfinger, Georgia[edit]

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

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

City I've never heard of. The article says it's in DeKalb County, Georgia, but the map doesn't. Georgia guy (talk) 17:24, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Not much out there in terms of detailed discussion of the place, but precedent regarding Wikipedia's gazetteer functions has generally been very permissive about keeping named, populated places. In any case, the USGS National Map agrees that it exists, and the USPS has assigned it as part of ZIP Code 30035 (primarily used for nearby, much larger Decatur, GA). And it shows up on a few bizarre place-name lists. Presumably, some history exists, although almost certainly in offline materials. The pushpin map is clearly inaccurate; I'm not sufficiently familiar with the markup for them to attempt to correct it, but I'm sure someone else will be able to all fixed now, too. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:48, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. GNIS entry 333078, states its a place and it was obtained on their survey. I checked to see if this was a retail real estate source, its notCoal town guy (talk) 18:36, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Update. Here are links to a map of snapfinger as well as snapfinger elementary school http://www.mapquest.com/maps?city=Snapfinger&state=GA

Coal town guy (talk) 18:39, 12 October 2012 (UTC) http://www.dekalb.k12.ga.us/snapfinger/ I made an error in the coordinates and have corrected it, my apologies[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:45, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As a verified settlement, this place is considered notable by long-standing precedent. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 22:06, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It is a verified community and therefore notable-thank you-RFD (talk) 23:41, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow Keep - Per Wikipedia's Five pillars, the encyclopedia also functions as a gazetteer, per Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features). Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:57, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey All- Have we decided to keep this? I in all honesty do try to see these places. I have not been to Snapfinger, but I do have friends who do as I, visit the wonderfully named places in the USA......Hey, who knows, maybe we can share some beer at Orgas WVCoal town guy (talk) 21:15, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - if you can't find it, ask - check the refs. Kneejerk nomination for deletion for a populated place implicitly says that it doesn't exist or that the nominator despite reasonable search couldn't confirm its existence. Apparently, a woefully insufficient job was done by nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:28, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I have heard of Snapfinger Road and Snapfinger Elementary School, but I've never heard of this city. Georgia guy (talk) 00:06, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:06, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An He[edit]

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

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

Is this artist truly notable? The article asserts awards were won, but the only sources are advertising-type sites, and it does not even make it clear whether the artist's family name is An or He! (The contextual clues in one of the sites suggested to me that it's An, so I've modified the sortkey accordingly.) Delete unless notability properly shown. --Nlu (talk) 13:53, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:15, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:15, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:15, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 07:37, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:50, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Delete as per nom.Bondegezou (talk) 14:32, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE Mark Arsten (talk) 03:06, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bell'Italia[edit]

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

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

• Delete. Non-notable magazine. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 07:37, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:59, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:59, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 07:35, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:50, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Soft Delete. Really, I'd go for a redirect to the parent publisher here, but that article doesn't seem to exist. There are a few English-language references to this magazine, but nothing substantive (see [8], [9]). The tone of the latter of those brief mentions makes it sound as though this title is relatively well-known, but I've failed to find sources that meet the notability threshold. I suspect they exist in Italian, but searching for Italian material is challenging because the magazine's title is a phrase in common usage. Combined with the failure of this discussion to obtain a quorum (or, indeed, participation) in more than two AFD cycles, and I think soft deletion is the best outcome here. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:16, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:50, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Emil Ali[edit]

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

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

Fails GNG. Sources are mainly self-published or do not directly relate to the topic. Dac04 (talk) 15:22, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah definitely does not meet notability requirements...and the guy seems like a giant douche - bobby

Being a "giant douche" is not a case for deletion. If you can't be serious here, you should not participate. SwisterTwister talk 05:53, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. I apologize for my indiscretion. Sometimes i let my passion about misuse of wikipedia get the best of me. -bobby — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.59.115.8 (talk) 18:13, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Delete - Promotional trash and I haven't found any relevant results with Google News or Books, I added "Eccink", "Empire Entertainment" and "Empire Records" to my search but also found nothing. Nothing salvageable here, from what I see. SwisterTwister talk 05:53, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:17, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Real United FC[edit]

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

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

Article appears to have been created using Wikipedia as a web host. Topic appears to fail WP:GNG. Cloudz679 13:44, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Cloudz679 13:46, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - With reference to the Club Notability Test user essay WP:NTEST we get this result:
  

Q1. Has the club played in a national cup (listed in the Blue Column)? NO

Q2. Has the club played in a notable league (listed in the Yellow Column)? NO

Q3. Has the club played in a league at the next highest level (listed in the Grey Column)? YES

Q4. Is there substantial identifiable media coverage (excluding match reports) about the club in reliable independent sources? NO

Q5. Has the club played in the past in a competition of comparable status to one listed in the Blue or Yellow Columns? NO

The club therefore fails the test and should be deleted. League Octopus (League Octopus 14:09, 12 October 2012 (UTC))[reply]

• Delete - non-notable local team. The name is also ringing a vague bell, I have a feeling it's been deleted (unsure if PROD or AfD) under a different name before. GiantSnowman 14:33, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Refer to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Real United Football Club for previous debate. League Octopus (League Octopus 10:33, 13 October 2012 (UTC))[reply]

• Speedy delete per G4. – Kosm1fent 17:40, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per the previous discussion. Nothing has changed in the last couple of months. --Mentoz86 (talk) 09:08, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:17, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mastermind Premier League[edit]

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

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

Non-notable local school competition, re-created after previous PROD deletion. JohnCD (talk) 12:18, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:14, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:16, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:16, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 10:35, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, leaning towards speedy delete (A7), absolutely no evidence of notability. – Kosm1fent 17:37, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not notable, no sources given, no teams. Kante4 (talk) 21:38, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no indication of notability. --Mentoz86 (talk) 09:09, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:17, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sol Kaho'ohalahala[edit]

Sol Kaho'ohalahala (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Very minor politician. A Mayor might be notable, but I don't believe a council member is sufficient, nor is running unsuccessfully for mayor. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:24, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom - with the caveat that Mr. Kaho'ohalahala is still an active politician who may eventually be elected to a high enough office to satisfy WP:POLITICIAN. In that case, an article might be warranted. We're not there yet, however. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:24, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:50, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:50, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A councilmember running for mayor does not come close to meeting WP:POLITICIAN. If he were running for a more notable office, we would redirect his name to the article about the appropriate election, per usual practice. However, there is no article about the 2012 campaign for mayor of Maui County, and no other obvious redirect target. --MelanieN (talk) 03:31, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Closed, wrong process. This page is a redirect and the place to recommend it for deletion would be Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:30, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of diplomatic missions of Madeira[edit]

List of diplomatic missions of Madeira (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Currently "List of diplomatic missions of Madeira" redirects to List of diplomatic missions in Portugal and on that page, rightly, there's no mention of "Madeira missions" at all. Madeira is a region of Portugal and doesn't have it's separate embassies or diplomatic missions abroad. For other similar territories, such as Azores, there are no such redirects. Japinderum (talk) 09:05, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:16, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you be a pornstar?[edit]

Can you be a pornstar? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I just know someone is going to tell me that Wikipedia is not censored. I'm not after censoring it. I simply can't find any reliable sources that show that this rather tawdry sounding show was ever genuinely notable. Sure, Amazon has DVDs, but Amazon also has loads of others stuff that isn't notable. Unreferenced, it should go. Find and insert references I can't find and it should stay. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:09, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Unless there's more sourcing that I couldn't find, there just wasn't enough to show that this merits a keep. I see where the AP article has been re-posted in various newspapers and one brief mention in an article predominantly about the Apprentice, but not anything else that isn't a "junk" hit, no pun intended. You'd think that something of this nature would've gotten more coverage, but it didn't. This might be OK as a redirect to the article for Mary Carey, as she was the host of the show, but that could be debatable.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:25, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:59, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:01, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Looks like this is an article on a localized RT show. It seems unnotable due to lack of secondary references. BO | Talk 16:39, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:00, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1985 Wales vs Scotland football match[edit]

1985 Wales vs Scotland football match (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This match is only notable for one thing - the death of Jock Stein. It has no particular notability as a football match. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 04:37, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 04:39, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in Scottish task force's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 06:20, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It would, however, make quite a good Death of Jock Stein article. Nanonic (talk) 06:30, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge relevant bits to Jock Stein, 1985-86 in Scottish football and/or Scotland national football team. I remember watching this game on TV and (unless my ageing memory is dreaming up this part) seeing Big Jock being carried past in the background during a postmatch interview, but I don't think an entire article on his death is merited. We don't have articles on the deaths of any other major football figures and IMO a death from natural causes isn't unusual enough to merit a stand-alone article........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:43, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and merge per ChrisTheDude - not notable on its own. GiantSnowman 08:01, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - there was a section on this match on Football Focus at the weekend, they described it as "one of the most notable matches in Scottish history" or something. It resonated with me. GiantSnowman 08:02, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and rename to Death of Jock Stein. The article already demonstrates the amount of coverage given to the event long after it happened (WP:NTEMP), eg BBC radio programmes made in last ten years. The game itself wasn't particularly notable, so the article is not correctly titled, but Stein's death (and circumstances of that) is notable. Merging into Jock Stein would be giving it undue weight in that article. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 08:12, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to the biog. The idea of a sparate article on his death is totally absurd. All biogs eventually end in a death, and a "Death of...." article would nly be appropriate ifte death was the only notable event in the person's life.TheLongTone (talk) 09:20, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's an absurd argument; there are plenty "Death of" articles, mostly about people who were primarily notable for events other than their death. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 09:36, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • TBF most of those are re-directs or articles about books, etc, with "death of" in the title. The ones that are genuinely about the deaths of famous people are about incidents like the deaths of Princess Diana, Michael Jackson and Osama Bin Laden, events which were worldwide frontpage news. I don't believe Stein's death was in the same category as those........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:47, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's because you are only looking on the first page of the search-result, which gives you the most popular pages. In this category you'll find plenty "death of"-articles about people who weren't worldwide frontpage news. --Mentoz86 (talk) 13:07, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/Redirect to Jock Stein. Don't think his death warrants its own article in the sense that Ayrton Senna's does for instance, or any of the others described above. So merge or redirect to his page is best option. NapHit (talk) 13:04, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• This is a notable match in itself. It continues to receive significant coverage for a number of reasons relating to its importance to both teams as well as the nature of Leighton's substitution and the tragic death of the national manager during the game (the suggestions above that the death of one of Scotland's most successful managers by the pitchside during an important national qualifier is not a notable event in itself are absurd). Reliable sources for the match itself will not be hard to come by. Can't help but feel that this nom is a routine box-ticking exercise which doesn't actually examine the event or its overall impact (on both sides). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:52, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Thumperward/Chris. Seems to be a particularly notable match in Scotland's history, and easily (already) verifiable. --Dweller (talk) 14:23, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Extremely notable match and I think Thumperward sums this up particularly well.Blethering Scot 19:23, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Article is referenced by a number of reliable, significant sources. If only a few more of our football articles had this many sources. Eldumpo (talk) 19:44, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment As the author of the article, I don't feel I can objectively say whether it should be kept, as of course I think it should be. However, I do feel obliged to comment - the death of Jock Stein is of course the overriding element to this game, and is probably the major reason why it is so remembered to the majority. However, the significance of the game itself as a barometer of the level of Scottish (and indeed Welsh) football is also commented on, as is the previous World Cup qualifier between the two in 1977. I do not suggest that every such game have its own article, but the fact of it being a significantly dramatic game in and of itself, with the prospect of qualification for the World Cup essentially hanging on this one result for both nations, coupled with the tragedy of Jock Stein's death in so public a way, makes it worthy of having its own page, rather than it merely being a footnote. Hammersfan (talk) 12:07, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - this is a game that is widely considered by independent reliable sources to be notable, and passes WP:SPORTSEVENT. --Mentoz86 (talk) 08:59, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Green Day discography. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:59, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the Radio (album)[edit]

On the Radio (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:NALBUMS: No evidence of any significant secondary source coverage. The only sources cited are an itunes listing and a Green Day fansite. I performed a good-faith search for sources in all the usual places one might expect to find coverage of an album, particularly one by an artist as notable as Green Day: These included Allmusic, Billboard, Metacritic, Google News, Google Books, and a plain ol' Google web search. The only thing I found that gave anything beyond a tracklist or passing mention was this 2-sentence review on Allmusic. Sufficient in-depth source coverage does not appear to exist for this article to grow to anything beyond Stub- or at best Start-class. IllaZilla (talk) 02:37, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: A previous AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/On the Radio (Green Day album) was withdrawn: The nominator had believed the topic to be a hoax and swiftly withdrew the nomination when shown otherwise. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:40, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Green Day discography. Not independently notable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:35, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:09, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Green Day discography per WP:NALBUMS. I agree with the nominator's concluding statement, but this, like On the Radio (Green Day album), is a probable search term and redirects are cheap. Cliff Smith 16:50, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:03, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Canada[edit]

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

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

Seems like original research. AutomaticStrikeout 01:39, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Quebec City–Windsor Corridor as a plausible redirect. The article is good faith and stating a good fact, but this belongs as a redirect to where the majority of Canada's population is (indeed, in the southern portion of the country). Feel free however to suggest a better RD target. Nate • (chatter) 02:14, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I've lived in "Southern Canada" a long, long, long, long time. We mostly divvy up the country into eastern and western, some central, with a bit of northern thrown in for variety, but we gots nothin' laik the Deep South, y'all. The south of Canada is just too diverse to lump together into one meaningful region. It's not synonymous with the Quebec City-Windsor Corridor. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:03, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As written, it's unreferenced. As written, it's not notable. As written, it's a series of tautologies. There is some underlying "fact" but it's a well known fact. The relevant information is already incorporated in Wikipedia at Canada, "Approximately 80 percent of Canadians live in urban areas concentrated in the Quebec City – Windsor Corridor, the BC Lower Mainland, and the Calgary–Edmonton Corridor in Alberta." It's also alluded to in other Wikipedia locations. As written, the title appears to border (haha) on a neologism. Beyond this article's current status, it is clearly not transformable to a keep, and it most certainly doesn't merit a redirect. FeatherPluma (talk) 14:40, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:55, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• While this article as written is true enough as it goes, none of it is particularly notable enough to require a separate article, rather than one or two sentences in an article about Canadian demographic patterns -- and there aren't (and can never be) any particularly strong reliable sources to support the notion that this concept of "Southern Canada" actually merits an encyclopedia article of its own. In actual fact, the term has virtually no real currency in Canadian sociological, political or demographic literature, except where it's necessary to contrast the dominant population centres with the Arctic territories -- and even then, all it really means is "the provinces" (a topic that's far too broad and diverse and just plain massive to really be meaningfully covered in one single article called "Southern Canada".) Delete. Bearcat (talk) 22:23, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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