< 24 September 26 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:52, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

''Aarppoyi''[edit]

AfDs for this article:
''Aarppoyi'' (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 takes more than gumption, more than gall, and more than . . . a word I cannot say . . . to write and then de-prod an article like this: It's about a souvenir pamphlet given out at a boat race. It comes complete with a massive photo of the souvenir pamphlet's editor. Let me say this: WP:42. Let us also say that it fails WP:GNG, WP:RS, and, just quite possibly (although I hate to think so), WP:COI Qworty (talk) 23:30, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:03, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:03, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced. It's about a souvenir pamphlet given out at a boat race. It comes complete with a massive photo. . . . . .  !!!! -Rayabhari (talk) 16:15, 29 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 Snow Keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:52, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cox's Bazar Govt. High School[edit]

Cox's Bazar Govt. High School (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 verifiable reliable sources. Contested PROD.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 22:59, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:34, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:34, 27 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) 20:41, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Projective (financial company)[edit]

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

Unremarkable company with no assertion of notability Biker Biker (talk) 22:22, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:17, 27 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. Ultimately, "fails WP:N" is a very difficult argument to get around, and the humming and hawing about maybe possibly meeting a criterion or two of WP:ACADEMIC is not supported by consensus (even its advocates don't seem to really believe it). WilyD 09:02, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marcel Leroux[edit]

— ShowTimeAgain (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

— Pbenken (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

— 109.154.26.60 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

— Africangenesis (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


Even if we assume, rather broadly, that the "single topic" that User:IRWolfie had in mind was anything related to global warming, I have edited on 29 other topics since 2007:
Chaos theory
Che Guevara
Conscription in Germany
Counterpoint
Denialism
Enumerative induction
Ericsson cycle
Evolution
Fallacy
False dilemma
File talk:John Quiggin enumerative induction.png
Fluid ounce
Health effects of tea
Intelligent design
Kaempferol
Low-energy vehicle
MDMA
Melatonin
Near-Earth object
New Zealand
Novel
Ozone depletion
Plug-in hybrid
Postmodernity
Russell Humphreys
Sodium benzoate
Solar variation
Specified complexity
Tea
So I hardly qualify as a single purpose account. Given that are large number of my edits are in the global warming subject area, still these criteria would apply:
"Editing time line: the timeline of a user’s edits should not be considered when using single-purpose account tags. One must look at the editor’s complete edit history, not just recent edits. Examples of non-SPAs include
Users with a diversified edit history that become inactive for an extended period and later re-establish themselves with single subject edits. Note that a time gap in edit history may be evidence that the person was referred to Wikipedia by an outside source, but it isn't evidence that the person is an SPA.
An established editor focusing on a single topic is not an SPA. Once an editor is well established with a large, diversified edit history, he or she can focus on single subjects for extended periods of time without being labeled an SPA."
I demand that IRWolfie withdraw this dismissive personal attack.--Africangenesis (talk) 01:36, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, I've been editing at wikipedia extensively during my "absences". When I'm editing non-AGW topics I don't have to login but can edit anonymously.--Africangenesis (talk) 01:40, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
95% of your contributions are to edits about global warming. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:04, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And it would probably been about 20% of my edits, if it hadn't been for a certain infamous cadre. You are abusing the single purpose account template, I suggest to retract it to retain some credibility.--Africangenesis (talk) 04:59, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


— Cliff482 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Marcel Leroux (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 couldn't find significant coverage in google scholar or books. Google news returns various hits to various individuals. More specifically to the scientist I only found a good amount of passing mentions in the news sources (some of which were comments) but nothing providing significant coverage. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:53, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I could find over 30 citations of his 1998 text in books and journal articles. [1]--Africangenesis (talk) 17:19, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Another google scholar fail. Do they let just anybody propose articles for deletion? I find 124 citations for "Le climat de l'Afrique tropicale: The climate of tropical Africa"[2]--Africangenesis (talk) 17:27, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One has to wonder who IRWolfie is. "The Mobile Polar High: a new concept explaining present mechanisms of meridional air-mass and energy exchanges and global propagation of palaeoclimatic changes" cited by 61 [3] --Africangenesis (talk) 17:34, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
His book "The Meteorology and Climate of Tropical Africa" cited by 74[4]--Africangenesis (talk) 17:45, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
More works in which he is the primary author:
"Analyse météorologique des pluies torrentielles des 12 et 13 novembre 1999 dans le Languedoc-Roussillon./Meteorological analysis of the torrential rains of …"M LEROUX - Géocarrefour, 2000 - persee.fr
"Les climats subtropicaux dits" méditerranéens" et les climats de la Méditerranée (2e partie)" M Leroux - L'Information géographique, 2002 - armand-colin.com
" La dynamique des situations météorologiques des 21-22 et 26-27 septembre 1992 dans le sud du couloir rhodanien / The dynamics of the meteorological patterns of 21-22 and 26-27 September 1992 in the southern Rhône corridor" Marcel Leroux lien Revue de géographie de Lyon lien Year 1993 lien Volume 68 lien Issue 68-2 lien pp. 139-152
"Paléométéorologie de la région de Taoudenni" M Leroux - 1991 - cat.inist.fr
"Déficit pluviométrique hivernal sur la France: autopsie des agglutinations anticycloniques des hivers de 1988 à 1992" M Leroux, S Aubert, J Comby, V Mollica… - Science et changements
"Déficit pluviométrique hivernal sur la France : autopsie de la situation anticyclonique du 19 décembre 1989 au 25 janvier 1990 / The winter rainfall deficiency in France : autopsy of the anticyclonic situation from the 19 December 1989 to the 25 January 1990" Marcel Leroux lien Revue de géographie de Lyon lien Year 1991 lien Volume 66 lien Issue 66-3 lien pp. 197-206
Works in which he is not the primary author, I will keep adding them here:
"Are There Solar Signals in the African Monsoon and Rainfall?" H Faure, M Leroux - Royal Society of London Philosophical Transactions …, 1990
"Evidence of atmospheric paleocirculation over the Gulf of Guinea since the Last Glacial Maximum" AM Lezine, JP Tastet, M Leroux - Quaternary Research, 1994 - Elsevier
"Relationships Between Polar Highs Activity and Air Temperature Anomalies in the North Pacific Region" A Favre, M Leroux, A Gershunov - AGU Fall Meeting Abstracts, 2003
"POSTER: Relationships between the Features Variationsof Highs and Lows in the North Atlantic Region and North Atlantic Oscillationfrom 1950 to 2000" A Pommier, M Leroux - 1st International CLIVAR Science Conference, 2004
--Africangenesis (talk) 18:01, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
30-100 citations for a book is pretty standard in academia, it's not a sign of notability. Here is a standard book [5] by someone else which has 1000 citations. There are articles and books with several hundreds citations by individuals who aren't notable. That he wrote books doesn't necessarily contribute to notability. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:11, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a citation for that not being notable? You are sticking to this even though you initially thought a negative finding on a google scholar search was significant. We now find it is far from negative. BTW, four of the times he was cited were in journal Nature articles. [6][7][8][9]--Africangenesis (talk) 01:52, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to repeat it again, having a few citations doesn't help with notability. These citations are all routine for an experienced academic. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:56, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So, you don't have a citation, it is just your opinion.--Africangenesis (talk) 05:03, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1) The first poster who suggested deletion on Sept. 7 claimed "him writing a PhDthesis on the subject, for instance, does not show his views are accepted or rue, as the article claims". Yet this comment was ignorant of the fact that Leroux PhD was republished by the WMO and distributed to all member countries. If the work had no significance, one cannot imagine why the WMO would do that!

2) Leroux was Professor Emeritus of Universities, Former Director of the Centre de Recherche de Climatologie Tropical Africaine, CRCTA (dakar), former Director of the LCRE in Lyon France, Chevalier dans l'Ordre des Palmes Academiques (teaching excellence).

3) Since when Google is an arbiter of scientific excellence? Many often cited papers are unfortunately terrible science...

4) Leroux university textbook has been very successful and seen 2 French editions (1996 and 2000 with a 2004 reprinting in France) and 2 editions in English (Wiley and Springer), the latest in 2010 two years after he passed away. Lamont Doherty scientist Dr. George Kukla figures among those acknowledged in the last one. Are the deletion supporters knowledgeable in meteorology, climatology? Or is it a witchhunt based on differing scientific opinion?

In any case none of the arguments presented by the supporters of deletion amount to any scientific or biographical knowledge of this French climatologist. In consequence I support the page be left alone and not deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShowTimeAgain (talk • contribs) 05:07, 26 September 2012 (UTC) — ShowTimeAgain (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

1. The WMO seems to host a lot of theses, that's not really something that shows notability. 2. Being a professur emeritus doesn't help with notability, having an award for good teaching in your country doesn't show notability. The Centre de Recherche de Climatologie Tropical Africaine isn't notable. 3. I don't care whether he is a good scientist or not, just whether he is notable or not, that is a different question. 4. This isn't an AfD argument. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:49, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, there is no evidence that the WMO did indeed distribute his thesis William M. Connolley (talk) 10:21, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously Connolley never read Leroux "The Meteorology and Climate of Tropical Africa" Springer 2001 in which it is written: Based on original French edition, "Le Climat de l'Afrique Tropicale" published by Champion/Slatkine, Paris/Geneve 1983!!! Therefore Connolley's post is uninformed and misleading. ShowTimeAgain
Pardon? How does that demonstrate that the WMO distributed his thesis? But you're partly right, I've never read it William M. Connolley (talk) 17:47, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See Bibliography: http://lcre.univ-lyon3.fr/climato/Marcel_Leroux_biblio.pdf ShowTimeAgain — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShowTimeAgain (talk • contribs) 18:10, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, is that what you're relying on? I presume you mean "Publié et diffusé par l'Organisation Météorologique Mondiale (OMM), Genève, subventions de l'Agence de Coopération Culturelle et Technique (ACCT), Paris, du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS) et du Ministère de la Coopération, Paris". But that refers to the 1983 book (is that the same as his thesis? I suppose it might be. But again, there is no evidence for that). Also, that is definitely not the same thing as "His thesis was published in 1983 by the World Meteorological Organization and distributed within all members states" which is what the article said, until I removed it William M. Connolley (talk) 18:45, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Leroux: "In 1983, my book Le Climat de l'Afrique Tropicale (published by Champion-Slatkine) appeared: it was two volumes, the first (22x30cm) of 636 pages, with 349 figures, and the second (31x46cm) of 24 pages of notes and an atlas of 250 charts. This was a condensed version of a state doctoral thesis in climatology undertaken in 1980. This publication was supported, principally by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in Geneva, and by the National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS)..." If the formulation needed precision, why don't you modify, correct it instead of deleting Mr. Connolley? May I suggest you go to the Stanford University Library to read it first hand http://searchworks.stanford.edu/?q=%22Leroux%2C+Marcel.%22&search_field=search_author

ShowTimeAgain — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShowTimeAgain (talk • contribs) 19:01, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, great, so we're getting somewhere: its now clear that the original His thesis was published in 1983 by the World Meteorological Organization and distributed within all members states to which I objected was, indeed, quite wrong. As to why I deleted it: it is exactly as I said: because there was no evidence for it. And no, I'm not obliged to scour the web for it, you're obliged to provide refs if you want to keep material in. And once again notice that we have no secondary sources at all; we're still relying entirely on him (and who is Mr Connolley?) William M. Connolley (talk) 21:53, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The 1983 Leroux book in question is in the best universities librairies (see Stanford University Librairies link). Furthermore, page xviii of the Foreword of the Second English Edition of "Dynamic Analysis of Weather and Climate" Springer 2010, Leroux writes: " ... my 1980 thesis, was published in 1983 by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO/OMM, Geneva), and was distributed within all member states." Unfortunately, Professor Leroux died in 2008 and thus cannot defend his reputation or does William M. Connolley demand to see the inhumation permit too? ShowTimeAgainShowTimeAgain (talk) 00:04, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your latest: So do un-notable scientists publish successful university textbook that warranted a second edition and a second printing of the second edition? How about receiving two editions in English? It is therefore logical that his name would have an entry in Wikipedia. This one you carefully skirted. If not an AfD debate, what is it? This looks more and more like a witchhunt against a scientist whose research does not confirm the so called consensus. This is history rewriting disguised under the pretext of your narrow criteria defining what's notable or not. ShowTimeAgain — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShowTimeAgain (talk • contribs) 16:39, 26 September 2012 (UTC) — ShowTimeAgain (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Autochthony writes: *Maintain* - there are not so many simple articles about scientists - as against pop-phenomena - that we can afford for one to be deleted. Is it significant that Leroux appears to have not wholly endorsed the currently popular (not necessarily right - cf Manchester United FC) view on climate alarmism? I would not want, say, George Monbiot removed - because he seemingly differs from Leroux. Autochthony wrote: 1950 Z, 27th September 2012. 109.154.26.60 (talk) 19:48, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:08, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:08, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:08, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:08, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That sound like a good reason to create an article, there is no doubt he was a mainstream scientist, he could have been listed without an article, but go ahead an create a wikilink, and then the article.--Africangenesis (talk) 03:40, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is apparently no negative manifestation of such a hijacking. The scientists views are fairly presented as his views and not for the truth of the matter. What do you find objectionable? --Africangenesis (talk) 08:35, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Having 2/3 of the lede taken up by GW denialism is a problem. Even if you believe it, its clearly not a reasonable representation of his importance. Or alternatively, if that really is all he is notable for, he isn't notable William M. Connolley (talk) 08:59, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
His global warming book was published in several countries and is probably the reason you and others outside his field know of him. It is something he evidently cared deeply about. The remedy would seem to be to put it in its own section if it is inappropriate for the lead. --Africangenesis (talk) 09:13, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
probably the reason you and others outside his field know of him - I know nothing about him. That of itself doesn't prove he's non-notable, of course William M. Connolley (talk) 09:30, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know who he is either, I was responding to a report at FTN, and I noticed the subject appears to be non-notable. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:57, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How do you know they are fairly represented according to reliable secondary sources? We have seen no reliable sources which give coverage of any aspect about this person. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:06, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Surely, his book is a primary not secondary source of his opinions. It should be easy enough to verify that there is a second poshumous edition of his textbooks. These sound like reasons to participate on the article, not delete it.--Africangenesis (talk) 09:13, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have misunderstood the notability requirements (and my previous sentence). Primary sources don't contribute to notability, only independent sources do. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:20, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have failed to understand, that a publisher is a secondary source and every institution that continues to use his texts as the standard in his field are secondary sources of notability. If the text was only being used in courses he taught as so many professors do, we might question his notability. This posthumous publication of a second edition in another language is obviously not a vanity press. Have you got something personal against the late Marcel Leroux? --Africangenesis (talk) 16:36, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And suddenly, William Connolley appears! LOL When the little soldiers attack meets with opposition, the general shows up. Of course this bunch has a vested interest to see the page on Marcel Leroux deleted. He explained in a convincing manner the working of atmospheric circulation. And anyone who read his books can see that what he predicted is happening unlike the claims of others...ShowTimeAgain
Someone had a google scholar fail. His 1998 textbook has been cited in over 30 other books and journal articles. Presumably his recent 2nd addition will continue to be consulted as an authority. --Africangenesis (talk) 17:11, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A publisher isn't a source. The book is the source, he wrote the book, therefore it's primary. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:50, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the evidence for "every institution that continues to use his texts as the standard in his field"? William M. Connolley (talk) 18:47, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Would the WMC article be a good comparison? There are lots of blog references to Leroux as well, and his academic credentials are far superior.--Africangenesis (talk) 18:54, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No offense to WMC, but the William Connolley article is also pretty weak on notability. That said, if you look at the 28 references, about 40% were written by people other than Dr. Connolley. That's a lot better starting position from which to judge notability than the current article on Dr. Leroux. If, like Dr. Connolley, there are books, newspapers, and academic journals that discuss Dr. Leroux, then that would go a long way towards establishing his notability. Dragons flight (talk) 19:10, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Re: the WMO and Leroux Thesis. Wikipedia is built on improving articles. William Connolley could have corrected the initial wording. Instead he simply deleted any mention about the WMO. In doing so he obfuscated information relevant to Leroux prestige: why would a Swiss based editor undertake publishing a French thesis if it was not for the financial support of the WMO. Considering the size of the publication, one imagine that no doctoral student would have the means to do so by himself. This was therefore a significant show of consideration for his scientific work. In fact the 20:07 Sept. 28, 2012 by Connolley shows the true motive behind the deletion: Leroux scientific position against Global Warming. This is a shameful witch hunt. ShowTimeAgain — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShowTimeAgain (talk • contribs) 20:51, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retain: I thought William Connolley had been suspended or banned from editing technical content because of lack of technical knowledge. Just because some of Leroux findings based on actual data differ from other so-called climate scientists (such as (Dr) Gavin Schmidt, who does not know about the Schmidt number and I suggest neither does Connolley) is no reason to delete information about Leroux and his substantial work. § pbenken — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pbenken (talk • contribs) 11:46, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]


- About History: User 54.240.197.33 from Seattle who on September 7, 2012 suggested deletion had not posted on Leroux before or any other climatology related article. In fact his first post was on Java Framework on August 27. He posted only once on Leroux and has since then stopped posting under his IP after Sept. 23. On Sept. 25, poster IR Wolfie took over on the deletion nomination after having issued a notability review on Aug. 31. On sept. 28 8:11, William M. Connolley appears with a tirade about "global warming deniers"... ShowTimeAgainShowTimeAgain (talk) 17:18, 29 September 2012 (UTC) [reply]


Objection is raised to the removal of this article. The only reason for such removal on its face is to limit references to those who do not support the Global Man-made Climate Change Agenda. This is part and parcel of Connolley's previous procedures in modifying articles in the past to suit his agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cliff482 (talk • contribs) 05:02, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is the lowest grade of the award. No citation is present. Let me quote WP:ACADEMIC: "It is possible for an academic to be notable according to this standard, and yet not be an appropriate topic for coverage in Wikipedia because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject." I think we have such a lack. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:07, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Working in conjunction with Connolley hey IRWolfie, each one taking a page? French Republic Official Journal web archives does not go back further than 2004. Yet Leroux was made a chevalier in the Ordre des Palmes académiques on 31 October 2002 and the nomination was signed by Hervé Célestin, Secretary of the Order Council and Luc Ferry, Minister of Youth, National Education and Research as written on the certificate.ShowtimeAgainShowTimeAgain (talk) 18:45, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is no evidence at all that he has the award. Requests for a citation have been met with removal of the request and an implausible citation to a 1983 book [12] William M. Connolley (talk) 19:09, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes there is evidence of Marcel Leroux being awarded the title of Chevalier in the Ordre des Palmes Academiques: here is the proof http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Leroux_2002_Palmes.jpg
As for the so called "implausible citation": the confusion was the result of my lacking clarity in writing a brief description of an edit, mixing two issues the OMM and the Palmes. To make a mountain out of a molehill of this mixup is petty. ShowTimeAgainShowTimeAgain (talk) 03:49, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The image isn't proof as we have no way to determine if it is genuine, where did you get that image? IRWolfie- (talk) 09:49, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
IRWolfie, are you a "birther" or what? Can't you suddenly read Wikipedia pages? I requested proof of Leroux award to Leroux Estate to which I am not related. I received the scan from which I first described the signatories. Connolley and you denied my word. I thus requested written permission from the Estate to post it and received it from his own daughter. Except among "birthers", the fact Professor Leroux is a Chevalier de l'Ordre des Palmes Academiques is well known and this certificate is authentic as any recipient of the Order can attest. Your counterclaim is ridiculous. ShowTimeAgainShowTimeAgain (talk) 14:23, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[14] is a mention of his book. [15] is a review of said book. How does this contribute to his notability rather than the books? IRWolfie- (talk) 08:32, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And its not a Senate report; its lying William M. Connolley (talk) 08:32, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:43, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mud Bowl (Green Bay Packers)[edit]

Mud Bowl (Green Bay Packers) (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)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions.  Gongshow Talk 18:07, 26 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) 01:51, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PappaRoti[edit]

PappaRoti (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. Only one significant ref which reads like a press release. Others merely confirm the existence of the company. No assertion of notability. Fails WP:CORP. Read like an advertisement  Velella  Velella Talk   11:35, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 20 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) 21:24, 25 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. The Bushranger One ping only 00:07, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Following the Voice of Blood[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Following the Voice of Blood (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)

searched and cannot establish this as Wikipedia-notable - e.g. hasn't appeared in several publications from reliable/notable sources Lachlan Foley (talk) 04:26, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:16, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:56, 13 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) 02:20, 18 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) 21:21, 25 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. The Bushranger One ping only 00:07, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Immortal Pride[edit]

Immortal Pride (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)

searched and cannot establish this as Wikipedia-notable - e.g. hasn't been covered in several publications from reliable/notable sources Lachlan Foley (talk) 04:30, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:16, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:57, 13 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) 02:19, 18 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) 21:21, 25 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. The Bushranger One ping only 00:08, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spears of Heaven[edit]

Spears of Heaven (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)

searched and cannot establish this as Wikipedia-notable - e.g. hasn't been covered in several publications from notable/reliable sources Lachlan Foley (talk) 04:31, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:16, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:57, 13 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) 02:19, 18 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) 21:15, 25 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. The Bushranger One ping only 00:08, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Impaler's Wolves[edit]

Impaler's Wolves (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)

searched and cannot establish this as Wikipedia-notable - e.g. has not been covered in several publications from notable/reliable sources Lachlan Foley (talk) 04:37, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:04, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:07, 12 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) 02:19, 18 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) 21:10, 25 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 Graveland#Discography. Merging as appropriate can be done from history with proper attribution. The Bushranger One ping only 00:09, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Raise Your Sword![edit]

Raise Your Sword! (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)

cannot be established to be Wikipedia notable - e.g. is not covered in several publications from notable/reliable sources Lachlan Foley (talk) 04:45, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:16, 11 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) 02:19, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 20 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) 21:09, 25 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) 01:32, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wotan Mit Mir[edit]

Wotan Mit Mir (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)

searched and cannot establish this as Wikipedia-notable - e.g. has not been covered in several publications from notable/reliable sources Lachlan Foley (talk) 04:49, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:16, 11 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) 02:18, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 20 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) 21:07, 25 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 Graveland#Discography. The Bushranger One ping only 00:10, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Carpathian Wolves[edit]

Carpathian Wolves (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)

searched and cannot establish this as Wikipedia-notable - e.g. has not been covered in several publications from notable/reliable sources Lachlan Foley (talk) 04:51, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:15, 11 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) 02:18, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 20 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) 21:06, 25 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) 01:50, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Poo-Pourri[edit]

Poo-Pourri (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)

Long-time orphan, long-time no references, appears to be largely promotional, there is barely a page on Febreze, let alone a minor air freshening product. Spicyitalianmeatball (talk) 08:46, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:37, 10 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) 08:44, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I wouldn't disagree with a merge but there hasn't been any evidence that the product is owned by a company but rather by Suzy Batiz. SwisterTwister talk 23:09, 25 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, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 20:46, 25 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) 01:50, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Skjend Hans Lik[edit]

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

subject cannot be found to be notable/have been featured in several publications from notable/reliable sources Lachlan Foley (talk) 12:05, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:36, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:14, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 12:11, 17 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, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 20:43, 25 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. If someone wants a userfied copy contact me. No prejudice against recreation after the award starts.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:21, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brunel University African Poetry Prize[edit]

Brunel University African Poetry Prize (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 minor award. LibStar (talk) 12:31, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:30, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
poetry foundation website is not third party, if the award starts April 2013, you are assuming future notability as per WP:CRYSTAL. LibStar (talk) 00:06, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
BooksLive article. Also concern about WP:SYSTEMIC, calling it "minor" is a value judgement about a topic related to a third world country (continent) which naturally will have fewer sources than normal. It's remarkable this award has 2000+ hits on Google, unusual for an African literary award, much less one that has yet to even start yet. I think the sources in the article and cited here and on Google are enough to consider keeping the article for now until April 13 when additional sources will either make or break it. Until then a top hat "more sources needed" can be used. AfD was your first choice in this issue with no previous discussion and perhaps too strong a tool. Green Cardamom (talk) 00:57, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GOOGLEHITS is not a measure of notability. bookslive article is a blog and not considered a reliable source. LibStar (talk) 01:11, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
BooksLive is an online publication with editorial oversight that just happens to call itself a "blog", it's reliable. Given the normal SYSTEMIC lack of sources on African topics (and subsequent WP:SYSTEMIC bias against African topics on Wikipedia), the number of Google hits is worth pointing out in deciding to keep the article until April 13 for additional sources. Green Cardamom (talk) 01:48, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

if the award starts April 2013, you are assuming future notability as per WP:CRYSTAL. LibStar (talk) 01:56, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The sources in the article and cited here and on Google are enough to consider keeping the article for now until April 13 when additional sources will either make or break it. Until then a top hat "more sources needed" can be used. Given the weight of evidence in total and WP:SYSTEMIC issues the article should be given some time, don't understand the rush to delete. Asked for courtesy of extra time, none given by nominator who didn't use "more sources" template, went straight to AfD with personal opinion of "minor award" on a topic that is dead center of the systemic bias problems on Wikipedia. Green Cardamom (talk) 03:29, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
the find sources template yields just one gnews hit [33]. therefore this fails WP:GNG. not sure why you keep persisting about this article's notability. LibStar (talk) 04:21, 18 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, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 20:40, 25 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. Essentially a lack of discussion. No prejudice against a speedy renomination.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:22, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Innovation journalism[edit]

Innovation journalism (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 is a non-notable neologism used only by a few sources who are the creators of the neologism. OpenFuture (talk) 09:19, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:37, 10 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) 13:27, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, no, not *another one* of Nordfors vanity articles. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:19, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, you have not read what I wrote particularly carefully, you mix me up with somebody else and you seem to think that this somehow is an issue about you personally. No, I don't know you and have never met you. This is not about you, it is about the article. I've noticed that there are several articles about you and your topics, that are to a large part edited by you. These articles, like the article about you that was recently deleted, are to a significant aspect edited by you, and sourced by you to your own publications. The articles seem self-serving and aimed at increasing the spread and usage of the neologisms in question. (You can hardly deny that InJo and Innovation Journalism are neologisms, the article clearly states that you suggested the concepts yourself). The evidence that these articles should continue to exist is far between.
It is also completely obvious that you have a conflict of interest and should not be editing ANY of these articles, and despite being notified of this, you continue to do so, in violation of Wikipedia policy. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:26, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So it this is not a personal topic, why are you discussing me and not Innovation Journalism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dnordfors (talk • contribs) 17:33, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me you want to delete the Innovation Journalism page, regardless the standing of the topic. It's all about my participation in editing it. It has been edited by several people. --dnordfors (talk) 17:40, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am not discussion you. A part of this topic is the fact that you edit these pages despite the conflict of interest. That is not about you. It is about the articles. You need to understand that neither this AfD, nor these articles, nor Wikipedia in general is about you. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:25, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If this is not about me, what do you mean by saying "Oh no! Not *another one* of Nordfors vanity articles"? This is not about me? --dnordfors (talk) 19:17, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about you. It's about the articles. If you create a vanity article, then it's still not about you, it's still about the article. There are a lot of articles about more or less the same topic, edited to significant extend by you, all claiming you as the inventor of the term and using mostly you as a source. I think the term "vanity article" is fitting. And that's a description of the article (as evidenced by the term vanity *article*) and not a description of you. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:38, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Vanity article gets no hits on Wikipedia. It seems to allude to vanity press which is pejorative. The exclamation "Oh no! *not another*" is not nice. I am insulted by it. I don't understand what is achieved by using such language.Now, I am putting my real name on this discussion. What is your real name? --dnordfors (talk) 00:31, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a discussion forum, so discussing Innovation journalism is pointless. The discussions are about the articles. This is always what I have discussed, and nothing else, and I will not discuss anything else. What, contentwise, is missing is stated in the AfD: "This is a non-notable neologism used only by a few sources who are the creators of the neologism." Hence, what is needed is third-party sources showing notability. Is there for example any reliable sources from major news outlets about this topic?
You need to remember that as the originator of the term this is likely to be a very personal issue close to your heart. For Wikipedia it is not. You need to try to step outside of yourself and see this objectively.
For example, of the current sources, three are by you. Those are obviously not third-party sources. One is published by "Innovation Journalism", a publication I can't find any information about, but whose website now turns out to be your blog. This is clearly not a third-party source. One is about a pilot course on Innovation Journalism, a course which you according to the paper visited, was held by somebody you worked with at Stanford and who has as one of three aims to "establish international co-operation in InJo education between The Department of Communication (University of Jyväskylä) and SCIL (Stanford University)". This is also obviously no an independent source.
None of the above sources therefor help to establish notability. One of the last two sources is a dead link, so it doesn't help either.
That leaves one source. Unfortunately, it's in German, so it's very hard to judge it if you don't speak German.
I really don't think this establishes the notability of this term very well at all. Would you think differently if this was another topic? --OpenFuture (talk) 19:33, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OpenFuture - I will respond to matters relating to notability here. The matters you bring up about conflict of interest are addressed under "Disclosure / Conflict of Interest". Let's please separate between these two issues.
Examples of third party sources:
World Economic Forum - one of the seven listed topics setting the agenda for the future of media: https://members.weforum.org/pdf/GAC/issue_descriptions/FutureofMedia.pdf
SAAMA TV Pakistan http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aj1BkuX6AwE
Voice of America News (in Urdu) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyTIZO0RdrI
PBS feature - http://www.pbs.org/mediashift/2009/12/stanford-program-breaks-down-walls-between-business-tech-journalism344.html
Fojo - Linnaeus University in Kalmar - http://lnu.se/1.32367/fojo-focus-on-innovation-journalism?l=en
Venturebeat: http://venturebeat.com/2008/03/29/qa-with-david-nordfors-on-innovation-journalism-audio/
European Journalism Centre http://www.ejc.net/magazine/article/innovation_journalism_copyright_and_commons/
NDTV Profit India http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CPBz9ET0-k
I can give more examples if requested.
The innovation journalism journal was started by me in 2004.It is indexed by Google Scholar.The managing editor is Kirsten Mogensen at Roskilde University in Denmark. IJ has a panel of reviewers: http://journal.innovationjournalism.org/p/review-committee.html
--dnordfors (talk) 20:57, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't have time right now, and since I've already been forced to waste hours on nonsense, I can't look at these sources in any depth now, nor for several days. It is obvious even at a brief glance that they at the minimum are vast improvements to what you have provided so far, in that the at least are one step removed from you, where the previous sources where not. I can't say anything about how they fulfill wp:rs at the moment. Youtube videos generally make poor sources, though. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:29, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OpenFuture - You bring up some issues relating to conflict of interest in your comment posted 19:33.
Your comment on how the originator should think is off-topic unless you are referring to me. Since you are saying this discussion is not about me I will not comment.
You ask if I would think differently if this was another topic? This is again about me, but I will answer. The answer is no. I would think the same.I would appreciate disclosure, but as long as the references are OK, it really doesn't matter who wrote it.--dnordfors (talk) 20:16, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, let's not discuss it here. This article is called "Articles for deletion/Innovation journalism". The topic is if the article Innovation journalism should be deleted. A topic that has been notably absent in most of your comments here. Discuss conflicts of interest on your page, the article page or on the relevant noticeboard, please. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:19, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OpenFuture - I understand you are saying that the allegations of "conflict of interest" are no longer on the agenda. This is only about "notability". Correct? --dnordfors (talk) 21:02, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see what I wrote that is unclear. I'm sorry, I really don't have the time to waste on this, I've already wasted my whole evening on it, and will not respond to anything that is not strictly on topic from now on. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:23, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's very simple. Just confirm that "conflict of interest" is no longer being discussed. A simple 'yes' is enough. --dnordfors (talk) 00:17, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you - this is fine by me, I will insert the references in the article. Can the deletion-banner be removed thereafter, or is there a specified procedure for doing it? --dnordfors (talk) 17:24, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You, as not only involved in this, but having a personal interest in the retaining of that article, can not declare this AfD closed single-handedly. That you even attempt to do so is quite astonishing. --OpenFuture (talk) 03:03, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OpenFuture - you are talking about me again. Please talk about the article. We have discussed your initial claim that the article should be deleted since it is a non-noteable neologism. Information has been added. If you still are of the opinion that the article should be deleted for this reason, please argue for it right now. Both of us have spent a lot of time, it can be a good time to round this off. --dnordfors (talk) 22:57, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OpenFuture - I have initiated another Dispute Resolution since it seems we still may be in dispute. I suggest keeping the resolution alive until we settled this AfD --dnordfors (talk) 23:18, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your weird attempts of wikilawyering and trying to ignore normal Wikipedia processes are not going to do you any good. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:07, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I find the new Dispute Resolution constructive. This is the first time I am going through these procedures, the volunteers in the Dispute Resolution have so far been kind and helpful in informing about possible ways to proceed. I have learned that neither of us can close this discussion or remove the banner for deletion, we need a site administrator for that. You and I seem to have said what we have to say in the factual matter - i.e. non-notable neologism. We lack mutual trust, I don't see our discussion getting any better by going on like this. So if you have no more arguments supporting the case for deletion, perhaps it is a good time to call for the attention of a site administrator to judge. It has gone two weeks since the case was filed. What do you say? --dnordfors (talk) 19:41, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think you need to cool down and follow normal Wikipedia procedures and policies. There's no point in being all panicky about it now, it's been tagged as not being notable for more than a year. You could have done something about it then. If you want to save this article, rewrite it based on reliable-third-party sources. You can probably still use yourself as a source when you have to, but you need a reliable third-party source to claim you coined the term, and you need reliable third-party sources for most of the stuff in the article. That means not your papers, and not articles written by people you work with. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:07, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I has been substantially rewritten and now contains third party sources on top of the original publications. There are several contributing editors involved in writing the article. Are there any specifics you wish to comment on after these revisions? --68.65.164.205 (talk) 19:21, 25 September 2012 (UTC) --dnordfors (talk) 19:22, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for not having so much time right now. I did a quick read through and tagged the blatantly obvious problems anyway. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:43, 26 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, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 20:39, 25 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 00:11, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stu Maddux[edit]

Stu Maddux (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)

Promotional article, seems a COI. The one independent film he produced *might* be notable, but the sources seem to be talking round him, or in most cases, don't pass WP:RS Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:40, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:58, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:58, 17 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, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 20:32, 25 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 all to 22nd Century Media. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 23:27, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Northbrook Tower, and others[edit]

The Northbrook Tower (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 "hyper-local" newspaper that doesn't have any apparent notability. Google searches appear to be almost all primary sources, and I don't find anything relevant in google news either. Worth a mention in either the newspaper's parent company's article, or the Northbrook, IL article, but not a standalone article. Shadowjams (talk) 23:29, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm adding the following to this nomination as well as they're all drawn from the same sort of template. If one is particularly different please indicate and this can change.

They are all local papers by a parent company 22nd Century Media. They all follow roughly the same layout and style. Shadowjams (talk) 23:35, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:17, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:17, 11 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) 22:33, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with mentioning it in the town articles, and perhaps even merging these to the paper's primary company, but they're not "major" by any stretch. The papers are even self-described as "hyper-local". I also think there may be some COI editing here, since two editors (if memory serves) created all of these and they all follow almost identical formatting. Shadowjams (talk) 06:32, 18 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, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 20:22, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no COI editing here in any of the articles. The old editor left the company and the Wiki page was left un-updated for a very long time. We also change our masthead logos(which you deleted for unknown reasons). These papers all have a reputation in their particular towns and deserve to be on Wikipedia. Let us know what we should do so that you people don't delete our Wiki content. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmony (talk • contribs) 22:22, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Drdisque : Did you ever read the newspapers to say that we reprint the same articles, with different titles. Please verify and confirm before making such statements. Every single of 11 publications both newspapers and prints, are different. Except for some stories occasionally that share the same town. The following are our current websites. Please see it for yourselves. northbrooktower.com , winnetkacurrent.com , wilmettebeacon.com , glenviewlantern.com , opprairie.com , frankfortstation.com , newlenoxpatriot.com , tinleyjunction.com , mokenamessenger.com , homerhorizon.com , lockportlegend.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmony (talk • contribs) 18:26, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. G3 Hoax v/r - TP 14:48, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tribeco[edit]

Tribeco (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 think neighborhoods are where we have to draw the line with regards to notability, and this one simply doesn't seem to meet Wikipedia's notability standards. Googling for "tribeco" fort worth texas turned up nothing on Google Books, News, or News archives, save for a passing mention in a catalog from the US Patent Office. CtP (t • c) 23:21, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:14, 11 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) 22:34, 17 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, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 20:21, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You only get one !vote, so I've slashed your second, but please feel free to make additional comments. CtP (t • c) 21:15, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, he hasn't presented anything thus far. If you have some sources showing that Tribeco meets WP:GNG, you're welcome to pitch in, too. CtP (t • c) 21:15, 28 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) 01:31, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Apple Branch[edit]

The Apple Branch (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 very minor, relatively recent, Wiccan group. I am unable to find any reliable sources discussing this group that would help establish any sort of notability. The only source present in the article is the group's official website, and doing the usual searches is giving me nothing that could be used to demonstrate notability. I'm only finding mentions of the group as a listing in directories of Wicca sects. Rorshacma (talk) 22:06, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:04, 11 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) 22:35, 17 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, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 20:19, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • A comment on that link, the book is from Books LLC, which merely pulls content from Wikipedia — Frankie (talk) 16:02, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's true that most Wiccan traditions lack citable coverage. Open traditions lost in a sea of traditions on one hand and secretive traditions avoiding attention on the other make things hard even with proper expert attention. Thankfully, Wikipedia does have established guidelines for such cases.
    —Sowlos (talk) 06:44, 29 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. Its clear that consensus is we should have at least some of the information currently in the article. Whether this should be merged, and to where, is something for another venue.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:27, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Green Bay Packers–Seattle Seahawks game[edit]

2012 Green Bay Packers–Seattle Seahawks game (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)

— Note to closing admin: SGMD1 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is being suggested to be merge to. 204.106.251.214 (talk) 02:14, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to anyone reading the posts immediately preceding and immediately following this note: Y2kcrazyjoker4's opening comment below, "There's way more than 2", which appears to be coming out of nowhere (more than two what?) is actually an important reply, one which deflated SGMD1's claim above (since deleted by SGMD1 himself) that there are only two articles on Wikipedia dealing with single games. SGMD1 has since backed down from this claim, as can be seen in his comments below, but apparently did not recognize that by deleting his own words (instead of the more standard Wikipedia practice of striking them out) that he would have the unintended and unfortunate consequence of making a fellow editor look incoherent.HuskyHuskie (talk) 12:07, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
— Note to closing admin: Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. —Bagumba (talk) 20:26, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • My mistake, you're right, there are are 14. I know you created the article so you're obviously biased towards keeping it but there's no need to personally attack me. I'm just stating my opinion that it's presumptive, less than 20 hours after the conclusion of this game, to suggest that it has any lasting notability. I agree with Arxiloxos that some of the material in the article is certainly encyclopedic but probably belongs in 2012 NFL season#Referee labor dispute. The only really notable event about this game is that the final call was disputed. SGMD1 Talk/Contribs 20:13, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, now it is less likely that there will be "an even worse-officiated game" since the lockout has now ended. It is possible, just less likely. 204.106.251.214 (talk) 04:35, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In your own words, this game has "...gain[ed] lasting notability." However, is that enough just to keep one article? 204.106.251.214 (talk) 04:35, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You guys want to be stubborn that's fine by me, I don't want to hear the crystal ball bs that you wikipedians like to throw around. The final play was not the only bad call of the game, it was a Monday Night Football game and had the biggest reaction for a regular season game from the country in NFL history. If you would like to merge it to the 2012 NFL season article and take up a quarter of that page with this game be my guess, it's clear that this WILL be an article down the road whether or not you guys decide to keep it. Not to mention the President of the United States talked about this football game and it cost $300 million in Las Vegas. Thanks ~ --Phbasketball6 (talk) 01:19, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are multiple issues with what you're suggesting. First, the article can't be called "Monday Night Controversy" unless there's some sort of consensus amongst secondary sources referring to it that way. Secondly, strictly speaking, the game itself wasn't notable. The final referee call WAS notable though, and has implications for the referee dispute. Any implications/repercussions for the teams can easily be added to the teams' respective Wikipedia articles. SGMD1 Talk/Contribs 02:18, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
With the new page 2012 NFL referee lockout page being created, I suggest a redirect to 2012 NFL referee lockout#Week 3. ZappaOMati 21:55, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not the place for your personal opinions. I saw the plays, they were egregious errors, but Wikipedia is not the place to discuss or post them. Go Phightins! (talk) 01:53, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dude he can say what ever he wants, it's the article that you can not post personal opinions, go climb a tree. Thanks ~--Phbasketball6 (talk) 02:20, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, calm down. I was saying that personal opinions not pertaining to interpretations of Wikipedia policies probably shouldn't be considered in arguments regarding deletion and notability of articles. Go Phightins! (talk) 02:26, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I know what you meant but he beliefs on that game are the same as the media, a lot of players, and coaches. Tirico and Gruden disagreed with a lot of calls in that game, that is not a personal opinion. Thanks ~ --Phbasketball6 (talk) 02:32, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All right, and I was saying that Wikipedia is/should be based primarily on facts, not opinions. I apologize if my comments implied otherwise. Go Phightins! (talk) 02:35, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, the game has not created a huge uproar. The call at the end of the game has created a huge uproar. This is a very important distinction. If this article is about the game itself, it requires a lot of information that simply isn't notable (i.e. the description of the first 59 minutes, 59 seconds of the game.) SGMD1 Talk/Contribs 02:39, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is an honest question not meant to troll, etc.: How do you get around WP:NOTNEWSPAPER which states that Wikipedia assesses the enduring notability of a subject? Do you think that solely this play will be remembered, or the collection of bad officiating? Personally, I'd say it's the collection and that's why I support merging it. Go Phightins! (talk) 02:40, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify my position, there needs to be some kind of article directly dealing with at least the ending of this game. Perhaps it would be best to rename the article and focus it on the final play. However, having information about the earlier part of the game is beneficial in the sense that it would give the readers some context. AutomaticStrikeout 02:43, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Completely agree with your assessment, Go Phightins! SGMD1 Talk/Contribs 02:47, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just to make sure I understand what you are saying, you are saying to merge the article and the Packers and Seahawks articles with the NFL 2012 season article. If so, could you explain why the Packers and Seahawks articles need to be merged as well since I do not understand why that would be needed as well. 204.106.251.214 (talk) 05:13, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They seemed like a reasonable partial merge target. The main part would probably go into the article on the ref dispute, but since the game's outcome might have an effect on whether or not those two teams make the playoffs, it seems like it would be worth merging some content there. And even if it doesn't have an effect on their playoff chances, its still an important event in the narrative of their respective seasons. 03:46, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
You said it yourself - this is a news item. Wikipedia is not news. SGMD1 Talk/Contribs 12:22, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And you should doublecheck your WP:CRYSTAL ball before saying we will care about this "years from now". – Muboshgu (talk) 01:50, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That may be, but I'd ask you what I asked another editor above...is it this specific game that is going to be remembered or the collection of poor officiating. I think it's the collection and therefore I support moving it to the new page SGMD1 just created. Go Phightins! (talk) 17:20, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That could be true, but now there is the fact that this is now notable for being the last game before the lockout ended due in part to it. 204.106.251.214 (talk) 04:35, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I remember few lockouts. I do, however, remember many notable plays in sports history. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 10:05, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions.  Gongshow Talk 18:08, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For clarification, if an article is based only on a single call or play, then it should be deleted? (Remember the articles that are linked on NFL lore can be considered to be this and could be subjected to deletion or a merge based on the results of this AfD in some cases.) 204.106.251.214 (talk) 02:06, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"All or nothing" is not appropriate, as different plays have their own merits for being kept or deleted.—Bagumba (talk) 04:52, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • True, but right now the "Mud Bowl" is currently facing an AfD concurrently with this discussion due to this which I agree with. My point is that not all articles are notable, yet several are more notable than others. Currently, this article is notable for several things: A famous/infamous play (4th and 26, the Tuck Rule Game among others), a game that helped bring an end to a lockout (no other games that I know of), a game with a final play that was decided the game by the decision of a referee or a review (Immaculate Reception, Music City Miracle, etc.), and a game that will likely have consequences in the future(Currently covered by WP:CRYSTAL at the moment.) This makes at least three points of notablility at the moment which is more than some articles. In addition, I would say that there has been significant coverage by several different organizations and corporations with extensive media coverage focused on just one game. For the quality of the article, we have kepted 4th and 26 for what I would say loose reasons at the time of the creation of the article and it has been improved and expanded on since. However, the article is only notable for a famous last play and for preventing the Packers from making the NFC Championship game. I feel that the "Golden Reception," or whatever the article will be renamed IF it is kepted, has enough reasons to be kepted as it passes WP:N. Right now there is WP:NORUSH, yet the creation of this discussion might have been rushed a bit. Prior to the creation of this discussion, we did not know what would happen with the lockout and right now we do not know how this will affect the playoff system of the NFL for this season for the next few weeks. Thus, this discussion was created as it did not seem to be notable enough at the time based on the opinions of others. Looking back, it feels to myself like this might have been rushed as there was no wait to see what this would do to the lockout. However, SGMD1 was correct to put this to discussion as the article was created before its notablilty could be thought about. Despite that, I will say that this article has also met WP:N(E) as the game has had national impact and has been covered by several sources. While Wikipedia is not a newspaper, WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, this game has had an impact and reaction that has gone past it. The main point of Wikipedia is not a newspaper against this article is that Wikipedia assess the importance of an event, yet as I have explain, I believe that this article has reached notability. To me, this debate seems to be an argument over WP:RECENTISM. Despite this being the first mention of it one this page, which is a bit surprising to me, the discussion as a whole has been based on how we did not know if the article would be notable enough since it has been a short period of time. However, as time has passed since the game and the event of it, we have learned more about the effects of the game on other events. At the time of the creation of the article, there was no way to know for sure that it would lead to the end of the lockout. Now, we can have a perspective view on how the play has had a lasting effect on the end of the lockout. Right now, we do not have a perspective view on how this game will affect the playoffs of the 2012 season. Yet, in a few months we will be able to see what this game did or did not do to change the results of the playoffs. Despite this lack of knowledge, does that mean the article should not exist over how we do not know how this will impact the playoffs? We may not have a full perspective view, but we do have notability. 204.106.251.214 (talk) 02:13, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, I would like to say sorry to Bagumba since it seems that I have taken my reply to them and turned it into an argument for why it should exist. 204.106.251.214 (talk) 02:13, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that if this article doesn't get merged to 2012 NFL referee lockout (which I think it should), then a name change is in order, but I have strong objections with changing the name to "Fail Mary pass". While having that as a redirect is fine, making it the actual title of the article is a no-go due to its bias and lack of universal acceptance as the primary nickname for the play. But we'll come to that when the time comes. SGMD1 Talk/Contribs 07:45, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this was created on September 25, the day after the game. At the time, the lockout was still ongoing and other games were expected to be affected by similar decisions. 204.106.251.214 (talk) 02:20, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To answer your question regarding why not this one, WP:OTHERSTUFF. Go Phightins! (talk) 01:34, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think a better argument would be to say that this is a combination of having WP:OSE and being WP:N. In other words, the other articles that have been listed has given a precedent that can be used for this article when combined with the notability of the article. I will redirect you to my reply to Bagumba as to why I believe this is notable. (I would rather not go off onto a lengthy comment if I can help it.) 204.106.251.214 (talk) 02:25, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep — I believe this is a notable article. There seems to be significant coverage as shown in the 32 sources from multiple news and other media sources. It looks like all the sources come from reliable media companies. Most of the sources come from secondary and independent source. This article is to big to put into 2012 NFL season#Referee labor dispute. Kingjeff (talk) 05:26, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree with your position on the article, I am reasonable enough to know that honest, intelligent people can still disagree with me on an issue, and that narrow-minded persons with the intellectual maturity of a five-year old may be found on my side of a debate. Please do not insult people who come to this page for the purpose for which it was created. HuskyHuskie (talk) 02:25, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, not every "Saying that a call is blown depends on the opinion of the person. Wikipedia trys to be netural so blown is not just a valid reason for an article." gets an article. Articles are kepted if they can be proven to at least be notable along with a few case-by-case things. If you would like to you are allowed to try to prove why you think this article should not exist, as SGMD1 had originally argued, or should be merged. I would recommend looking at the "List of policies and guidelines to cite in deletion debates" and "Arguments to make in deletion discussions." 204.106.251.214 (talk) 23:09, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was deletion under WP:BLP1E. I have tried to find a way to merge the article and with the way it is structured, having this merged in there would be something that would be hard to wiggle in. Also, as noted by the sources in the articles and found in this AFD, the subject wishes to remain off the radar and, under our policies, this a perfect case for evoking BLP1E. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 03:05, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Patricia Carroll[edit]

Patricia Carroll (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)

Textbook example of WP:BLP1E, was in the news for a day or two, and no further coverage nor lasting legacy, which falls under WP:NOT#NEWS as well. Delete Secret account 19:38, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:49, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Naugaon[edit]

Naugaon (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 Go Phightins! (talk) 19:32, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:00, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well I would hardly call that one line article well referenced, but if you say so...Go Phightins! (talk) 23:42, 27 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 (A10) by User:CactusWriter. (non-admin closure)  Gongshow Talk 18:12, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The monday night controversy[edit]

The monday night 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)

per WP:NOTNEWSPAPER; yes the play has received lots of coverage, it's probably not going to last, maybe an article entitled Replacement Referee Controversies Go Phightins! (talk) 19:20, 25 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) 16:00, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

World Domination (online game)[edit]

World Domination (online game) (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 seemingly unnotable flash game. While searching, I can find places where you can play the game, however, I'm not finding any sources that actually talk about it at all. Though to be honest, its completely generic title does make searching for sources a rather difficult task. The article itself makes no assertation of any sort of notability, and I'm not finding anything that would indicate that it is. Rorshacma (talk) 18:58, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 21:20, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:20, 27 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) 16:00, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Local Band Feel[edit]

Local Band Feel (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)

An unnotable bootleg album of the band Sebadoh. No sources can be found that discuss or review the album. I know that normally, unnotable albums are redirected to the band's article or discography article, however as this was an unlicensed album, it seems that deletion would be a better option. Rorshacma (talk) 18:43, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:10, 27 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) 16:00, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Beastlore[edit]

Beastlore (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 tabletop game that doesn't have any notability. The entire article is written like a game guide rather than an encyclopedia article, but that's not an unfixable problem. What is unfixable is that the game has no sources available at all. It seems that the game failed to be marketed in stores, and was only briefly sold directly by the game creator's website. The only place I'm finding that even mentions this game at all is just the games official Facebook page, which of course is not a reliable source. Rorshacma (talk) 18:34, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:20, 27 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) 16:00, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marshall Junction Partners LLC[edit]

Marshall Junction Partners LLC (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, no GNews/Book hits, no reliable sources found in GHits. Slightly promotional by COI editor. CSD removed by page creator. GregJackP Boomer! 18:21, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Revised sources added. DBarnett-MJP (talk) 23:08, 25 September 2012 (UTC)David[reply]

This would be the first time that the article would be deleted therefore salting would be unnecessary. Yes, the article was promotional but, as mentioned, salting for the first time is not necessary and may prevent a proper article from starting. SwisterTwister talk 01:58, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:16, 27 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 Speedied A7. Peridon (talk) 20:46, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Commercials I Hate[edit]

Commercials I Hate (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)

Message board with no evidence of notability. A few mentions in a few newspapers ("sites of the day"-style listings and such), but nothing that can be considered significant coverage in WP:RS. Kinu t/c 18:11, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Alexa rank is clearly a claim of importance though! (Just kidding, of course. :P) --Kinu t/c 19:32, 25 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) 16:00, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mures (video game)[edit]

Mures (video game) (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)

An unnotable, unlicensed copy of Chu Chu Rocket. There are no sources discussing this game what so ever, and even the sources present in the article (none of which were reliable secondary sources to begin with) are all dead links now. Rorshacma (talk) 18:07, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 21:12, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:12, 27 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. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 23:22, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2010 IAF Sikorsky CH-53 crash[edit]

2010 IAF Sikorsky CH-53 crash (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)
Previous AfD for this article under a different name:

Fails WP:AIRCRASH for military incidents. WP:NOTNEWS also. News coverage is routine. Article was AFD, the article was recreated and padded with duplicate links, listing the people who killed. Notability hasn't changed since the last AFD.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William 17:59, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. ...William 17:59, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ...William 17:59, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. ...William 17:59, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William 17:59, 25 September 2012 (UTC) ...William 17:59, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The editor above lies. Not one single citation from 2012 is in the article. The only 2012 news he can produce that is remotely connected to this crash is the sikorskys being put back into service by Israel. WP:ROUTINE covers that. If they were taken out of service, they will be placed back into or announced they aren't being used again. Also he doesn't understand AFDs very well. They aren't counts.
As for what was done to the article since the AFd
The listing of those killed in the crash. Crash articles aren't memorials and this was removed from the article[35]
Multiple links to the same articles, namely IC being placed in the external links or further reading sections. I count this being done at least seven times. 4 of which were removed per WP:ELRC.
I can do an indepth study of what changes were done to the article between last January and this August which have no bearings on notability. It will be an extensive study. Is anyone interested?...William 12:51, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While perhaps unrelated to the AfD, as part of an attempt to get this article deleted, WilliamJE edit-warred and was blocked for 24 hours [and then attacked the blocking admins and admins in general], if that's any indication about the state of this AfD...

Oh and the blocking editor admits to have done the block because he assumed[36] rather than check out your lies. Applying WP:ELRC isn't edit warring....William 12:55, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't waste your time, any editors who want to see the significant changes made can just look at what the article was when it was deleted here. If you think that just a list of those who were killed and "multiple links to the same articles" was all that was added, then that's rather disturbing. --Activism1234 00:54, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To sum up - article is properly referenced throughout, has undergone significant changes, is notable and has had a lasting impact which has continued into 2012, and fits WP:GNG. --Activism1234 18:56, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You recreated the article that had been previously deleted. Why didn't you take it to WP:DRV as is the norm for saving articles that are deleted?...William 12:51, 26 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 00:13, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fido.net[edit]

Fido.net (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)

An unsourced stub article on a not particularly popular British ISP. On the basis of search engine results it fails WP:CORPDEPTH, with only one news article about the company, when multiple sources are required. The article already has 'notability' & 'unreferenced' tags. -- Donkey1989 (talk) 17:46, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:16, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:16, 27 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 United Airlines Flight 811. Mark Arsten (talk) 11:51, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pan Am Flight 125[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Pan Am Flight 125 (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 incident per WP:AIRCRASH ...William 17:38, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William 17:40, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William 17:40, 25 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. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:31, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries with biodiversity articles[edit]

List of countries with biodiversity articles (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)

Whatever on the Index of biodiversity articles, but a list of links to sections of articles, especially when linking to sections is discouraged because such links are easily broken, strikes me as overkill and outside the scope of WP:SALAT. - Biruitorul Talk 16:52, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be helpful information to have - the only other way I think to get at it is to add a subcategory for Countries under Category:Biodiversity, which is definitely an alternative solution.--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:03, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, maybe that would be several sub-categories: 1) by continent and 2) countries within each continent.--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:09, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have a couple of ideas for how to display the information other than on this particular article / list page.--CaroleHenson (talk) 19:30, 25 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) 01:48, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Diana Rosen[edit]

Diana Rosen (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)

Ms. Rosen seems to be an intern for niche publication. She also seems to have won a student award for journalism. There are no reliable third party sources and GNews brings up only an opinion column in a college newspaper. Not jack newsham (talk) 15:15, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. Except *third-party. And *four opinion columns. User:Not River_Tam (talk) 23:39, 25 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by J1.grammar natz (talk • contribs) [reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Not jack newsham (talk) 15:15, 25 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) 11:50, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Harper (footballer born 1996)[edit]

Jack Harper (footballer born 1996) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PROD contested by article creator back in May 2012. This player fails WP:NFOOTBALL (as he has not played in a fully-professional league) and WP:GNG (due to lack of significant coverage) - sources are very much WP:ROUTINE and violate WP:BLP1E i.e. some bored journalist has stumbled upon the story of a young player of Scottish heritage playing for one of the world's top clubs, decided it's a bit of a novelty, dedicated 5 minutes to writing a throwaway piece, and that's it. GiantSnowman 15:23, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 15:25, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • all the news pieces relate to 'young Scot playing for Real Madrid' - WP:BLP1E and WP:ROUTINE apply. There is no "widespread" coverage. GiantSnowman 16:25, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did of course refer to 'widespread' in relation to the number of independent sources, not the content in each one; the usual meaning of widespread... Kennedy (talk) 16:29, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It doesn't matter if it's two sources saying the same thing or fifteen. If what they're saying is trivial (and as you're citing the Daily Record and the Sun, it is) then that's all that matters. GiantSnowman 16:34, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You don't consider the Daily Record or the Sun notable? Probably the two most popular newspapers in Scotland... I don't know what could be an improvement really... Kennedy (talk) 20:11, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in Scottish task force's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 15:13, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 15:13, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 15:13, 26 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) 16:36, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shyamanand Jha[edit]

Shyamanand Jha (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)

Mr Jha appears to be a recent graduate in Cinematography. I can find no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject that support inclusion as a Biographical article. As always, more than happy to be proven wrong. Shirt58 (talk) 14:06, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: On article talk page, article creator has claimed that he was the "DOP" (ie: Director of photography) on a Zee TV television series for three years. TV shows don't have DOPs. --Shirt58 (talk) 10:03, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:02, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:02, 27 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 00:14, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of AT&T U-verse channels[edit]

List of AT&T U-verse channels (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)

Outright failure of WP:NOTDIR, as an electronic program guide. The channel line-ups change over time and with region, so there's little use as an encyclopedic article. The most current one can always be had via the provider's website, which can be linked to from the provider's article. There may be some cases of historical issues with certain channels not being available on certain providers, but that's better suited for articles about the channels or providers to describe the basis and resolution of the conflict.

Please note: I'm only nominating this one page, but the same logic here likely applies to all 100-some pages in Category:Lists of television channels by company. If there is agreement this one should be deleted, a followup process should be made to assure the others are deleted without having to AFD each one (making exceptions where necessary). MASEM (t) 13:40, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. A. B. (talk • contribs) 13:49, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. A. B. (talk • contribs) 14:19, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
IP, I notice that WHOIS identifies your IP address as an AT&T address. Can you clarify any connection you may have to AT&T? -- The Red Pen of Doom 16:44, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD should get the broadest possible attention since it will likely serve as a precedent. I encourage the closing administrator to give it sufficient time to establish a clear consensus with as many participants as possible. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 15:21, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You've noted this AFD at VPP, I've just added a note at WT:TV. I'm not sure of any other places outside the standard deletion sorting that would be appropriate, but others should feel free to draw attention to this. --MASEM (t) 15:24, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest raising your question about what to do with the other 100 articles (if there's a consensus to delete this one) at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion, that Village Pump thread and/or Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. There is a process to nominate multiple articles for deletion in one AfD; in the past, I've seen those go awry. If there is consensus here to delete this article, then I would consider multi-article AfDs based on tranches of 5 to 10 articles, starting with the most-obscure, least-watched, least-edited list articles. There may be a few lists for big system operators with stable lineups that are better handled with individual AfDs; the community may want to keep them. What doesn't work is a multi-article AfD where some articles end up keepers and some don't -- the discussion gets very muddled and often contentious. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 15:33, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If this current AFD continues the trend it is going now, it doesn't seem worthwhile to even make a smaller number of AFDs for the other articles which, when I spot-check them, all are effectively the same. That's why a separate process, meant specifically to allow people time to say "hey, this one is different, it should be kept!" seems more appropriate as followup here. If it were only 5-10 more articles total in addition, sure, I'd just repeat the AFD, but I think we can avoid that with the larger number that would be affected. --MASEM (t) 15:55, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In case it's gone unnoticed, be aware that this precedent would call for the deletion (barring secondary sources) of all "List of" articles within Category:Lists of television channels by company and elsewhere, both for the United States and for other countries. The precedent should also affect List of Sirius Satellite Radio stations, List of XM Satellite Radio channels and other similar and dissimilar "List of" articles. --Chaswmsday (talk) 17:23, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentSo what - your attempts to Wikilawyer around the intent of WP:NOTDIR on the basis that it supposedly doesn't cover this exact sort of dictionary directory appears to have little support - and unless and until the policy is changed, we will have to conform to it. The consensus here is that this is a directory, and that as such it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. If you want to argue that the policy should be changed, do it in the appropriate place, not here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:43, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • in reply to Chaswmsday "be aware that this precedent would call for the deletion (barring secondary sources) of all "List of" articles within Category:Lists of television channels by company and elsewhere" One would certinaly hope so. -- The Red Pen of Doom 14:28, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • reply - well, of course: that's part of the whole point, to purge this whole class of WP:NOTDIR violations from the project, as should have been done a long time ago. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:32, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I would still ask that if they are "purged" as OrangeMike put it, that I could get a couple moved to my userspace. Maybe one day find a way to make them NOT#DIR appropriate and reintroduce them. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:16, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Probably unwelcome sidebar comment[edit]

Sourcing of article[edit]

Moved from Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not:

End move --Chaswmsday (talk) 14:49, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise to AfD[edit]

Crossposted from Talk:List of AT&T U-verse channels#Compromise to AfD

As a compromise position to deletion of the article, would it be proper to create "Category:AT&T U-verse channels", and populate each channel accordingly, then delete this article?

End Crosspost --Chaswmsday (talk) 18:46, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 11:46, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Snurbs IM[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Snurbs IM (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 significant secondary-source coverage cited or to be found; fails WP:GNG on that basis. Batard0 (talk) 12:23, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 18:54, 25 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) 02:50, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Alghawi[edit]

Aaron Alghawi (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)

Bio of blatantly non-notable person. Claim to notability appears to be that he's an "activist" who handles the Facebook and Twitter pages for a right wing PAC. Presumably an autobiography. Speedy and notability tags persistently removed by an IP, skipping PROD since presumably that will be removed as well. Hairhorn (talk) 12:12, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Qworty considering your reasoning is nothing but ad hominem it's clear you have a bias as well. This is not an article about myself. DaytonDarkhorse (talk) 01:55, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removing the tags were honest mistakes, as I am new at this. However, removing your autobiography tag was NOT vandalism. The fact that you posted it without proof should be construed as vandalism itself. DaytonDarkhorse (talk) 01:59, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that user Aarong2029 (talk · contribs) originally wrote this page in his sandbox, since blanked. Hairhorn (talk) 02:11, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I had noticed that earlier. Looks like a fourth reason to ban him, for WP:SOCK. Anyone care to open an official investigation? Qworty (talk) 02:16, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How do I know that you didn't invent the user Aarong2029 yourself? The first user who tried to delete Aaron Alghawi was Delta161 and that user had no prior edit history. Was Delta a code word for delete? 161 is a numerical representation of Aaron Alghawi's initials A = 1 F = 6. AFA = 161. The page doesn't have much of an edit history on it. If I was using both pages, what's the point? Why would I create two usernames that could be associated with the page? Why not just one? Why none? And why wouldn't he make his own sandbox private? Just walk away, Qworty and Hairhorn, you have clear biases. I'll upload more sources as I find them to add to the significance of the subject. I'm doing more articles on the RLC national committee as well as time permits. DaytonDarkhorse (talk) 02:20, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I mean as I feel like because I have a life unlike the stereotypical "internet tough guy" that stalks Wikipedia pages of those with different political beliefs trying to get them deleted DaytonDarkhorse (talk) 03:02, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: autobiography - as Hairhorn has already discovered, DaytonDarkhorse also edited several other pages (e.g. U of TX A&M notable alumni) - all of which pointed to this page. Ironic that I was accused of registering solely to delete this page. By that reasoning, it certainly appears DaytonDarkhorse registered solely to create this individual presence on Wikipedia. Also, sorry to burst your code breaking bubble, but my username has nothing to do with you (although if it were, cracking that code might be the most notable thing you've done). Please do yourself a favor and review Wikipedia guidelines for notability. Delta161 (talk) 03:22, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to delete the page, just get it over with and shut up about it. How's that for a troublemaker? The page will be back in the future, as will the other RLC board member pages, once more sources are found. DaytonDarkhorse (talk) 00:46, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Qworty, it's not an autobiography. Other mods: the next time it is posted I will make sure it has enough sources to met the notability guidelines. Go ahead and delete it for now. DaytonDarkhorse (talk) 08:12, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:56, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:56, 27 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) 11:47, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Snap Limited[edit]

Snap Limited (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 reliable sources. No GNews/Books hits, GHits do not appear to have anything useful either. Brought to AFD since article makes a claim of significance. GregJackP Boomer! 12:05, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. 20:57, 25 September 2012 (UTC)-gadfium 20:57, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:15, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:15, 27 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 Intelligence services in Canada. Please note that "merge and delete" is not a possible outcome as it would instantly turn any merged content into copyright violations under Wikipedia's attribution requirements. The Bushranger One ping only 00:15, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Foreign Intelligence Agency[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Canadian Foreign Intelligence Agency (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 such thing as a Canadian foreign intelligence agency. The article is unsourced and is mostly speculation. Very little encyclopedic value. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 10:33, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Comment: if by some miracle this is kept, it should be renamed to "Canadian foreign intelligence agency" - capitalization does not apply here because it suggests the existence of a non-existant agency.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 21:37, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:37, 27 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.

Speedy deleted under G12 CharlieEchoTango (contact) 22:05, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Best city[edit]

Best 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)

The article doesn't have any significance to be included in the encyclopedia, doesn't have neutral point of view, few source(s), non-notable Mediran talk 10:04, 25 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 Speedied A7. Peridon (talk) 21:42, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Calpano[edit]

Calpano (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 simple piece of info and not an article Hindustanilanguage (talk) 09:44, 25 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) 02:39, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Post-mortem interval[edit]

Post-mortem interval (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)

Entirely unsourced, failing WP:V, so tagged since 2009. No way to tell as a reader if any of this, particularly the stages of death, is true. Delete if untrue or still unsourced after the AfD, else merge to Death.  Sandstein  09:23, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, lack of sources is indeed a reason for deletion per WP:V. That policy states: "Any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." I am challenging this unsourced material because I have no way to determine whether it is true. This means that it must be deleted if nobody does source it. Even if it is eventually sourced, it does not seem to fulfil the requirements for a standalone article and should therefore be merged.  Sandstein  15:17, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:18, 27 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. Nomination withdrawn. Non-admin closure. Road Wizard (talk) 18:12, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sir James Cockburn, 8th Baronet[edit]

Sir James Cockburn, 8th Baronet (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 Member of Parliament for Linlithgow Burghs from 1772 to 1784 is his only substantive claim to notability. The remainder of the article is genealogical. Unless being an MP automatically confers notability, the article must go as the rest is purely of interest to his family. Inheriting a non-noble title does not confer notability. Crusoe8181 (talk) 09:19, 25 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) 01:29, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lock On (street art)[edit]

Lock On (street art) (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)

Sources used in article are either assosciated with the subject or are blogs. My own search for reliable sources discussing this phenomenon failed to find anythinng any better. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:55, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, Mogenskbh (talk) 10:49, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(Have fixed the indentation on your comment for ease of reading. I don't believe I changed the content, but if you are concerned about my changes, please feel free to revert them. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 00:46, 19 September 2012 (UTC))[reply]
Understand where you are coming from but most of those could not be considered "significant coverage" of the subject artistic style. Some are broken links, but those that aren't are mostly blogs and so could not be considered "reliable sources" for the purposes of meeting WP:GNG. Having had a look through them, it might be possible to use some of those to help build on the article for Tejn (artist), the artist responsible for this style. You might be better off trying to Merge the content of the above into his article under a section about his styles of art. There just doesn't seem to be enough coverage of this particular style to justify a stand-alone article. If the style is still developing and is gaining popularity and might be the subject of more coverage in the future, this might be a case of WP:TOOSOON. If that is the case, it might be worth userfying the article so you can work on it in your own space, for example at User:Mogenskbh/Lock On (street art) which can be created for you. Once it has the appropriate references it can be brought back into the main article space. That can sometimes be a better option that deletion. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 00:46, 19 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:24, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, none of the "sources" you added are really sources that would help this article comply with WP:GNG. You should have a read of that policy and work on finding some sources (if they exist) to help this article comply. You should also note that Wikipedia already has an article for Love padlocks which is very different - sources for that subject should not be added to this one with the suggestion they verify the claims in this article. They do not. You might also like to have a read of WP:COI, WP:SPA and WP:SOC. I'm all for helping the article to grow and have suggested a way for that to happen while it (currently) does not meet Wikipedia guidelines for inclusion. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 12:33, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the advise, Stalwart. I´m new here, trying to navigate on this page. Have now deletet the Love Padlock section of this article. I tried to read WP rules where I found them, but didn´t manage to get a clear view conserning witch languages, according to WP, are big enough to really count as a source. If danish is ok (thinking the world got Bing and other translate oppurtunities) it should be no problem to ad some of the "relyable" sources from newspapers and galleries, but if it has to be in english, I see problems finding it when it comes to local but relevant subjects (like a upcomming, non destructive, branch in street art). I would like to Keep the article, but my time investment is limited, so I really need some help to get it going from here. Cheers :-) I812 (talk) 18:18, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I respect that. WP:NOENG gives a pretty good summary for the guidelines that would apply in this case. English sources are preferred because this is the English Wikipedia, but foreign language sources can be used. I think there would be concern, though, if an article relied entirely on foreign language sources, especially to meet WP:GNG. Regardless of language, blogs are generally not considered to be reliable sources (see WP:BLOGS) - and I don't need to be able to read Danish to be able to tell many of the current "sources" are blogs and would not be considered reliable, regardless of language. So we either need to find some reliable sources (in English and Danish and others, as the case might be) or we need to look at alternate options like userfication. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 00:23, 20 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]
I agree with you, Stalwart, and i´m happy that some foreign language souces is accepted. I´ve added a bit sources (danish gallerys + one of denmarks leading newspapers), and have no time for wikiwork the next few days. The genre is growing and sooner or later the perfect source must show up. Hope that someone out there with more time wil take the challenge of making this into a great article. Cheers for now I812 (talk) 10:06, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely right - strangely, that line from GNG about them not being required links back to NOENG which says they are preferred. But that's not my point - my point was that editors/readers might be concerned if the article relied on non-English sources and those sources (to non-Danish readers, for example) didn't look to be WP:RS. My point was as much about the sources themselves as about the language. Danish/French-only sources would be fine if those sources were WP:RS. As an aside, the sources added by I812 look good. Stalwart111 (talk) 23:43, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Could use a helping hand making the language in the article sound like it is written by someone who is better in writing english than I am. :-) Mogenskbh (talk) 15:10, 20 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, @DipankanUpgraded! Tag me! 08:50, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep The article is a stub and should be expanded. Good luck editors :) this could be a cool page.Righteousskills (talk) 18:50, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:47, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative Minerals Management Bill[edit]

Alternative Minerals Management Bill (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)

Unambiguous copyright violation of http://lrcksk.org/main/campaigns/minerals-management-bill/. (G12 tag removed.) Cindy(talk to me) 07:39, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:04, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:04, 27 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. Pliché has been restored, since it's undiscussed. Anyone wanting the content to make an EPower that meets WP:N can ask at Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles, but there really isn't any worth having. WilyD 08:50, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Computer's That Resemble The First-Genration iMac[edit]

Computer's That Resemble The First-Genration iMac (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced stub full of spelling punctuation errors (even in the title!). Content could probably be merged into the iMac article if necessary. Eastlaw talk ⁄ contribs 06:56, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Observing a judicious process does not signify or necessitate bureaucracy. A valid AFD nomination requires that incompetence and vandalism do not compromise the article, such that the subsequent discussion is an accurate and fair procedure. Whatever the issues affecting the original articles on EPower and Pliché, they properly warrant a separate discussion, without reference to the ineptitude that ultimately prompted the nomination of the article entitled 'computer's That Resemble The First-Genration iMac'. Mephistophelian (contact) 15:21, 30 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Pliché hasn't been nominated, so I agree that an appropriate discussion would be required. -- Trevj (talk) 17:26, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:23, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see a need to close the discussion per the above suggestion. While it might be reasonable under other circumstances, the entire history of EPower is at the current article, and it never has been substantially better than it is now. The history of Pliché is essentially the same. Those who opine here are not being misled, and if there is evidence of notability of either of the two machines, it can be established here and the article moved as needed. I do not see sufficient proof of notability to justify the article. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 18:59, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If we're discussing the two articles (which isn't obvious from the AfD title), then either
  1. This AfD should be closed and a new one started; or
  2. This one needs relisting and appropriate direction advised for those discussing.
-- Trevj (talk) 21:54, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
just to ensure there's no confusion, I'm not suggesting that any article be deleted other than the one nominated. All I suggest is that thisarticleis no different from others that have been moved - we take the article on its merits, and on that basis this article imho should be deleted. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 23:12, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination due to the low level of participation. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 14:17, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mongo Wrestling Alliance[edit]

Mongo Wrestling Alliance (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 search for reliable, secondary sources reveals an insufficient amount of significant coverage. This 11-minute television series fails Wikipedia's general notability guideline. Notability is not inherited, and all articles require a demonstration of significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources; our guidelines are quite clear on this point. Furthermore, its full run was 10 11-minute episodes, which would not grant inherent notability even if there were such a thing. Neelix (talk) 02:36, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:17, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:41, 13 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) 01:28, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete as nominator - Notability is not inherited, and all articles require a demonstration of significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources; our guidelines are quite clear on this point. Furthermore, its full run was 10 11-minute episodes, which would not grant inherent notability even if there were such a thing. Neelix (talk) 14:05, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominators should never add a delete vote as this is indicated by nominating the article for deletion. I have moved this to your initial AfD nomination comment. SwisterTwister talk 06:15, 25 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, SwisterTwister talk 06:15, 25 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:39, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Arcana Heart characters[edit]

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

WP:LISTN, as part of the guideline on WP:Notability, explains that we need to establish the notability of lists by establishing the notability of the group. There is nothing here to WP:verify notability of these characters. Further, most of this article just summarizes information from the instruction manual (a few sentences of character bio plus a ton of information about fighting style / moves / etc.), which would violate WP:GAMEGUIDE and WP:VG/GL. Lists of gameplay weapons and moves are considered inappropriate under those guidelines. Simply editing out that information WP:WONTWORK, because then you won't have much of a list at all, hence why I'm proposing deletion as the policy-based option.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Shooterwalker (talk • contribs) 23:54, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:55, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:55, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk). — Frankie (talk) 21:57, 19 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, SwisterTwister talk 06:11, 25 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. Soft delete because discussion has been minimal. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 15:30, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Society for Companion Animal Studies[edit]

Society for Companion Animal Studies (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)

Although certainly a noble cause, I haven't found sufficient sources to establish notability. Google News provided links each consisting of one mention here, here and here (requires payment for full article). Google Books also provided one mention here. Google Books also found this (scroll to the book with the title "Society for Companion Animal Studies"), a book published for the society with content from this article. I should also note that this is not the first time I have seen this. I've seen those authors publish other books with content from Wikipedia as shown here.

The best link I found was this, mentioning that the group was founded as Group for the Study of Human-Companion Animal Bond in 1979 but changed its name in 1982. However, I have found little results with "Group for the Study of Human-Companion Animal Bond" aside from one mention through a 1979 newspaper here. I found another small mention of the former name here. With a slightly positive note, I found what appears to be a detailed book here (scroll to the title "The powers of love"). Unfortunately, the snippet view never shows the relevant content. Additionally, I would be more than willing to improve the article if it weren't that I haven't found any significant content or significant sources. If I were to improve the article, it seems the best option would be a stub with the former name and dates. However, the concern of few news sources would remain. SwisterTwister talk 05:58, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:14, 11 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) 14:03, 18 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, SwisterTwister talk 06:03, 25 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 00:16, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Price[edit]

Marc Price (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 does not assert notability nor is it referenced, any possible notability of this minor actor is borderline and as it is written and as I see sources it is best to delete Chanchiqua (talk) 04:53, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:28, 27 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) 02:37, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony M. Esolen[edit]

Anthony M. Esolen (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 subject fails WP:GNG as well as WP:PROF. He is in fact a translator of notable works, but he WP:INHERITs nothing as far as notability. JFHJr (㊟) 04:30, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[See below: Opinion changed! *Delete As this stands there is no evidence given of genuine notability. Short of someone finding various positive references in peer reviews/articles on Dante and similar academic works there is no reason to keep this. Jpacobb (talk) 23:33, 26 September 2012 (UTC)][reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:58, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:58, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to do so once the AfD gets closer to the end if it looks like the balance is for keep. Thanks for reconsidering! -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 04:04, 30 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 article has now received significant improvement with a rewrite and sufficient sources. SwisterTwister talk 04:25, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Queeruption[edit]

Queeruption (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)

Foe over 2.5 years tagged as nonnotable without improvement Staszek Lem (talk) 03:31, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you have found "numerous non-trivial sources spanning several years implying continuing coverage", please list them. Furthermore, how is my ability to obtain old information irrelevant? I explicitly stated that I have only found old articles and zero recent links, suggesting that this festival may have failed or ended. SwisterTwister talk 14:25, 25 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) 01:27, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Antonio Dennard[edit]

Antonio Dennard (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)

An American football player that plays cornerback. He has not played a regular season game or is on an active roster. Played college at an NAIA school. Has been Proded, deleted and recreated hours after deletion. Bgwhite (talk) 01:40, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:26, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:26, 27 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 Moved to AFC space. (non-admin closure) Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:19, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lone Wolves (novel series)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Lone Wolves (novel series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unremarkable self-published book series with no references. Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 01:34, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 01:55, 25 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 procedural close wrong forum. Try over there. (non-admin closure) KTC (talk) 14:55, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ligue de Football de Guyane[edit]

Ligue de Football de Guyane (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 correct name is “Ligue de Football de la Guyane”. The page “Ligue de Football de Guyane” is just a leftover redirect with the wrong name. Cf. this pdf. -- Dietrich Benninghaus (talk) 13:41, 25 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