< 11 September 13 September >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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:TOOSOON. No prejudice against recreation when more details are available. If anybody wishes userification, ping me. The Bushranger One ping only 18:53, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Grand Prix motorcycle racing season[edit]

2014 Grand Prix motorcycle racing season (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)

It's simply too early, and the page contains no real content - just a list of riders and the teams they are contracted to race for. Although there are some motorsport season pages that have been created two years in advance - most notably 2014 Formula One season - the creation of these pages is justfied by significant rule changes to the sport that will dramatically alter the category. There is no evidence of any such changes here. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:09, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Crystal and just too early. We should at least wait until the schedule is launched. Kante4 (talk) 15:58, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 21:38, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Leonard B. Smith[edit]

Leonard B. Smith (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)

Spotting the battleship Bismarck is hardly enough to merit an article. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:48, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:44, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Russian Camp[edit]

Russian Camp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There does seem to be a hunting camp with more or less the right name, but the only website I could find for it ([6]) doesn't mention this story, and the only mentions of the tale I could find were a tourism site that could just as well be recycling our content and a compendium of Wikipedia articles. Of course the article lacks citations; it was created by an IP years ago. I don't know that this is a hoax but I don't see enough evidence to believe the story. Mangoe (talk) 18:27, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That sounds to me like a "delete and write some other article" outcome. Mangoe (talk) 10:12, 5 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) 17:51, 5 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) 21:39, 12 September 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. Sources not in depth enough to meet WP:N WilyD 09:19, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MMP (Oregon street gang)[edit]

MMP (Oregon street gang) (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)

A speedy deletion template was removed twice without comment. The topic of this article, a gang of high school students, doesn't seem to me to be of sufficient notability; the geographic area is extremely limited and the two references merely mention the existence of this group without according it any notability or importance (other than the idea that it was "first"). No further references were available upon a search. There is no way of verifying the contentions within the article about the meaning of the acronym and they may be original research. Ubelowme U Me 17:38, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I do not disagree that the sources say the organization in question was "first". I question whether that, ipso facto, is evidence of notability. For the rest, I think WP:CLUB says it best; the subject is certainly not national or international in scale and there is no "information about the organization and its activities" that can be verified by multiple third-party independent reliable sources. We are told that the organization existed by two entirely local sources; we know nothing about its "longevity, size of membership, major achievements, prominent scandals or other factors specific to the organization". Ubelowme U Me 19:11, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There is a difference between being "famous" and "notable." Just because it wasn't national or international in scale (that is, "famous") doesn't mean that it isn't notable. It seems self-evident that if it is important enough to be mentioned in the largest newspaper in the capital city of the state of Oregon, and on the website about gang prevention by the City of Salem, Oregon, then it is notable. It doesn't matter that the sources are not "famous" either (e.g., "entirely local sources"); what matters is that they are themselves verifiable, trustworthy, notable sources. Copy Editor (talk) 03:11, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are indeed several references, just perhaps not available immediately via a random Google search. (...." it need not be the main topic of the source material.") Statesman Journal and The Oregonian have references in their databases regarding the period. And I believe it is inappropriate to speculate as to what a fellow editor may or may not be aware of. Copy Editor (talk) 12:32, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: Well ... if you were aware of that clause of the GNG, then you blithely ignored it. If you weren't aware of it, then you are advocating the notability of a subject without an understanding of the appropriate guidelines governing notability. That being said, an archival search on both the Statesman Journal and The Oregonian websites for this gang turn up nothing. If you have found references that discuss the subject in "significant detail," as the GNG requires, would you mind citing them, please, presuming their existence is not, well ... speculation? Ravenswing 18:50, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Minor correction. An archival search does not turn up nothing, because we do have a link to an article by the Statesman Journal. The additional references were made in issues that are not available online at this time, though are available at the local library on microfilm and microfiche. I will include those references as soon as possible. Copy Editor (talk) 19:19, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well ... we have a link to an article where the mention of MMP is so trivial, the newspaper didn't see any need to include it in search terms. As far as soon as possible goes, the AfD runs until Wednesday, so I'll be happy to change my vote if good references which meet the GNG appear before then. Ravenswing 19:30, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Aw. That's sweet of you I'll see what I can do. :) Copy Editor (talk) 20:31, 6 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) 21:39, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I take it that you don't know much about the demographics of Oregon, then. This was the first street gang in the history of the state capital. It was made up of low-income people, largely of Latino descent, largely from the poorer towns in the region (Gervais, Woodburn, North Salem), and they were under surveillance by the police department and subject to police investigations. Willamette University, by contrast, is said to be the oldest university west of the Mississippi, is decidedly white, and it is one of the most expensive and exclusive universities in the state of Oregon. There is no comparison whatsoever between these two entities. Your analogy is utterly meaningless. Copy Editor (talk) 16:44, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: Your position is utterly irrelevant. The demographics of Oregon form no part of Wikipedia notability criteria. What does is, for one, the GNG, which holds that a subject, to be notable, must have multiple reliable, independent, published sources which discuss the subject in "significant detail." Ravenswing 17:12, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Response I never held the position that demographics of Oregon formed a part of Wikipedia notability criteria. I held the position that it is meaningless to form an analogy that in any way likens the first street gang in Salem, Oregon, history to a Republican group at Willamette University. Simply put, it was a bad analogy on the part of the other Wikipedia editor. -- Copy Editor (talk) 18:21, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There IS other information. Just not online at the moment. Copy Editor (talk) 16:48, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: What makes you say so? Have you seen this other information yourself? If so, why haven't you cited it for the article? If not, then don't claim that information exists when in truth you have no idea. (And that being said, you said a week ago that you were about to include useful references. You're about to run out of time.) Ravenswing 17:12, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Response What makes me say so? lol. Oh, well ... I just so remember holding in my hands in the late 1980s an actual hard copy newspaper article mentioning this gang. (And, to clarify, it didn't "mention" this gang; the article was ABOUT this gang, as it warranted a full article and picture of the members in the late 1980s, precisely BECAUSE it was the first and was actually scaring people in Salem, Oregon.) Everyone in Salem, Oregon, knew about them. But being that that was in the 1980s, that article isn't available on their website. They were actually covered quite a bit locally. But, again, this was an era that hasn't made it onto the online database of these newspapers yet. As for why I haven't included them in this article yet, well ... I haven't had the time to get down to the library and find those older articles on microfilm. I actually have a life, believe it or not. Thanks. -- Copy Editor (talk) 18:02, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Copy Editor, I understand your argument, but we simply can't base having this article on your witness account with out WP:VERIFIABLE Mkdwtalk 23:26, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Of course, the article will be deleted without prejudice, so if some day you have genuine references supporting the subject's notability, you can always recreate it at that time. Ravenswing 07:42, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm aware that they need to be online and varifiable. I was simply refuting the claim that it received no coverage and that it was akin to the Republican club at Willamette University. If it gets deleted, fine. Just recreate it at some other point (when I have more time to find those older articles). Thanks. Copy Editor (talk) 18:10, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Would you care to proffer an argument founded in any way on Wikipedia policies and guidelines? Ravenswing 17:12, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Isn't there some sort of requirement that the subject of an article have significant, widespread coverage in reliable sources? I can't remember where it is. But if this gang was just in Salem, how significant is it in a worldwide encyclopedia? Even now, Salem only has a population of 150,000. In the eighties it was half that. How much significance can a gang there and only there that isn't there any more and never grew past there be? Gtwfan52 (talk) 02:50, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
By your analogy, they should delete articles about towns like Starbuck, Washington because, you know, small and insignificant town. But there is some Wikipedia policy that says that there is a difference between being "notable" and "famous." Copy Editor (talk) 05:29, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
C'mon, you've been here long enough to know that isn't a proper analogy. Places on the landscape only have to have proof of their existence, not their notability. Gtwfan52 (talk) 06:20, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There actually is a policy that applies in this situation, WP:CLUB, from which I quote: "Organizations whose activities are local in scope (e.g., a school or club) can be considered be notable if there is substantial verifiable evidence of coverage by reliable independent sources outside the organization's local area. Where coverage is only local in scope, consider adding a section on the organization to an article on the organization's local area instead." [Emphasis mine.] Ubelowme U Me 15:16, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. That is exactly the policy I was trying to remember.Gtwfan52 (talk) 18:58, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, there's certainly that too. A gang of the caliber of the Blackstone Rangers is notable. A small, ephemeral group in a small city is not. Ravenswing 00:03, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just to clarify: Salem, Oregon may be a "small city," but it is actually the second biggest city in the state of Oregon, AND the capital of the state. Copy Editor (talk) 18:14, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"........and this non-notable street gang hasn't generated a flea's bite on an ant's buttock of substantial coverage in independently published sources." No books. No coverage in scholarly papers. Not a peep outside a brief mention in the Statesman'. Carrite (talk) 21:59, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
BTW: Eugene and Salem are essentially tied for "second largest city in Oregon" honors at 156,000 each. And the Statesman has no place of dominance in the Willamette Valley, any more than the Eugene Register-Guard. The Oregonian is the state's newspaper of record and they've given no ink whatsoever to this street gang, so far as I'm aware. Carrite (talk) 22:07, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And here's a 2006 report of Oregon Attorney General Hardy Myers, Organized Crime in Oregon, detailing the significant street gangs in the state. MMP? No hay nada... Carrite (talk) 22:12, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A listing of "Oregon Gangs" on NorthwestGangs.com??? You guessed it... Carrite (talk) 22:17, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, well, it ceased to exist in the early 1990s, so it stands to reason that it wouldn't be included in a report from 2006. And in Salem, Oregon, the Statesman Journal IS the main paper read. People in Salem don't read The Oregonian as much, because -- surprise surprise -- it's about what's going on in Portland. Copy Editor (talk) 02:18, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So, the city of Salem is wrong when they list them as a gang? And, besides that, it doesn't exist anymore, so how could they be "wannabes"? lol. It would seem the first criterion to be a wannabe would be mere existence. lol Copy Editor (talk) 02:18, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:UNDUE. Neither article is written in the exhaustive depth that would warrant the mention of an ephemeral gang in a small area which doesn't seem to have done much of anything. Heck, there isn't any mention of current gang activity in those articles, which you'd think would be far better documented and far more pressing. Ravenswing 21:36, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Commenet "Small" is subjective. On a national scale, the entire state of Oregon is small. Geographically, it's large. But in terms of population, I think there are less people spread over the entire state of Oregon than crammed into New York City. The word "small" could be used to describe anything in Oregon; and this "small" area to which you refer encompasses, again, the second largest city in the state of Oregon (Salem) -- which is the state capital. And the police department of said city found this gang notable enough to mention them on their own website. Copy Editor (talk) 22:20, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Eugene is the second largest city in Oregon, not Salem. And unless the gang got a member elected to the house, I cannot see how the fact that Salem is the capital is in any way significant. The mention of the gang on the city's website is just one line and not of any significance. The mention of the gang in the newspaper article cited is also just of a passing nature. If you cannot find a source that even approximates the number of members or this particular gang's impact on the community, you really haven't got an article. Even if you could document those things, since it never affected anyplace other than Metro Salem, I highly doubt even then you would have enough for an article. Gtwfan52 (talk) 23:30, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it appears that, after a period during which Salem was the second most populous city in the state, the population of Eugene recently surpassed the population of Salem -- by all of 2,000 people. But setting that aside, please don't act like you aren't aware that things that take place in the capital city of a state are of significance for the entire state. And the idea that a street gang could have anything to do with getting a member elected to the house is just ridiculous, a really awful analogy. And I can't think of anything that could verify the existence of a gang better than being mentioned on the website maintained by the police in the city in which the gang was based. Copy Editor (talk) 04:01, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
May I ask something? What is the point of all this filibustering, attempting to refute the comments of virtually every editor? If you're trying to argue that we should believe this gang to be important, this isn't the venue for it. If you're trying to argue that the article meets the requirements of the GNG, WP:ORG or WP:CLUB, that was a lost cause a couple weeks back. WP:KEEPCONCISE ... Ravenswing 04:39, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I could turn that back around and ask you why you are asking me this question. Copy Editor (talk) 05:33, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In case this was addressed to me: I was framing my responses in the context of Wikipedia terminology. To my knowledge, the key word on Wikipedia is "notability" with regard to discussions such as this. Copy Editor (talk) 08:38, 20 September 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. The Bushranger One ping only 18:57, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Roberval dos Santos[edit]

Roberval dos Santos (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)

Questionable notability on an unsourced article. Unable to locate reliable sources for the article.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:35, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Useful for those who speak that language; was/is not readily available for those who speak English so it wasn't that simple to evaluate sources. I placed a ((findsources)) on the talk page but could not find sources that I could evaluate.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 11:02, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 13 September 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 Discussion closed. Article already deleted by someone else as G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement. Non-admin closure as "Pure housekeeping, such as ... where the page under discussion has been noncontroversially speedy deleted". Colapeninsula (talk) 09:26, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Lawrence (Writer)[edit]

Mark Lawrence (Writer) (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 author lacking ghits and gnews of substance. Fails WP:BIO. reddogsix (talk) 21:00, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 18:58, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia Association of Personnel Services[edit]

Georgia Association of Personnel Services (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 found only trivial mentions. The national organization that this belongs to has no article as well. SL93 (talk) 19:06, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 6 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) 18:26, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 18:58, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Underwolf Records[edit]

Underwolf Records (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 record company lacking GHITs and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:COMPANY. It look as if the artists have gotten some critical notice, but I do not see any coverage for the company.reddogsix (talk) 17:07, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

* WP:JAZZ notified. AllyD (talk) 20:13, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 6 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) 18:25, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The one source you cite as providing significant coverage (at least for me) couldn't be opened properly and is just a front-cover. Regardless, one solitary source cannot possible be considered "significant coverage" or even "sources" (plural), even if the subject were the focus of one of the articles (though given the company doesn't appear on the front cover, this would have to be queried). The company does not inherit notability from its stable of artists or their recordings. In fact, the guidelines address this specifically - "not every manufacturer of a notable product is itself notable; not every organization to which a notable person belongs [...] is itself notable". Nor does the company inherit notability from an event it has helped to organise. Sorry, but unless someone can produce some reliable sources that give significant coverage to the organisation itself, it is going to struggle to meet WP:GNG. Stalwart111 (talk) 05:46, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Ant Harness (talk) 00:27, 13 September 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. JaGatalk 18:49, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Innocence of Muslims[edit]

Innocence of Muslims (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 film, and more accurately, the part of the film that has received media coverage (a YouTube trailer) do not meet the basic notability requirements for having a dedicated article on the film. Per WP:Notability (films) "To presume notability, reliable sources should have significant coverage. Examples of trivial coverage include newspaper listings of screening times and venues, 'capsule reviews', plot summaries without critical commentary, or listings in comprehensive film guides". Coverage of this movie so far falls clearly within the "trivial coverage" definition.

Furthermore, it does not meet other specific criteria for notability as set for in WP:Notability (films). To the contrary, it is not "widely distributed" (it has only been screened in its entirety one time!); it has not "received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics". Nor is it historically notable, firstly because Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and secondly because it does not meet any of the historically notable criteria in the notability guideline which require a time lapse of at least 5 years since the movie's initial release, a major award for excellence, preservation in a national archive or being taught as a subject at a university with a recognized film program. Adequate notations regarding the film can be entered in other articles related to negative views on Islam, attacks on US embassies and the bio of a notable person who was murdered. In short, this movie fails notability in many ways and should be deleted. KeptSouth (talk) 18:24, 12 September 2012 (UTC)KeptSouth (talk) 18:31, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:46, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Harris (Pennsylvania politician)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Mark Harris (Pennsylvania politician) (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 stub was deleted in 2006. The individual is no more notable now than then, despite the inclusion of two footnotes. While the two references in the stub do support the matter suggested, neither article is about Harris, and both barely mention him. All the reasons on the Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mark_Harris_(Pennsylvania_politician) page are still applicable, and the stub should be deleted pursuant to the reasons there as well as the following:


I have swapped the nominating statement to the text from Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Harris (Pennsylvania politician) (2nd nomination) as that is the more recent version. Monty845 18:28, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:48, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:48, 13 September 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. Rlendog (talk) 18:49, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bayern, des samma mia[edit]

Bayern, des samma mia (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 and merge into Haindling. SarahStierch (talk) 08:05, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 30 August 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) 14:53, 5 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) 18:20, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:46, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thorns (Takida album)[edit]

Thorns (Takida 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)

Non-notable demo album. Sigwald (talk) 07:33, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 30 August 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) 14:52, 5 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) 18:19, 12 September 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. Overcome by events. The Bushranger One ping only 18:59, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Ball (rugby player)[edit]

Jake Ball (rugby player) (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 and WP:NRU Hack (talk) 13:48, 5 September 2012 (UTC) Withdrawn - now meets WP:NRU Hack (talk) 03:56, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 6 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) 18:18, 12 September 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. The Bushranger One ping only 18:59, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Gordon[edit]

Victor Gordon (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 artist lacking GHITS and GNEWS of substance. A few primary references - interviews, but lacks secondary references. Has been nominated for a few local prizes, won one local award, and has had a number of exhibits, but fails WP:ARTIST and WP:BIO. Original article resembled a resume. reddogsix (talk) 10:15, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 6 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) 18:17, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:46, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Broadleaf Commerce[edit]

Broadleaf Commerce (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)

Missing notability and no references from reliable sources Nsendetzky (talk) 16:17, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 07:26, 5 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) 18:17, 12 September 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) 14:52, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Onyx Primal[edit]

Onyx Primal (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)

In-universe description of a fictional character. No secondary sources to indicate notability. --Craw-daddy | T | 22:16, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 07:13, 5 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) 18:15, 12 September 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 National Assembly for Wales election, 2007#Constituency nominations. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:47, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nia Davies[edit]

Nia Davies (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)

Was a malformed AfD, but I noticed that this seems to fall short of WP:GNG in a large way. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:57, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 13 September 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. There is a consensus that this subject doesn't pass the general notability guideline due to the lack of independence of the sources. There doesn't seem to be agreement on whether the Forbes reference should be regarded as independent or not, but in either case one source alone is not usually considered enough to prove notability. After factoring in the additional concerns about the promotional nature of the article, deletion seems to be the most appropriate course of action. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 14:59, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2-4-8 tax blend[edit]

2-4-8 tax blend (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 appears to be a blatant attempt by the backers of this tax reform plan to promote the plan on Wikipedia. Although this plan has received some attention in the blogosphere, most if not of the actual news hits for this term arise from extensive comments left on various news sites by the plan's founder. Although extensively cited, the article appears to fall deeply into the synthesis category. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:56, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

or userfy pending more sources or move to Wikibooks or Wikiversity per below. Unable to find additional reputable sources. —Cupco 03:21, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If you read the Forbes item closely, you will note that it is a post written by the founder of the 2-4-8 Tax Blend movement, Eugene Devany. Basically, he commented on a blog post by a Forbes author, and the Forbes author liked the comment enough to allow Devany to post his manifesto on the Forbes blog site. The "5200 verbatim google hits" result largely from the fact that Devany is posting comments to just about every website he can find to talk up this plan. (Check the actual source of the "2-4-8" hit on any of the top google hits to see what I mean.) As for synthesis and original research, the entire article consists of conclusions about the effectiveness of this tax proposal that are based on the author's own research, rather than on any actual independently published facts. One egregious example:
    Elimination of the employee share of the payroll tax also results in a 7 1/2% increase in take home pay for workers. This is sufficient to increase consumer spending and to create the kind of demand for goods and services that justify adding jobs to the payroll.
While it may be true that this play will result in a 7.5% increase in take home pay for workers, it is a gross leap of faith to assume that this will increase consumer spending enough to cause a growth in jobs. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:04, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure whether the Forbes piece qualifies as an interview. In any case, again, I would prefer to err on the side of inclusion in this case. I agree that your example of synthesis constitutes puffery, and suggest that you mark such statements instead of removing the entire article. —Cupco 19:09, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since Delany wrote the Forbes piece himself, it can't be considered independent coverage. If you can find any independent coverage (i.e. actual news articles written about this proposal, rather than comments written by Delany to other news stories), I would be interested in seeing them. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:21, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm gonna get out of the way on this one. It's pretty obvious we've got a Single Purpose Editor trying to use WP as a political publicity mechanism, which is something we should avoid as much as we're able. Carrite (talk) 03:02, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. After failing in WikiDan61's find-more-than-one-independent-source challenge, I'm considering changing to Userfy or maybe a sister project move. What would this be? Wikiversity? Wikibooks? —Cupco 03:20, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
1. Issue: Promotional Style (not appropriate for an encyclopedia)
1Q. This appears to be a blatant attempt by the backers of this tax reform plan to promote the plan on Wikipedia.
1A. The article was written to share the 2-4-8 Tax Blend with the world (why else would any article be written) but an effort was made not to write in a style that was not argumentative, promotional or sound like an advertisement. The original draft was rewritten to accommodate this concern. If you can identify any remaining language that you consider to be promotional I am reasonably sure that it can be corrected.
2. Vetting of the 2-4-8 Tax Blend (the use of responses and comments to tax articles is unorthodox)
2Q. Although this plan has received some attention in the blogosphere, most if not of the actual news hits for this term arise from extensive comments left on various news sites by the plan's founder.
2A. A search of "2-4-8 Tax Blend" in Google or Bing will confirm many hits and in 2011-2012 this is a perfectly proper way of vetting a tax plan since it has such an interdisciplinary nature (i.e. law, politics, economics, public administration, accounting, psychology, and even taxation). Indeed, the nature of the topic required an honest promotion in a wide range of publications in order to reach a broad audience and to allow public feedback and criticism. [Some critisim is contained at the official site in the Real Q. & A. page but it was deleated because the Q & A sounded a bit too promotional].
The publications have included: The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, Business Insider, Hawaii Reporter, Hartford Independent Examiner, The New Republic, Financial Times, The Hill, Vanity Fair, Forbes, CNN, National Journal, Las Cruces Sun News, Dallas News, Reuters, Chicago Headline Club, Chicago Tribune, Bloomberg, World Magazine, The Fiscal Times, Los Angeles Times, U.S. News, In News Tribune, America, National Catholic Reporter, Politico, The Miami Herald, Slate, CNN World, Huffington Post, Los Angeles Times, The Daily Caller, NY Post, Advisor One, The American Prospect, Mother Jones, Governing, FoxNews.com, The Kansas City Star, Bangor Maine Daily News, and TownHall (to name just those articles and responses documented on the official TaxNetWealth.com website).
The official site is also the work product of an Attorney Tax Advocate and it is devoted to the 2-4-8 Tax Blend and does not in any way promote attorney services. Thus the website falls into the catagory of an expert website on a particular issue.
3. Synthesis Category
3Q.Although extensively cited, the article appears to fall deeply into the synthesis category.
3A. Wikipeadia has articles on other tax plans and it is not clear how they differ from a “synthesis” perspective. An example or elaboration could be very helpful.
4. Constitutional
4Q. I am not at all convinced a wealth tax doesn't require a constitutional amendment
4A. I happen to be an attorney (with A’s in Con Law) and only the Supreme Court can resolve this issue for sure. There are no cases on point. To say that something might be leaglly uncertain does not seem to be appropriate to the 2-4-8 Tav Blend article. The issue came up in the Wealth Tax talk pages and I supplied outside legal opinion on the subject. Indeed, it came up in a post I made to the NY Times just today. See http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/11/mitt-romney-carried-interest-and-capital-gains/?comments#permid=37
5. Rewrite DONE
5Q. Puffery: Elimination of the employee share of the payroll tax also results in a 7 1/2% increase in take home pay for workers. This is sufficient to increase consumer spending and to create the kind of demand for goods and services that justify adding jobs to the payroll
5A. The above sentence was changed and opposing references have been added.
Please disregard any error in Wiki protocol. Thank you, 248TaxBlend (talk) 21:52, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
At the suggestion above I have also reread the Wiki Conflict of Interest guidelines and I am certain that there is no conflict of interest with my participation in writing the article. I have no financial, autobiographical, campaigning or legal interest. The section about citing oneself notes, “Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest. Using material you yourself have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant and conforms to the content policies, particularly WP:SELFPUB. Excessive self-citation is strongly discouraged. : My name as author is used only twice in regard to the original 2005 submission to the President’s Tax Panel and again in the Forbes article that challenged me to make a case for a wealth tax in the U.S. This certainly falls within the policy guidelines particularly since the Forbes article was referenced but not quoted. The “make a case” style of the Forbes article is not appropriate to the writing style of Wikipedia even if the facts in the article could be presented in a neutral style.
On the issue of the Notability requirement the Wiki guide notes, “Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things like fame, importance, or popularity—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject that meets the guidelines …:” In this regard notability needs to be viewed in the context of tax reform and wealth taxation and tax blends. As far as I can tell Wikepedia has a reference to 12 tax reforms including the 2-4-8 Tax Blend. The first 7 have historical interest and only the last five are plans occasional in the news or discussed in the blogosphere.
• Automated payment transaction tax
• Efficient Taxation of Income
• Hall–Rabushka flat tax
• Kemp Commission
• Taxpayer Choice Act
• USA Tax
• 9–9–9
• 2-4-8 tax blend
• Competitive Tax Plan
• FairTax
• Flat tax
• Value Added Tax
The elimination of the 2-4-8 Tax Blend would leave a great void in what many consider as the most important issue of our generation. It is the only viable plan that includes a wealth tax. While this aspect goes to the merits and public acceptance of the plan but not to whether the article is a notable contribution. Indeed the Wiki editors (apparently from the taxation project) rated the article as involving a subject of more than minor importance and good quality. It is clear that the 2-4-8 Tax Blend is the most notable tax plan to include a net wealth tax and that feature makes it very unpopular in certain circles. During the Republican convention Grover Norquist attended an affair where he said “I’m not French. I’m not bragging. I’m just telling the truth.” The “joke” came after I had written several pieces indicating that Mr. Romney lived in France, was familiar with a tax blend and his closest supporters had urged the adoption of a VAT and wealth tax. I had also previously written dozens of comments indicating that the 2-4-8 Tax Blend does not violate the no-tax pledge. This political discussion is well beyond the scope of a Wiki article but is highlights why some people have a bias and why the plan is very controversial to some.
The use of the phrases, “share one's great ideas with the world” and “one man's manifesto” suggest a strong bias on the part of the editor. The strengths and weaknesses of the tax plan stand on their own and it does not matter who had the rather simple idea (or how many additional years it took to realize that the plan might be more useful than originally thought). The word manifesto (used by the editor) means a written public declaration of the intentions, motives, or views of the issuer ... and there is nothing in the 2-4-8 Tax Blend article which indicates anything other than the plan may be a better way to tax and help the economy. It is not about the personal motives or politics of the author [which are not disclosed]. It is also difficult to understand the claim that the article contains a, “part where the author asserts that this tax plan is a good answer to the current economic woes”. I have reread the article and no where does the author vouch for the plan. Indeed, the simple 2-4-8 elements are outlined, the economic issues are discussed with independent references and the reader is left to consider the reasonableness of the facts presented.
I need to also add that the heading “Goals” was added by another editor and the submitted article had this paragraph merely as a continuation of the earlier table. The paragraph introduced economic issues that would be affected: investment, jobs, fairness/deferral/tax avoidance and wealth distribution. The original author did not say that changing these issues was a “goal” of the plan. The use of the heading Goal makes it sound as if the author had a political or social agenda and set out to design a tax plan to accomplish it. This is false. Indeed the enormous wealth distribution and the trillions in tax deferrals (at least at the corporate level) did not exist when the plan was proposed. The plan was also proposed years before there was a housing bubble, a recession or high rates of unemployment. Thus the items listed really could not have been a foreseeable “goals” of the 2-4-8 Tax Blend. It is more fair to consider that the plan was initially proposed for reasons of general fairness and efficiency and that the subsequent economic crisis has created or aggravated issues which the plan would directly affect – perhaps in positive ways.
248TaxBlend (talk) 02:33, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is mentioned to acknowledge how difficult it is not just to apply the wiki “dogma” but also to formulate it as one comes across a palpably notable subject that is on the fringe of interdisciplinary fields and has evolved in an unorthodox manner.  :248TaxBlend (talk) 16:01, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What? Are you actually suggesting that because I have an interest in 17th century Church history that all my comments relating to (entirely unrelated) Wikipedia content should be viewed in that context? As insults go, that's not a very clever one. In fact, it has to be one of the silliest things I've read for a very long time. That essay (which is a user essay - an opinion) was almost entirely about geographic context eg. the fact that there are fewer newspapers in Africa should not make all subjects in Africa automatically less notable because there is generally less "coverage". The concerns in the second half of the essay have since been recognised by the wider Wikipedia community and new (more contextual) guidelines for association football are now in place to differentiate between different "professional" leagues in different countries. Suggesting either of those concepts apply here and quoting it out of context is laughably ironic. You have still done nothing to demonstrate the notability of this subject beyond giving your opinion (again) that it should be afforded some special treatment because you have personally deemed it to be special and worthy of special treatment. Wikipedia's guidelines have been established over a very long period of time and have been tested many times over in relation to theories "on the fringe" and concepts ahead of their time. They can be changed, and there are processes in place to allow them to change. You are free to join any of the myriad conversations about whether they should change and how. But this conversation is about this article and whether or not it currently meets current guidelines. Feel free to present evidence (rather than more personal opinion or half-baked insults). Stalwart111 (talk) 23:48, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did not anticipate that anyone, including Stalwart111, would take my words as an "insult". The style may have been overly cute by playing off the 17th Century Church and wiki "dogma". I think I spent too many years in the minor seminary and that is "laughably ironic". I apologise and wish to indicate that the sentence quoted makes sense to me because "context can often make the difference between notable and not-notable". This thought certainly has application beyond the 17th century and beyond Aftican geography or sports. I also agree that my humble opinion on notability, standing alone, would not be sufficient 248TaxBlend (talk) 02:47, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. It is difficult to have these conversations between very uninvolved editors (who may not have ever come in contact with detailed tax theory generally, let alone this particular one) and very involved editors, especially where a conflict of interest is involved. An assertion of policy from one side can often be viewed as a personal insult by the other because the topic is "near and dear" to them. I understand it must be hard to believe in something passionately only to have a community of people (who might quite rightly be described as as "less knowledgeable" of the topic) tell you your idea is "not notable". Please understand they do not mean you are less worthwhile or your ideas are less valid than others. They are part of a community that has developed very detailed (and perhaps strict) rules to ensure an encyclopaedic resource does not become bogged down with every thought anyone ever had. For that we have Twitter and Facebook. To differentiate between mere tweets and a Wikipedia entry, the community have put in place certain standards and your article is being judged against those. I actually think your work might be a case of WP:TOOSOON and approaching it on that basis might be worthwhile. Do some work away from Wikipedia to get your ideas noticed, continue to talk to papers, continue to promote your theory and build coverage of it. A few well-written articles by serious journalists or academics would probably push this article over the line. Then come back (perhaps get someone to do the actually writing to avoid further conflict of interest accusations) and give it another crack. At the moment the subject is at the point where people can argue about the article's merits, so they will. Do some work offline and put it beyond doubt. Wikipedia is not the place to promote your idea - it's the place to record its encyclopaedic merit once is had found its place in history. Stalwart111 (talk) 05:21, 14 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]
I believe that to apply any test fairly you must first separate the message from the messenger, or in this case, the author of the article from the content. The 2-4-8 Tax Blend was essentially described in one sentence in 2005 but the Panel’s decision to limit the scope of potential tax reform rendered it inapplicable to the panel’s narrowed purposes. Now imagine that a Great recession follows and prolonged unemployment and a Mr. Jones, Esq. realizes that the tax blend first described by a Mrs. Smith in 2005 has potential utility. Mr. Jones proceeds to solicit feedback in the blogosphere until the top publication for tax reform, Forbes, (through an attorney-CPA columnist) invites Mr. Jones to explain why and how a wealth tax could be feasible in the U.S. (and implemented in a revenue neutral manner). Keep in mind that Steve Forbes wrote the seminal “The Flat Tax Revolution: Using a Postcard to Abolish the IRS” (2005) and that Forbes Magazine is renowned for focusing on wealth and the tax strategies of the wealthy. After Mr. Jones publishes the article, “Creating New Wealth by Taxing Net Wealth” comment come in but to the great surprise of the Forbes editors (and Mr. Jones) none of the comments identify a legal, logical or economic reason why the significant claims in the article would not work. The idea has been vetted in an appropriate publication of record with an expected audience of interest in the particular subject matter. Moreover the introduction to the article challenged the reader to consider the feasibility of the plan (-“you be the judge”). The editors at Forbes are reputable in the subject of tax reform and some deference should be given to their obvious judgment about what is notable.
Getting back to the fact that Mrs. Smith and Mr. Jones did not write anything compels a fair look at the actual words of the article and not on who wrote it or why. If there is no bias in the words the article should stand. Indeed, the greatness of Wiki comes from the ability of editors to change and improve articles even to the point where the language of any editor, including the original, is left on the cutting room floor.
248TaxBlend (talk) 16:01, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is not very helpful to comment that an article is “too promotional to be acceptable” and fail to identify even a single line that reads in a promotional style and to further proceed to opine that the article is “too difficult to rescue”. Perhaps DGG never actually read the wiki article because he writes,

“the article above is promotional: "Moreover the introduction to the article challenged the reader to consider the feasibility of the plan". Challenging the reader to consider a plan is not encyclopedic writing, but advocacy.”

The "claimed objectionable” introduction was to the Forbes article and not to the Wiki article at all. I implore DGG to read the wiki article and to reconsider his opinion if it has been made in error (or at least to point out what is promotional). I know DGG has a, “dislike for deciding matters by technicalities rather than by merits … not hidebound, definitions of ‘sources’ and ‘notability’ appropriate to the way people communicate in the 21st century” See DGG, Biases section.
248TaxBlend (talk) 01:53, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with quoting that part of that guideline is that the very next sentence is, "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation". So yes, you can cite your primary sources, but your interpretation of them is still original research. Someone else (a reliable, independent source) must have interpreted them that way, and the combination can then be used as a reference.
Anything that makes any claim (promotional or derogatory) must be referenced. Any portion that makes a claim about the benefit of the idea must be sourced. There are whole tracts (7 paragraphs in a row when I counted) which talk of the benefits of the idea without providing a source. That is all promotional because it is your opinion of the benefits of the idea which have not been backed-up by others. If it does not have a source then it is original research. That is the benefit of having independent media provide coverage of the idea - once they have made the same claims, we can cite that material and repeat the claim in the article. If I were to remove all of the unreferenced material from that article now, there would be almost nothing left. That's the problem. Stalwart111 (talk) 05:21, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I should also say that while it is not always the case, it is often the case that articles created by those with a very clear conflict of interest fail to meet WP:GNG. The argument goes that if the subject was notable enough (per Wikipedia guidelines), one of the many regular Wikipedia contributors would have taken the subject to WP:AFC or would have created it of their own volition. If it appears regularly in the news, in scholarly articles or is regularly referenced elsewhere on Wikipedia (caveat: WP:WINARS), it should (in theory) come to the attention of contributors and an article will be created for it. If there is so little coverage of a subject that it takes someone very close to it to create an article, it is likely too soon for that article, or the subject simply doesn't meet guidelines to the extent that it should have an article. It is one of the reasons why COI editing is strongly discouraged. There are always exceptions, but I don't think this is one of them. Stalwart111 (talk) 05:43, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI hope you guys and gals are enjoying this. I [name should be changed from 248TaxBlend to EugenePatrickDevany] wish to thank Stalwart111 for his further comments above because they have opened my eyes to the way two or more people can look at the same words and perceive entirely different things. The comment states, “There are whole tracts (7 paragraphs in a row when I counted) which talk of the benefits of the idea without providing a source.” I do not know if this is a statement of fact or opinion, or if it was influenced by the title “Goals” which is a false and inaccurate title added by another editor (see second comment under name 248TaxB;end, last paragraph). The four issues discussed are standard items one would consider of any tax reform plan but they are not “benefits” - unless the reader has a predisposition to a desired effect or outcome that the tax plan should produce.

  1. The first WP issue relates to behavioral economics and how the tax change alters incentives and creates what the author describes as a “carrot and stick” effect from the interplay between the wealth tax, the lower income tax rate and the elimination of the capital gains tax. If the reader is predisposed to accept government’s use of negative reinforces (the threat of punishment by the government, the nanny state, etc.) the reader may judge the combined incentives to be beneficial. If the reader is predisposed to think that the government should avoid using non-essential penalties in the tax code (as some believe about the new health care requirement) than the combined incentives will not be viewed as “benefits” to the reader. The reader will judge the added coercion of the tax code as not being beneficial. The discussion presents the facts but leaves the issue of if or how beneficial the new incentives would be to the reader.
  2. The second WP issue relates to job creation and one might expect all readers to find job creation as beneficial. However the analysis flows from the proposed elimination of all payroll taxes and the number of new jobs that can be expected is not certain. More importantly, those who like the current Social Security funding system and its 80 years of history will not find a new tax base to be beneficial. Those who feel that workers should pay more in taxes will not find this beneficial. The facts are presented to the reader without going off on a tangent speculating about which reader may support the payroll tax system. Indeed, there are no doubt some who would oppose any reduction in business tax rates under any circumstances. The point of the issue is that the 2-4-8 Tax Blend would encourage "some" job creation and not that it is beneficial to do so in this particular manner.
  3. The third WP issue relates to tax deferral and tax avoidance, and elaborates how the 2-4-8 Tax Plan would put an end to this. It does this primarily by replacing the capital gains tax with a net wealth tax that is the equivalent of taxing imputed income from the investment of all types of assets (whether or not they have been invested). To say that this is a “benefit” clearly reflects little more than the judgment of the reader. Congress, in its wisdom, has crafted a tax code that contains deferrals (and reduced rates) for capital gains which have been justified by any number of public policy reasons (well beyond the scope of the article). It is sufficient that the article explains the rules of how the tax deferrals would end and leave it to the reader to decide if this is beneficial.
  4. The last WP issue is wealth redistribution (and here again it is important to note that some other editor added the word “Alleviate” to the original title of “Wealth Redistribution”). This title change gives an impression that the author of the WP article has an agenda apart from explaining how wealth has been redistributed by the current tax code and how the 2-4-8 Tax Blend will alter that effect. The block quote from the 2005 Final Report makes it clear that the distributional effects of the tax code are a matter for Congress to determine and by implication that good people from both sides of the political spectrum, may in good conscience, let it stand. The WP article indicates that the 2-4-8 Tax Blend would change the distribution of income and wealth but does not conclude that the change would be more or less beneficial than that which Congress has put in place. The facts presented include a table which speaks for itself and a short discussion of the uncertain relation between the income and wealth gap and recession (or depression as Mr. Krugman likes to call it). The reader may examine the facts and come to his or her own conclusion about whether the kind of redistribution of wealth than can be expected from the 2-4-8 Tax Blend is or is not beneficial across the range of taxpayers.

I believe the subjective views of some editors could be unintentionally (and maybe unconsciously) clouding their judgment on not only the promotion issue (via subjective interpretation of what is a “benefit” vs. simply an “effect” of the plan) but also on the original research issue (via the assumption that data has been “interpreted” as opposed to simply being “expressed” and “presented”). It is important to understand that a tax plan may have simple components such as 2-4-8 and more complex effects on one or more economic issues. While there is no fixed limit to how data might be mathematically modeled, analyzed and projected it is also possible to present the components and use firmly established (static) data from standard tables, etc. and explanatory articles on the particular subject matter. An explanation of basic economic issues through secondary sources is not an “interpretation”.

  1. To say the Supreme Court now recognizes that a penalty in the tax code may be used to coerce desired behavior is not an “interpretation” it is a fact. To say that a net wealth tax operates in a similar way is simply using a well known example to explain how the net wealth tax component works, and is not an “interpretation” or elaboration in the sense of A plus B will lead to C. It is a simply fact that tax provisions A and B share negative reinforcement characteristics. No “interpretation” is involved. This explanation is not original research, it is original expression required of all WP editors.
  2. To say that lower taxes on business and more take home pay will effect job creation is not an “interpretation” it is simply an explanation that there is some effect between payroll tax elimination (reduction) and job creation. One reference gives an estimate of payroll tax rate changes and numbers of new jobs and other (footnote) references indicate that there is uncertainty and disagreement by experts as to the number of jobs that might be expected. There is no attempt to “interpret” the opinions to say one opinion is more reliable than the other or “interpret” the data to project something ridiculous like, “12,000,000 jobs will likely be created within two weeks of the election”. This explanation is not original research, it is original expression required of all WP editors.
  3. To say that tax deferral will end as a result of replacing the capital gains tax with a wealth tax is a simple fact. A footnote also discusses corporate tax deferral. To describe the importance of this change to the investment community with an illustration of the well known (and well referenced) finances of Warren Buffet is not an “interpretation” of anything. It is simply using a very good example to explain and contrast the issue in the context of the current tax code. This explanation is not original research, it is original expression required of all WP editors.
  4. To say that the income and wealth redistribution from the current tax code would end is also a simple logical fact. The use of table data to accurately show how the wealth distribution has changed since 1995 is a fact needed to quantify the issue in the context of the current tax code and is not an “interpretation”. The use of secondary sources to show that there “may” be a causal relation between recession and the income/wealth gap is not an “interpretation” and simply presents the opinion of others to convey the potential importance of the issue. This explanation is not original research, it is original expression required of all WP editors.

EugenePatrickDevany 18:26, 14 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 248TaxBlend (talk • contribs)

Mate, I think you have completely missed the point. It doesn't matter if you refer to them as benefits, effects, outcomes or results - the claims your make in the article need to be verified by sources and the claims in this article are not. Not just a little bit unsourced but a whole lot unsourced. It doesn't matter if the claims are positive (like claiming a "plan" will save all citizens thousands of dollars) or negative (like claiming a "plan" will ruin 4 of the 5 largest cities in the US) or completely neutral (like claiming the plan was first published on a particular date) - all claims must be verified. Your self-determined comparisons between "one editor's... is another editor's..." are way off the mark. As far as Wikipedia is concerned none of those personal opinions are relevant and in all cases there are very clear guidelines to determine what is and isn't appropriate. All you are doing is disregarding guidelines, spamming this AfD with yet more of your personal opinion and hoping people will get so bored reading your pages and pages of WP:OR opinionated drivel and that they'll just give in. Rather than just posting more and more of your nonsensical essays on how you would interpret guidelines if you had the chance or how you would amend guidelines to give your essays special consideration, how about you spend some time away from this AfD seeing if you can find even ONE piece of in-depth coverage from an independent reliable source? I think I've tried to be as nice as humanly possible - far nicer than most would be in the face of such ridiculous nonsense. But this is just getting silly. To begin with, and without posting another 5000 bytes of useless, opinionated cruft to go along with it, please post links to three independent, reliable sources that mention this subject ("2-4-8 tax blend") specifically and give it significant coverage. If you can then I'll shut up and leave this AfD alone. Go... (Stalwart111 (talk) 23:46, 16 September 2012 (UTC))[reply]
1. (paste link here)
2. (Paste link here)
3. (Paste link here)


  • Comment - I am displeased that Mr Devaney refuses to understand the Wikipedia policies involved here, and is somehow deluded into thinking that his own blog posting on Forbes constitutes an independent source, or that his own comments on every forum or news site that he can find constitute "notoriety" (his word, not mine), or that posting a comment at an open forum of the US government (at which any person could post any comment) constitutes a "submission to the President's Panel". Mr. Devaney, the notability of your plan is not in any way bolstered by your practice of spamming every site you can find with this proposal. It can only be indicated by other, independent writers choosing to look at your plan and write their own articles about it. Since not one single independent article can be found about this plan, it appears not to be notable. Whether or not the plan is viable, or reasonable, or legal is not the issue here. There are lots of Wikipedia articles about pie-in-the-sky ideas that never went anywhere, but they were well-covered in independent media. This plan has not been well-covered, and so deserves no place at Wikipedia. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:11, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - WikiDan may be “displeased” because his application to nominate the article for deletion does not meet his particular understanding for a “well-covered” requirement as part of the notability pre-condition. His use of words and phrases like, “refuses to understand”, “deluded”, “spamming” and “pie-in-the-sky” reveal his personal opinions about the article content and its author. The language and argument does not really advance the notability issue debate or how it was (or was not) met by the interaction with the editorial staff of Forbes and their invitation to write and decision to publish. It may be worth considering that Forbes is the premiere publication of its type and an article on the subject of comprehensive tax reform is quite rare (because of its legal complexity an potential to make the publishers look foolish for printing it, if there is a legal or logical flaw). Few publishers are willing to take the risk. EugenePatrickDevany 20:19, 17 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 248TaxBlend (talk • contribs)
  • Seriously? It's a nomination, not an application, and you can nominate anything you like and the community then has a chance to reach a consensus about whether the article should remain on Wikipedia or not. There are very clear guidelines for what should and shouldn't be included. Often, there is conjecture about how many sources an article needs or whether or not the sources in question are appropriate or whether they meet guidelines. In this case, you have offered up no independent, reliable sources to verify notability. Instead you have offered us more and more and more of your personal opinion and original research. We have given you the opportunity to list the sources on which you built your article (another purpose of the AfD process) and you have refused. You need to understand (and it is at the bottom of every article editing window, just to make sure) that there is a burden of proof with which all editors are expected to comply. By rights, any of the editors who came across your "article" could have simply removed the vast majority of the content and almost every single claimed "source" on the basis it completely failed the burden of proof and we wouldn't be having this conversation. The article would have been nominated for speedy deletion and wouldn't exist. Instead, WikiDan61 brought it here to give you (and others) the chance to demonstrate how it meets guidelines and to build a community consensus one way or the other. Rather than read the relevant policies, undertake additional research and make a reasoned contribution to this discussion, you have simply determined that anyone who doesn't agree with your OR theories is wrong and should be drowned out with pages and pages of nonsensical drivel. In the interests of good faith (but against my better judgement) I'm going to give you a chance to provide sources for your article. If you can't, or you refuse, or you refuse to focus on content, I will start removing un-sourced claims from the article in question (as is my responsibility as an editor here), as well as the unreliable "sources" themselves, on the basis that the author who put them there completely failed in their burden of proof. Stalwart111 (talk) 23:56, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Great! How about the very first sentence in the very first paragraph about what the 2-4-8 tax blend is? Given that a source created and maintained by the creator of the subject is obviously not an independent reliable source (IRS) for that subject, let's have an IRS for that - someone who has summarised what the plan does, other than you. Just the basics, nothing complicated. An independent source giving an introduction of what the plan does.
Let's also have a source for Section 1 - Tax Changes - at the moment it has a link back to your website and some original research notes, but no sources. Let's have an IRS for that - someone independent, of authority, who has given a detailed account of the changes that will result from the implementation of the plan.
Let's maybe have a source for any of the claims in Section 2 - Anticipated Economic Changes From the 2-4-8 Tax Blend that actually give coverage of these concepts in relation to the subject - this particular plan. Some of the generic claims are "sourced" but their relationship to this particular plan is entirely unfounded and un-sourced. The whole section is a list of unrelated claims (some sourced) which have been SYNTH'd together to make it look like the sources support the claims relating to this subject. They do not, and except for your self-published material, none of the sources make a link between those concepts and your idea. Let's have an IRS for that - someone independent, of authority, who can link your specific idea to any of the broader tax ideas in that paragraph.
Lets have a source for any of the suggestions in Section 3 - Administration, valuation and digital filing. At the moment there is one "source" for 7 whole paragraphs of original research and that "source" is your own website. That is not a reliable, independent source for this subject. Let's have one for each of those that actually relates to 2-4-8 specifically, from someone independent.
Let's start with those. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 05:19, 18 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]
In response to the unwarranted editorial intention of the editor who said, “I will start removing un-sourced claims from the article in question (as is my responsibility as an editor here), as well as the unreliable "sources" themselves, on the basis that the author who put them there completely failed in their burden of proof.” I invite consideration of the following:
Response 1: The introduction contains seven references and describes what the plan is and not what it does. Only the sponsors, as reported in the official website, can define what the components of the plan is. The Scoring Outline is referenced as the definitive guide to the proposed tax reform elements. A primary and unique aspect of the plan comes from its blend of three tax bases which is consistent with the definition of income and permitted measures of taxation described by tax law professors: Shakow, David and Shuldiner, Reed, “Symposium on Wealth Taxes Part II, New York University School of Law Tax Law Review, 53 Tax L. Rev. 499, Summer, 2000. There is no bias or inaccuracy in the introduction and no other “independent source giving an introduction of what the plan” is has been identified.
Response 2 This paragraph is a transition from the specific individual and corporate tax law changes and revenue estimates above to the four economic issues discussed below. There is no claim that other economic issues are not affected. The issues selected for discussion are fundamental and basic to tax reform and each is supported by independent sources as is discussed more fully below.
Response 3: The suggestion that, “the generic claims are ‘sourced’ but their relationship to this particular plan is entirely unfounded” is not sufficiently specific to formulate a response. In good faith a request had been made to copy the phrase or sentence that contains a claim that is un-sourced but this editor has declined to do so. The generic claim that, “none of the sources make a link between those concepts and your idea” is more likely do to the reader’s lack of familiarity with tax law and tax philosophy than with the specific content or expression. This tax reform article is not intended as a primer in the complex subject of U.S. Tax Law although numerous links to WP pages are provided for that purpose.
Response 4: See Response 3.
Response 5: See Response 3.
Response 6: This entire section relates to the administrative details of the 2-4-8 Tax Plan as taken directly from the official site. It relates to secondary issues of interest to tax reform advocates rather than to the broader economic issues discussed above. The topic is separated to avoid further complicating the main issues. The section contains no interpretation or analysis and, by its nature, has no source apart from the official website.
EugenePatrickDevany 15:44, 18 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 248TaxBlend (talk • contribs)
(I removed the sections of your response which were just cut-and-paste repeats of my comments - other editors can see what you are responding to above.)
So in summary - "No" - not one single source that gives significant coverage to the subject specifically that could be considered independent or reliable. Exactly as I suggested and exactly as I expected. Your claim, "Only the sponsors, as reported in the official website, can define what the components of the plan is" makes my point for me and is, in effect, an admission the article does not meet WP:GNG and should be deleted. You've pretty much said all that needs to be said. I'm done. Thanks for clearing that up for everyone. Stalwart111 (talk) 23:32, 18 September 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. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 14:27, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of films set in an unnamed city[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of films set in an unnamed city (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)

Trivial association (or really, a lack of one.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:38, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:43, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 13 September 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. Though I am closing this as "keep", that does not preclude editors discussing the possibility of a page move or a merge with another article (e.g. Street child) on the relevant talk page. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 14:25, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Street children in Eastern Europe[edit]

Street children in Eastern Europe (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)
A no-subject article to be deleted

Few questions for a start of deletion process:


Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:36, 13 September 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. Rlendog (talk) 18:36, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FitnessX Magazine[edit]

FitnessX Magazine (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)

May not meet [[WP:GNG]. Wylve (talk) 16:55, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:33, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:33, 13 September 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. No consensus that the Joe Shuster Awards automatically confer notability, and no other indication that the subject passes WP:WEB. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 13:37, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clone Manga[edit]

Clone Manga (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:WEB, all sources are primary, no secondary sourcing found. Having another webcomic's creator praise you does not equal notability. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:30, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I nuked a good deal of the article, as it was pretty non-neutral. I also removed the webcomic info boxes because the info could be best represented in the individual sections and the sections themselves were pretty slim after having the fan content removed.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:23, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also of note is that the compilation of Paper Eleven seems to have been self-published. I state this because I know at one point having your webcomics published in paper format was something that gave automatic notability. I don't think this is still the standard, but I wanted to voice that this was self-published through Lulu.04:28, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
  • The problem I ran into with the Schuster award is that there is little to no coverage of the award. Normally when an award is notable enough to warrant keeping an article on that basis alone, there's a ton of coverage for the award and usually at least a little coverage for the persons winning the awards in something other than a primary source. That just doesn't seem to exist in this situation, which is why I had to go through the Schuster award site for this. I would also like to add that this isn't a vote and that you'll have to find coverage in multiple independent and reliable sources to show that this award is notable enough to give absolute notability to where the award alone would keep the entry.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:42, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not necessarily. I've noticed that the argument for that is flawed because sometimes those awards aren't as notable as the articles would have you believe. If there was more coverage of this award in various sources I'd be more inclined to believe that a Wikipedia article equals notability, but there just isn't really that much out there about the award. A search brought up just under 50K worth of ghits and only a few handfuls of news sources. While that doesn't necessarily mean that the award can't be notable, it was enough to make me wonder if the award was major enough to be so notable that it'd keep the article based on the award alone. Most awards aren't at the level of major notability that merely winning the award keeps the article in and of itself. That's what my argument sort of surrounds: the award does seem to help notability but I don't know that it's so major that it'd keep the article on that basis alone. If you can bring up enough to show that the award is overwhelmingly notable I'd be willing to capitulate, but considering that this award has been around for eight years and has gotten such limited coverage is a little concerning to me.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 18:19, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not really? Just because the award's only been around for eight years doesn't negate its importance. I think that if the awards themselves are important enough to warrant a page then being a winner of said award should be enough to count as notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.71.91.15 (talk) 21:52, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Never assume that having an article gives notability. It could just mean that the article hasn't come up for deletion yet and to be honest, I've been debating nominating it because there just isn't a lot of coverage for this award to show that it really deserves an article. That's ultimately my concern here, that the award isn't really all that notable and that there's ZERO coverage of Kim winning the awards in independent and reliable sources. If you want to prove that the award is notable, work on showing coverage for the award. Other than trivial mentions of the award in relation to other people, I'm not seeing a lot of notability.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:33, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't say that just having an article created means it is notable. However, in this case, I would say that his comics winning multiple Shuester Awards might give it more notability than many other webcomics that still have articles and aren't being debated for deletion.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -Scottywong| confer _ 16:21, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS Mkdwtalk 06:37, 14 September 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. Rlendog (talk) 18:33, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gail Bowman[edit]

Gail Bowman (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)

KzKrann (talk) 16:00, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:27, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:27, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:28, 13 September 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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:12, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Protection of Women against Sexual Harassment at Workplace Bill, 2010[edit]

Protection of Women against Sexual Harassment at Workplace Bill, 2010 (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)

The content can be merged with Sexual_harassment#India. If declined, the page in its current form needs to be re-written to be encyclopedic. Much of the matter is copy-pasted from the Press Information Bureauwebsite. Sesamevoila (talk) 07:59, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 4 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, SarahStierch (talk) 15:51, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note on copyright compliance. The Press Information Bureau, Government of India (the source of the copypasted text), allows free re-publishing of their material for any purpose provided it is "reproduced accurately and not used in a derogatory manner or in a misleading context" and they are prominently credited as the source [17]. I've now marked the material as a direct quote and attributed the source both in the text of the article and in an inline citation. Voceditenore (talk) 09:57, 13 September 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) 14:54, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kevvu Keka[edit]

Kevvu Keka (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 future film. No significant coverage of this film project in any reliable sources. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:05, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:22, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:23, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
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) 14:54, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Nowman[edit]

Ali Nowman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Concern was No asserted notability. This remains valid. Mr. Nowman has not received significant coverage or played in a fully pro league, meaning the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:48, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:49, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:22, 13 September 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) 14:54, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Dreyer[edit]

Kevin Dreyer (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'm having a hard time finding more reliable sources that do more than merely mention Dreyer. THe majority of these sources are YouTUbe and primary. Appears to fail GNG to me. SarahStierch (talk) 18:29, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:19, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:19, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 5 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, — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 14:42, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#G3 blatant hoax. JohnCD (talk) 14:35, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Felipe Diego Junior[edit]

Felipe Diego Junior (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article appears to be a blatant hoax. Looking at the edit history, it has survived a PROD by having references added. However, all three of these references have nothing to do with the subject of the article. There is no online evidence of the existence of this player and the content of the article is essentially ludicrous. Google search brings back essentially no useful mention of this player by either his full name or his nickname.

Among the most ludicrous suggestions in the article are:

Needless to say none of this can be found anywhere, because its all nonsense. Should probably be a G3 but as it was referenced technically wasn't sure it would get through Fenix down (talk) 14:00, 12 September 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. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 00:45, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pagan Federation[edit]

Pagan Federation (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)

Organisation lacking coverage in independent reliable sources. Only part with any decent sourcing is the coatrack about a connected individual but that only has trivial coverage of Pagan Federation. I've found nothing better duffbeerforme (talk) 13:46, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:21, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:21, 13 September 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) 14:57, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hudson Relays[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Hudson Relays (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)

College tradition limited to a single campus, no real indication of notability, no effort to provide sources to prove notability per WP:GNG. Article is just a description of the race and a list of past winners, nothing of real encyclopedic value. Notability questioned since March 2009, without resolution. GrapedApe (talk) 11:41, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 6 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, Jenks24 (talk) 13:45, 12 September 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) 14:58, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All Stars (rap group)[edit]

All Stars (rap group) (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)

The only reference is not independent of the subject. The external link is an unreliable blog. The main things that I found in Google was unreliable sources and discographies. Google Books only turned up a mention of a California hip hop group and this band is from the UK. Google News and Highbeam turned up nothing. Fails WP:MUSIC. SL93 (talk) 01:24, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 6 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, Jenks24 (talk) 13:26, 12 September 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. Concerns about not meeting WP:GNG, and violating WP:OR and WP:SYN have not been adequately refuted. A convincing set of reliable sources on the subject has not been provided. Many keep voters express that the article should be rewritten from scratch. While there is consensus to delete the current version of this article, there should be no prejudice against re-creating the article as long as it is a scholarly article based on solid, reliable sources (assuming that is possible). In the meantime, I will redirect the article to Faux pas. -Scottywong| confabulate _ 18:08, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fashion faux pas[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Fashion faux pas (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:N/WP:GNG: no coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources Curb Chain (talk) 08:44, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry, I can't. Therefore keep, because whatever is wrong with this article's quality, that's all firmly in the territory of WP:SOFIXIT and there's no reason I can stick a pin in that allows me to delete this. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:40, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically from WP:USEFUL:
While I do accept it fails WP:GNG, I think an argument can be made that the article is useful for bringing together a collection of marginally notable concepts, each of which falls into the same category. Stalwart111 (talk) 04:53, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
None of the concepts can be considered a fashion faux pas because they are not categorized as such by multiple independent reliable secondary sources. Note the last citation you mentioned, it uses it as an adjective: the compound word is only found in the headline (of the article) so it does not discuss "fashion faux pas" in depth.Curb Chain (talk) 04:57, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of the other sources you cite discuss "fashion faux pas" in depth.Curb Chain (talk) 05:01, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think you mean the second one, right? The last is the name of a product. I did say each gave the term a passing mention rather than any form of in-depth coverage and I certainly wouldn't consider any of them to be reliable sources. I also acknowledged that it probably doesn't pass WP:GNG as a result. This is probably a bit closer to usable - it actually gives a definition for the term. But that won't be enough to meet WP:GNG. Stalwart111 (talk) 05:25, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I mean the 1st, 2nd, and now this 4th one also. If they don't meet WP:GNG then your opinion on "Weak keep" is kind of void IMO.Curb Chain (talk) 07:20, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My weak keep opinion was based on the fact that I thought a usefulness argument could be made and I still believe it can. It's not a vote, it's a WP:CONSENSUS and an administrator will need to decide if a consensus has been reached or not. I imagine if I'm the only one making a usefulness argument and everyone else strongly disagrees then consensus will be reached outside my contribution anyway. Stalwart111 (talk) 07:58, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That argument is not useful here (pun unintended). Articles are kept on the basis of notability and the list of examples are not sourced and probably impossible to source. To be honest, the collation of examples is a clear breach of WP:SYN.Curb Chain (talk) 08:04, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And they can also be kept on the basis of usefulness - "usefulness can be the basis of a valid argument for inclusion". I don't think they are impossible to source - In 200x, David Beckham was described as having committed a "fashion faux pas" when he wore socks and sandals...[cite]. I just think if we cut this one up and send each section back to their respective articles (socks and sandals to socks and sandals) or merge the whole thing into dress code we're going to create an unwieldy page / set of pages and we'll end up back at AfC in a few months time. Again, my position was weak keep and I won't die in a ditch over it - just my opinion. Stalwart111 (talk) 23:40, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A claim of "it can be sourced" sound more like "i can write whatever I want, eventually it will be sourced". Hardly a reason for usefulness.Curb Chain (talk) 03:16, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's really two different arguments. I didn't suggest "it can be sourced" (not sure where that quote is from), in fact I conceded it didn't meet WP:GNG. However, I believe the article is useful enough to merit inclusion. You are, as I said, free to disagree. Stalwart111 (talk) 04:47, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You said that you don't think they are impossible to source suggesting they can be sourced. Being useful, well most thing are useful, but that we don't include everything on the planet.Curb Chain (talk) 06:34, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that was in relation to the individual examples listed therein, not the subject of the article. The usefulness argument is in relation to the subject itself - a collation of those individual examples. Sorry, perhaps I should have made that clearer. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 06:52, 5 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]
The existence of available sources means the article can be rehabilitated, and so should not be deleted. "Existence" does not mean presence in the article already. Further, the exact phrase "fashion faux pas" is not required to be present exactly like that in every source, as the nominator appears to be arguing: it can be a paraphrase, as long as the notion of a faux pas related to fashion is clearly made. Also definitions need not be explicitly stated, because, yes, sources differ in their individual opinions about an instance of a faux pas, but they can all be found to agree about the nature of what one is. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a dictionary, and in fact we do not cite dictionaries as sources, as they are WP:TERTIARY sources, just like Wikipedia, who derive their reliability from that of their sources, just as we do. Some deletions were arguably valid (JPG source), but some deletions were arguably not valid: cited author, blog under newspaper/magazine, or "not notable". This deletion removed arguably relevant cited content, deemed "not notable" - WP:N, in its first page, specifically states that it is not a criterion for inclusion of content of articles, only entire articles themselves. Since there is a distinct possibility, assuming good faith, that the adding editors were unclear on the concept that RS means prose, not images. Because this article already survived one AfD, this is an issue of editor education, not deletion of a non-notable topic by any means. I agree with User:Colapeninsula's wish that this article be dramatically improved, re-written, and its scope widened beyond the tabloid/celebrity focus. Therefore, I advocate keep, with revisiting in, say, 3 or 6 months. --Lexein (talk) 17:31, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TERTIARY sources are permissible in a limited fashion such as providing definitions but cannot be used extensively to write whole articles. It is a common mistake so not to worry. The bottom line is that your claim that we do not cite tertiary sources is not true. Regarding "... a notion ..."/the nature of a "fashion faux pas", Yes, we DO need a definition as all the examples are otherwise original research. That deletion was because it was an entry of trivia so I deleted it. In anycase I did not quote WP:N in the edit summary as if I was referring to that protocol for my reason for removing that prose. Are you saying that every nominator who renominates an article for deletion should take some sort of course? And should the nominator go through this course after the 3 or 6 months if s/he decides it should be deleted?Curb Chain (talk) 03:13, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But part of making Wikipedia useful is to have indexes, lists, portals, summaries, and overviews that refer you to individual articles. How is putting it in jeans and a dozen other articles going to help people who want to know about fashion faux pas? Wikipedia isn't just about squeezing in information somewhere, it's about making information available to people. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:54, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd believe you if you gave me some consistent reliable sources.Curb Chain (talk) 20:05, 7 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, — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 13:21, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In response toColapeninsula (talk) above, putting here as it's a new comment:

I can see a weak case for a general article on the subject, but I can't really see it being much more than the definition "someone somewhere is wearing something that other people don't think should be worn". Which could be practically anything, anywhere really. One source will say faux pas, another source will say not... Fashion is so contradictory like that." Mabalu (talk) 15:00, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Mabalu (talk) 11:11, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Patently wrong. Not everyone who wants to delete the article agrees that it is an encyclopedic topic and it isn't.Curb Chain (talk) 18:33, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add my dissent to Curb Chain's: this is not an encyclopedia topic—it's a dictionary definition. Ammodramus (talk) 00:21, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yours is a common misunderstanding of WP:NOTDIC. There are also those who said that anything related to fashion is just unencyclopedic opinion; that's simply WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Criticism in fashion (such as pointing out "faux pas") can be treated encyclopedically. What is needed are wp:secondary and preferably academic sources. (They exist, but are pretty hard to find among the deluge of fashion magazines, e.g. [32] has a discussion.) This article should be deleted because it relies exclusively on wp:primary sources (where it cites any sources at all). There ware way too many expressions of opinion about one or other fashion "faux pas" out there (something that's actually said in the source I just gave you, ha!), so an article constructed from primary sources would indeed be rather wp:indiscriminate. Tijfo098 (talk) 03:30, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced and unsource-able is a reason for deletion. Needing better quality sources (which provably exist) is not a good WP:DEL-REASON, right there on the policy page. --Lexein (talk) 05:37, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My rationale meets the letter of the policy: as "any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia". If you'd rather discuss the contents of the article instead of wikilawyering, I'm open to substantive dialogue. Tijfo098 (talk) 12:59, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not patently wrong: Enough deleters agree that "is encyclopedic", to simply keep and improve.See also WP:DEL-REASON. --Lexein (talk) 05:37, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it is patently wrong, as I see none of the deleters used the phrase "is encyclopedic".Curb Chain (talk) 20:15, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's up to what reliable sources say on the topic, and there are plenty of them. See my Keep, above. Present flaws aside, there are reliable, and even scholarly, resources on the subject, therefore, deletion is not WP:DEL-REASON called for. If RS relevant sources exist, keep, even if one must grit one's teeth. --Lexein (talk) 05:37, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, I still don't see any really good sources that could bring this article to anything more than a dictionary definition. You could have historical examples, I guess, but I hope we can at least agree the current ones need to go? I mean, I think socks and sandals are just fine, why is it a fashion screw up? Matthew Thompson talk to me bro! 06:59, 23 September 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) 15:00, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Global Allergy Network[edit]

Global Allergy Network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable, CSD repeatedly removed by creator, promotional by COI editor. GregJackP Boomer! 11:35, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. What does factual have to do with it? Thus far, it has not shown notability as shown by independent, reliable, verifiable sources. Providing promotional informational to the public is not the purpose of the project. GregJackP Boomer! 17:54, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:18, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:19, 13 September 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) 15:01, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Muhammad Kafeel Bukhari[edit]

Syed Muhammad Kafeel Bukhari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not-notable. No GNews hits. No GBooks hits. GHits consist of social media and the like. The 2 refs show only a trivial mentions (once each). Declined speedy. GregJackP Boomer! 11:17, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:04, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:06, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:07, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:17, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 18:27, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Saint Seiya character techniques[edit]

List of Saint Seiya character techniques (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)

Excessive trivia that is of importance only to a small population of enthusiastic fans and serves no encyclopedic purpose. This is a violation of WP:IINFO, WP:TRIVIA, and WP:WAF. The information is based entirely on primary sources with no coverage by independent reliable sources. —Farix (t | c) 10:54, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Farix (t | c) 10:55, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why are the character articles listing techniques? They don't add anything to the character descriptions and are just trivia of interest to a small group of fans. I've taken the WP:BOLD step of removing the listings there. —Farix (t | c) 10:19, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Given the series' genre, the techniques could be considered a defining trait of the characters, but I see where you're coming from. Since all the unofficial translations are now gone from the character articles, I have no further problems accepting this resolution. Cyn starchaser (talk) 12:37, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:15, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:15, 13 September 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 as an obvious hoax. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:41, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eureka Metropolitan Area[edit]

Eureka Metropolitan Area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD, reason was This doesn't exist in the U.S. Office of Management and Budget definitions of metro areas. Per California statistical areas, the boundary of the Eureka-Arcata-Fortuna, CA μSA coincides with Humboldt County, California. "Pepper" @ 10:40, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:14, 13 September 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) 15:01, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maya Hayes[edit]

Maya Hayes (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:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG.

I am also nominating the following related pages, all of which are U-20 players and also fail WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG:

Morgan Brian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Vanessa DiBernardo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kealia Ohai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Banana Fingers (talk) 10:33, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:12, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:13, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:13, 13 September 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. There is consensus that this page does not pass Wikipedia's notability guidelines. I am choosing to delete rather than redirect as this title doesn't seem like a very plausible search term. If anyone would like the article to be copied to their userspace, just ask me on my talk page and I will do it for you. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 12:10, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting of Moon Hoax - Rima Ariadaeus[edit]

Splitting of Moon Hoax - Rima Ariadaeus (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)

Wikipedia is not snopes.com. We do not need an article for every yahoo chain email that comes through, and this meme does not appear to have been discussed in depth in reliable sources. VQuakr (talk) 08:08, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1) Thanks I was wondering if this article can be merged with a larger article about religious hoaxes. This is basically divulging hoaxes towards propoganda. I feel the hoaxes are present on the internet and Wikipedia is the source which most people trust. Thanks and Regards --Aditya Saxena (talk) 09:57, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:44, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:44, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More Details:

  1. I have seen that references from Jarfariya News Network have been used as credible references for multiple Islam related articles.
  2. Moreover I have posted television clips that prove this was indeed circulated by Mass Media to the public. Hence I differ that the article is poor in terms of referencing.
  3. This article involves the website of an eminent person holding a high office - Mr. Zaghloul Najjar.
  4. Redirect would mean too much corruption to the Splitting of the moon article. Although the content is arguable.
  5. I have added more references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adityasaxena.corp (talk • contribs) 02:16, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I created a page about religion related hoaxes. I think that it should be removed and the contents moved to the Category: Religious Hoaxes. Kindly inform me of what is happening. It seems I have created a duplicate page.
  7. My Main Referemces

--Aditya Saxena (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:28, 18 September 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 incubate. Being listed in a template isn't a valid argument for keeping an article, and the subject doesn't seem to pass our notability guidelines. I found the arguments to userfy persuasive, but I am choosing to incubate rather than userfy as there is no guarantee that the original author will become active again or that they will wish to work on the article. The article can now be found at Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Phillip Supernaw. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 11:13, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Phillip Supernaw[edit]

Phillip Supernaw (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)

Was a BLPPROD, sources added, notability looks flimsy since he appears to have never played in the NFL but I am not an expert on American Rugby :) Black Kite (talk) 06:10, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:41, 13 September 2012 (UTC) Userfy is fine by me![reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:41, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Blue Peter. The additional sources mentioned by Bobby987 unfortunately do not appear to support the subject's notability, as they either do not qualify as reliable under Wikipedia's definition, or they are connected somehow with the subject. I have exluded the "retain" argument for this reason. After this argument has been exluded, there appears to be a rough consensus to merge. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 11:00, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Leger[edit]

Alex Leger (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)

TV producer, was a BLPPROD but now has some sources, doesn't look massively notable still though. Black Kite (talk) 06:08, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Taskforce icon This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:40, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:40, 13 September 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. Deleted at request of author and sole content contributor, under G7. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:58, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abhishek Leela Pandey[edit]

Abhishek Leela Pandey (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)

Found this with a BLPPROD on it, it's been sort-of-sourced but it still doesn't look very notable to me, so bringing it here. Black Kite (talk) 06:05, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Mephistophelian (talk) 07:44, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Mephistophelian (talk) 07:44, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Mephistophelian (talk) 07:44, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Mephistophelian (talk) 07:44, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable subject, lacking independent and verifiable sources. With the earlier removal of an unproven assertion regarding the critical reception of a manuscript, there isn't anything that otherwise confers notability or credibility. After considering the sources, it’s evident that
Omkar Vighne's blog is unreliable, a poorly-written review that someone likely drafted within minutes, without any proof-reading for coherence or grammar
In retailing the author's creative output, the Dialabook and I-Proclaim bookstores aren't independent from the subject
Where Ink Splashers Publications is the publisher of the subject's literature, it reasonably follows that the company is similarly partisan. Mephistophelian (talk) 07:20, 12 September 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. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 00:47, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gerontas Pastistsios controversy[edit]

Gerontas Pastistsios controversy (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-notable controversy being held at Facebook over a Facebook page that satirizes a Greek monk. I see no coverage from reliable sources to showcase any supported notability, so that this purported "controversy" is worth an article. Thanks. — ΛΧΣ21™ 05:56, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hmmm I don't consider this notable enough even to be mentioned in another article. It has no reliable sources covering it. Otherwise, i would have recommended a merger instead of deletion. But I understand your point. — ΛΧΣ21™ 17:22, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:39, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:39, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:39, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please read Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:33, 15 September 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. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 00:46, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Hi-tech companies[edit]

List of Hi-tech companies (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)

High tech is not defined, either at its article, or in this list. Thus, the inclusion criteria are impossibly vague. I would simply rename this "List of technology companies" but I am not sure it would be of much use even then (its such a small subset right now). article is still orphaned after years. (PS creator is banned)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:23, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:37, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:37, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:37, 13 September 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) 15:07, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

David Vonner[edit]

David Vonner (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:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. no coverage in gnews [33]. no major recognition or awards. LibStar (talk) 03:49, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:34, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:34, 13 September 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) 15:07, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dogra, Orissa[edit]

Dogra, Orissa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Article doesn't demonstrate notability per the general notability guideline. After doing a Google search I couldn't find anything about Dogra (the one is Orissa), which indicate it is of any particular note. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:16, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - stub provides nothing of note. Jrcrin001 (talk) 05:52, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:44, 12 September 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. Purely in terms of numbers, I count 9 keeps and 6 deletes (including the nominator).Though the "keep" !voters are in the majority, the relative scarcity of the sources and the arguments advocating bending the notability guidelines make me hesitant to close this as a straight "keep". However, there is certainly no consensus to delete at this time. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 10:46, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Tylman[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Richard Tylman (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:POLITICIAN. Tylman was mayor of a small town in England, Faversham, which has a current population of 17,000. According to the article he served for one year only. All the sources provided are genealogical websites and there is no explanation why he is considered notable. Oddly, the author of this article, Poeticbent, who identifies himself as "Richard Tylman", had earlier created another article with the same name, but about an obscure 21st Canadian graphic artist. That article was deleted based on unanimous consent except for Poeticbent (actually a sockpuppet he created called Dr. Loosmark). TFD (talk) 02:37, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The accusation of sockpuppetry is false - the link between Poeticbent and Dr. Loosmark was a mistake.VolunteerMarek 16:07, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How do you know that? TFD (talk) 16:19, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Yes it is a C/start, but could be used as the basis of school projects in UK curriculum stages KS2, KS3, KS4. Is there more work to be done. Yes. More articles are needed on provincial Tudor merchants and Kent- but finding good content providers is tough. Encouraging genealogists to come over and share their work is one method- all we do is accept their work and wikify it- and pull it up the quality scale. WP:GNG should not be used to prevent content. The guidelines are guidelines. It is the subject not the article or the author that should be judged.
Looking at Wikipedia:Notability (people) This guy was a significant merchant, in a significant town of the period, serving significant royal, a successful politician having achieved a notable honour and is still known for his work 500 years later. We are talking about 1540- and by those criteria he rings all the bells.--ClemRutter (talk) 09:13, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Surely "is it useful" is very definitely not the criteria for encyclopedia status? And, by contrast, WP:GNG very definitely is the basic rule we look at to work out whether we have an article or not? And the suggestion that schools should be looking to WP articles as the basis for research projects, even as a starting point, fills me with horror. N-HH talk/edits 17:23, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that's quite something, both of you. These feel like persuasive arguments despite what do look like rather minimal sources, but then, what would we expect from so long ago. (We certainly needn't worry about BLP...) Guess I'm not used to remembering that the second G in WP:GNG is just "Guideline"... well, if it's OK to be a little more flexible in accepting a nicely-written article about an interesting guy from 5 centuries ago, then we should Keep. Is that all right for the WP: rules and standards experts out there? If so, I'll change my vote. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:48, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of the significance of Faversham, there are just no reliable sources for this subject. Richard Tylman is mentioned only once (in the appendix) in Edward Jacob's The history of the town and port of Faversham: in the county of Kent (1774). Mayors were selected for one year terms. Similarly, he is not mentioned at all in the other secondary source used in the article, "The Historical Development of the Port of Faversham, Kent 1580-1780". Otherwise the article is built on genealogial records from non-reliable sources. If Richard Tylman is that interesting, then perhaps someone will write an article about him that could be used as a source. Until then, this is just original research. TFD (talk) 13:55, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please reread the Wilkinson article; the citation mentions five pages from the document, and the first one (11) alone gives this guy a substantial mention. Remember that there are spelling variations, so you can't rely on a computerised Find feature; you'll have to look it over yourself. Nyttend (talk) 15:15, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I now notice that there are a scattering of mentions of a "Richard Tillman". There is no evidence that this is the same person. Odd that when describing Tillman as a merchant in 1580 it would omit that he was also mayor. He might have been a relative or unrelated. Odd too that the source would use the spelling "Tylman" to refer to another person of that name. Even if we could establish that the merchant and the mayor were one and the same, it does not establish notability of either. TFD (talk) 15:34, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Odds are you are incorrect. It was common for profitable merchants to become mayors of the community; given the varieties of spelling in a given time, if we find records on two people from a given time and location with a similar name, one an officeholder and another, a merchant, they are more likely the same rather than not. However, any alternative spellings should be added to the article, and it may be a good idea to note that the references to the merchant are based on a source with a spelling variation. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:43, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
TFD, there is absolutely no guarantee of consistent spelling in the primary sources of the period. In such a situation, it's likely that Wilkinson would be following the spelling used by the sources he's examining without worrying about the spellings appearing in other primary sources. Meanwhile, Wilkinson is looking primarily at commercial development, not political matters, and as governments of the period often didn't interfere so greatly in commercial matters as they do today, one's involvement in politics might well not be seen as relevant to one's involvement in commerce. Nyttend (talk) 15:54, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the requested source (5): Paul Wilkinson, PhD, MIfA, FRSA. "The Historical Development of the Port of Faversham, Kent 1580-1780" (PDF direct download, 749 KB). The Kent Archaeological Field School, p.104, http://www.kafs.co.uk/pdf/port.pdf. Quote: Richard Tillman [of Faversham] (p.89) was the corn merchant for all 16 voyages [emphasis mine] with wheat in the Blackeleeche of Faversham and on other ships... (p.104) Poeticbent talk 16:00, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How do you know that "Richard Tillman" who is described on that page as being listed in the "Port Book of 1580" is the same person as "Richard Tylman" listed in the History as being mayor in 1580, and not a related or unrelated person with a similar name? Why does this source not mention he was mayor, and why would it use the spelling "Tillman" when it mentions a "Humphrey Tylman" on page 40? And why is this passing mention to one of many merchants mentioned in the source notable? TFD (talk) 16:17, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:10, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:10, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If he was notable by any standards, couldn't someone find a history book that mentions him, however briefly, in a substantive way in relation either to his business or political career? - Sure: [36] and [37].VolunteerMarek 17:24, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the first of those doesn't bring up any content or text for me; the latter is more promising but doesn't say much other than that he bought some commercial premises and traded in grain. I was thinking of a history of Kent that explicitly asserted something, say, about his role, status or lasting contribution, even just locally. I'm still not sure we would have a WP page for someone from this century who bought a warehouse and sold some corn. N-HH talk/edits 17:32, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Probably not - but he was also a mayor, and holding such office IMHO makes him notable. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 17:41, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:POLITICIAN suggests otherwise .. N-HH talk/edits 17:46, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Right, because according to the strict reading, no local politician before 18th century or so should be notable, because no could receive the required "press coverage" before the advent of the press :> --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 18:00, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The qualifications there are why I only said "suggests". Although wp:politician doesn't simply ask for "press" coverage - at point 3 it talks about "significant coverage in reliable sources". Allowing for a pro-rata downgrade of the quantity/significance threshold there, we're still back to the proposition that this guy would need some substantive mention or analysis beyond him having bought and traded a few things. N-HH talk/edits 18:08, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. TFD (talk) 17:25, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Nicholas Tylman mentioned in the Royal Society article[41] could not have been the father of Richard Tylman, since Nicholas lived from 1516-1568[42] while the Royal Society article is about a Nicholas who died in 1577.

The Richard Tylman who was sued over a "concord" could not be Mayor Tylman because the case occured in 1484, 62 years before the future mayor's birth in 1546.

Since the Tylman family had settled in Kent since at least 1225 and several branches of the family had settled in Faversham,[43] it is not reasonable to assume that the Richard Tillman mentioned in the article as living in Faversham in 1580 was the same person as the mayor of Faversham in 1580. It is not uncommon btw for cousins to have the same christian names. In any case that is original research. We would need a source that put this together.

TFD (talk) 05:52, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So you are using unreliable genealogical sources to argue against identification from a reliable source (for the Nicholas Tylman case; I do agree about the court case)? All identification in any source requires some interpretation. I don't understand what cousins having the same given name has to do with it. We are talking of Haversham in particular, not Kent in general. We need two traders of food/grains from a place with 200 households, at the same time, with similar given names and slightly different surnames. Excluding that may be OR, but is subject to debate; it is not obviously WP:OR. After all no source is going to say: "This is XYZ who is the subject of the article on XYZ on Wikipedia"; we always infer that from context and a set of circumstances (name, place, date, other referential associations). Whether the inference rises to WP:OR depends on editorial discretion. Churn and change (talk) 06:49, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
None of the sources providing lifespans used in the article are reliable. However common sense tells us that a person who was mayor in 1580 could not have been involved in a court case in 1484 and that a former mayor would not be described as a yeoman. The only source that a Nicholas Tylman was the father of Richard Tylman is a non-rs family tree. While it may seem strange to us today, there was a time when families remained in the same location for centuries, so it would not be unusual to find people of the same surname living in the same town. Also, since most corn from North Kent was shipped through Faversham, and trading corn was one of the main industries in Faversham ("The Historical Development of the Port of Faversham, Kent 1580-1780"), there would be many people involved in the trade. To conclude that the mayor and the trader were one and the same person cannot be supported by the sources provided. We do not even have a source that the mayor was involved in the corn trade. TFD (talk) 09:08, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most comments would me more valuable on the Talk:Richard Tylman.

This seems to have degenerated from a discussion about whether a guy who lived 500 years ago is notable enough for inclusion in our revered pages to one on genealogical research and accuracy of mediaeval primary sources. Can I remind everyone of WP:OWN. There also seems to be a mistaken idea of what a mediaeval politician was-it was more a question of family connections than policies. In the FA about William Shakespeare who was actually more recent that Richard- doubt about the accuracy of the sources is treated in the article William Shakespeare#Speculation about Shakespeare

The question of title has been raised. Until we have another Richard Tylman article I believe it is policy not to disambiguate. Richard Tylman of Faversham would be wrong, as no such title existed. Richard Tylman (merchant) probably is the correct title. --ClemRutter (talk) 09:18, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is that writers of secondary sources have examined the historical documents and made judgments and other writers have explained the differences of opinions these writers have. We do not have Wikipedia editors pulling out records and trying to piece them together. And of course Shakespeare is notable not because he is mentioned in various records, but because of his body of work, which has survived. TFD (talk) 09:39, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's a bit more complicated. — The AfD nominator here, was also the AfD nominator at the 4th nom (previously) during the EEML attack on this entry, and... due to mitigating circumstances, the article was actually deleted, except that the content was entirely different, as so was the subject of this article. This (already 5th) nom is the TFD's controversial rehash of an old ArbCom wrangle from two years ago. The actual article entitled "Richard Tylman" has been kept (not four) but three times. It was voted out only after a large group of concerned editors was formally prohibited from participating in these proceedings. Poeticbent talk 16:59, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, it's even a little more complicated than that... In the interests of full disclosure, the original article (nominated 4 times) was about Richard Tylman, a Canadian poet. The article was a COI BLP created by the subject himself. Consensus was against the original author at the last (4th) AfD (though, as above, there was some conjecture about involvement) and the article he wrote about himself was deleted. The "original" Richard Tylman (the subject of that original article) is alive and well and edits here as Poeticbent (above) - it's right there on his user-page; it is openly declared and he makes no secret of it. Having had the article about himself deleted, Poeticbent/Richard Tylman then created this article about a different guy with exactly the same name. It's very complicated and perhaps a bit strange (as I incredulously noted above) but I don't think any of that makes for a useful argument for or against the notability of this Richard Tylman. I also can't see how there could be a conflict of interest with the current subject, given their name is the only thing the author and subject have in common. I'm still in favour of move, if for no other reason than it gets us away from all the strangeness associated with this particular one. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 00:25, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 21:19, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Central Pennsylvania accent[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Central Pennsylvania accent (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)

unreferenced for 7 years. and full of original research. a search on google scholar shows that this isn't really studied in linguistics. [44]. LibStar (talk) 01:50, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

which of these specifically refer to Central Pennsylvania, you would expect it appear in google scholar or gbooks This search refers often to books using WP as a soruce.

LibStar (talk) 03:07, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was unclear. There are a couple research papers referenced in the link I cited. I'm just gonna snip in the Central Pennsylvania section from that so people can see what I'm on about:
"In his Word Geography (1949), Kurath uses the term "Central Pennsylvania" in table II (pp. 28-29) as a sub-region between "Western Pennsylvania" and the "Great Valley." Judging by the distribution of the terms he cites for this region, his notion of "Central Pennsylvania" corresponds precisely with mine; see especially (arm)load (fig. 73) and quarter till (fig. 44). But this same area was included within the territory of Eastern Pennsylvania in KurathÕs LAMSAS map; and the evidence for that inclusion is weak. Contemporary though less scrupulous research by Thomas (1958), includes Central PA within the Western Pennsylvania area; this conclusion is more easily justifiable, since both areas share the merger of O and AW. Carver (1989) shows that the area of heavy Pennsylvania German lexical influence extends into Mifflin, Juniata, Perry, Cumberland, and Franklin counties, perhaps including portions of Huntingdon and Fulton. Yet is also possible to see the Pennsylvania German lexicon gradually dissipating as it extends westward, without any clear demarcations. One researcher has proposed a "Bedford" subarea, which would involve Blair, Bedford, western Huntingdon, Fulton, and perhaps also portions of Somerset counties, which lack a heavy concentration of Pennsylvania Germanisms and also lack many typically Western Pennsylvania terms (Ashcom 1953)."
From this we can see that there are clearly academic studies out there dealing with the Central Pennsylvania dialect. (Is this article mistitled? Maybe...) Carrite (talk) 05:16, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Central Pennsylvania dialect turns up only 1 gscholar hit. LibStar (talk) 07:00, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:27, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:27, 13 September 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 DELETED. postdlf (talk) 05:24, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

郑连杰[edit]

郑连杰 (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's a chinese title Cwek (talk) 01:15, 12 September 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 Izmir#Sports. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser TSU 01:35, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Izmir Derby[edit]

Izmir Derby (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 found one reference, http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2006/dec/06/theknowledge.sport , which was more about this article than the event. The Turkish article is even unsourced. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:02, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:06, 12 September 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.
More