< 26 February 28 February >
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 no consensus. While I am as skeptical as anyone about whether there can be a non-blank "list of honest politicians" (or of honest people tout court), the "keep" opinions make the valid point that whether a political leader is indeed "renowned for their integrity", as the list is now entitled, is a matter of collecting reliable sources to that effect, and not of editorial opinion (read: original research). There is therefore no compelling reason to delete this article in the absence of a clear consensus for deletion.  Sandstein  08:18, 7 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of political leaders renowned for their integrity née List of honest politicians[edit]

List of honest politicians (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)

Attempting to compile a list of "honest" politicians implicitly requires Wikipedia editors to make a value judgment about each politician, which unavoidably violates WP:OR, WP:NOT#ESSAY, and WP:NPOV. Sure, we can find sources that say "Abraham Lincoln was an honest politician" (after all, his nickname was Honest Abe), but we can undoubtedly find sources that say he was also dishonest (just google "Abraham Lincoln dishonest" for plenty of examples). How do we reconcile these conflicting sources to determine if he was sufficiently honest to appear in this list?

This is true of any politician, or any person, for that matter. No one is 100% honest for every moment of their life. How honest must someone be to appear on this list? 90% honest? 75% honest? Are white lies ok? How do we quantitatively measure their honesty level without original research?

This list is fundamentally flawed and not feasibly maintainable, because its inclusion criteria requires us to inject our own opinions. ‑Scottywong| gab _ 23:46, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Besides we don't really know if it was Cincinnatus' honesty that made him resign emperorhood twice. Maybe he just preferred life on his farm. Kitfoxxe (talk) 00:29, 28 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Please see Cincinnatus and the Disbanding of Washington's Army which explains that "At issue here is not what the absolute truth was, but what the tradition was, for it is the tradition, and not what modern scholars have reconstructed, that had effect upon later readers and thus upon later events." Warden (talk) 15:47, 28 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 28 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 28 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • No, I was working on Cincinnatus three weeks ago well before I saw that AFD. I got on to the topic of Cincinnatus because of Carrite's RFA which seemed similarly admirable. Cincinnatus was a major political exemplar and it seemed fitting to have a list of these. The result of the later AFD made a nice counterpoint or contrast but there is otherwise no connection between them. This is not the first time I have worked on a topic of this kind - see historical figure, for example - another page about the great men of history which went to AFD but developed well and subsequently adorned our mainpage. Warden (talk) 19:46, 28 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, on a positive note it's not as if the list is ever going to grow more than a dozen..... I mean, how many politicians are really honest... About the same number of nuns who are sex addicts.. There of course dirty whore-like nuns who shame the church with their antics but there aint many of them... Roman Catholic clergy and small boys on the otherhand....♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 14:27, 28 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I have explained the true origin of my interest in this topic above. The pointiness here is with those, like yourself, who seek any occasion to attack the ARS in general and myself in particular. This AFD seems to be a roll-call of such types, starting with the nominator who has long pursued this vendetta. You guys don't have any genuine interest in the topic, do you? Tsk. Warden (talk) 19:46, 28 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Genuine interest in the topic is not required for participation at AfD. And furthermore, I don't think I've had contact with the ARS for several years, nor did I find this article via the ARS rescue list (which I haven't checked for a very long time). ‑Scottywong| gossip _ 20:02, 28 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Watch your tone, Warden. ScottyWong has already reminded you that interest in a topic is, and never will be, a prerequisite for voting in an AfD. Your accusations border on a personal attack, to say nothing of being inaccurate and unfounded. If you have some problem, hash it out on some noticeboard, not here pbp 20:43, 28 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just because Lincoln's honesty can be sourced doesn't mean we have to build a whole article around people like him. Lincoln was 6'4"; that can be sourced. A lot of other people with Wikipedia articles are 6'4". Does that mean we have to create an article List of people who are 76 inches tall? <sarcasm>Oh, and how the hell did you get here? Have you been WikiHounding me?</sarcasm> pbp 23:35, 28 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This was something they were famous for, not just some random arbitrary thing. Warden's talk page is on my watch list so I saw mention of this. Anyone curious about his wikihounding comment, see here: [1] Don't want to leave people confused. Dream Focus 23:43, 28 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • This is an AfD to discuss the deletion of an article. Accusations and denials of wikihounding do NOT belong here, but elsewhere. Let's stick to the subject at hand, please. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:02, 1 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Noleander, having had another day to consider this article/list, I might go so far as to suggest that the article should be renamed "List of national leaders renowned for their integrity." If we are going to keep this list, I think it should be limited to meaningful entries such as Betancourt, Cincinnatus, Washington and other leaders of real significance. By properly titling the article/list and limiting its scope in its introductory text as suggested, we can avoid most, if not all of the problems identified by several of the "delete" !voters above. With those caveats and suggested changes, I see no reason why a restructured and better defined version of this list should devolve into partisan bickering over whether to include minor figures (e.g., a state senator from Butte, Montana who received commendation for his honesty in his hometown newspaper), or edit-warring over the subjective judgments of editors. The burden for inclusion should rest on proper sourcing per WP:V and WP:RS. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:39, 1 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • It was never my intent to include minor cases and that's why the lead uses the word "renowned". If we can make this clearer without over-complicating it, that's fine. Warden (talk) 12:55, 1 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • There certainly is a place for reliable information on people's honesty. It's in their articles, and nowhere else. As I noted above, there are many sourceable common traits among people with Wikipedia articles that could be combined into list articles. But, since many of those aren't that important, they needn't be. This is one of those cases. Honesty is a character trait; so is anger. You won't see a list (and if you do, I can guarantee you I'll be on the front lines to delete it) pbp 21:44, 1 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Response. Point taken, I have added additional text (in italics) to clarify my reason for delete. --Richhoncho (talk) 12:14, 1 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're not the first discussion participant to have that reaction, Adjwilley (including the "empty list" humor). Obvious jokes aside, what would you suggest for an alternate, more appropriate title? Several have already been suggested above . . . . Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:44, 1 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How about List of national politicians notable for their integrity? Notable seems more useful than renowned. --Noleander (talk) 18:06, 1 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, if they're politicians and they're honest, of course that makes them notable. LOL Sorry. I couldn't resist; I really was trying to maintain a straight face. Kidding aside, neither word quite conveys the sense I'm looking for -- not persons who are honest, but significant persons who have a reputation for being honest or having integrity. Thoughts? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:28, 1 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hmm, of the suggestions I've seen, I think List of national leaders renowned for their integrity is the best so far. If the article survives, it is bound to be a WP:Coatrack, but "national leaders renowned for their integrity" has a much smaller "hook" than the jarring oxymoron "honest politicians" :-) ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:03, 5 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"George, said his father, do you know who killed that beautiful little cherry-tree yonder in the garden? This was a tough question; and George staggered under it for a moment; but quickly recovered himself: and looking at his father, with the sweet face of youth brightened with the inexpressible charm of all-conquering truth, he bravely cried out, "I can't tell a lie, Pa; you know I can't tell a lie. I did cut it with my hatchet."--Run to my arms, you dearest boy, cried his father in transports, run to my arms; glad am I, George, that you killed my tree; for you have paid me for it a thousand fold. Such an act of heroism in my son, is more worth than a thousand trees, though blossomed with silver, and their fruits of purest gold."

Keep and work on, is better than the title makes you think it would be (maybe re-title). From the name, I thought it was a joke (and had a ready reply about why not a list of dishonest ones...too many haha). But it really is kind of a decent article on politicians renowned for integrity (Cincinattus and all). I think it could be expanded to look at this meme more. For instance, I was going to add a little boxed quote from the famous story about the cherry tree (which is apocryphal, but the point is that it spells out a concept. See here. (It's PD too...mwahaha.) TCO (talk) 19:03, 2 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Joke) But why is the current list so short!?  ;-) TCO (talk) 19:40, 2 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good article actually. You could even put that into the Wiki article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TCO (talk • contribs) 20:21, 2 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How do you measure "integrity" though? It is subjective.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 11:07, 3 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dr. B., like any other Wikipedia persons list, it's not the editors' job to measure the honesty, integrity, or any other personal attribute, of the listed persons. It is the editors' task to find reliable sources that show a listed person to have been renowned (i.e., widely known, famous, broadly remembered) by historians, journalists, political scientists, etc., for acting with integrity in the person's role as a political or military leader. Those are two different tasks. The list was started with exemplars such as Cincinnatus and Washington, national leaders who are widely remembered by historians and popular culture as leaders who could be relied upon to do the right thing when presented with a supreme test of character, and act in accordance with their own ideals and those of their society. If limited to national leaders as described, I don't see this list ever having more 20 to 30 listed persons, and that's one of the things that makes it a potentially interesting list: the quality that we are attempting to capture is a fairly rare thing.
That having been said, I still believe that a title such as "List of national leaders renowned for their integrity" is a better formulation than the current title, because it properly places the emphasis on historically significant leaders, the reputation of the listed persons, and the need for reliable sources to demonstrate such "renown." I readily concede that other discussion participants may yet hit upon an even better title formulation. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:49, 3 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Thanks for your kind words and your own erudition is much appreciated too. For example, I was not familiar with the concept of a valence issue which you introduced in the lead. To educate myself, I have investigated and expanded that topic too in the course of learning more. Warden (talk) 20:50, 3 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're most welcome. The apple pie pic was an unexpected treat! FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:10, 3 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • You started the article scanning speech. This states "There is no universal agreement about the exact definition of this term." Does this mean we should delete it? No, what WP:NPOV actually says is, "Achieving what the Wikipedia community understands as neutrality means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias." Please explain why this is impossible for one case but not the other. Warden (talk) 17:56, 5 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • It's one thing to have an article on a concept whose definition isn't universally agreed upon. It's quite another to have an article which purports to authoritatively list people who are described by a concept whose definition isn't universally agreed upon. A proper comparison article would be List of people who have scanning speech. Since the definition of scanning speech isn't universally agreed upon, we can't point at someone and definitively say they have it. But we can certainly describe the properties of scanning speech without violating NPOV, and we can discuss how and why the definition of scanning speech isn't agreed upon. Therefore, we can have an article on Honesty, but we can't go further and create a List of honest politicians. ‑Scottywong| chat _ 18:03, 5 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Scotty, have you been following the discussion of titles and changes to the article? If not, you need an update. What you described is not what we now have have. This is not an article or list that requires editors to determine whether the listed persons are "honest," or as currently phrased, whether they have "integrity." It requires editors to discern whether there are reliable sources that demonstrate whether such listed persons are widely known (i.e. renowned) for their integrity. That is a very different question, and a very different standard for inclusion, It should be a standard with which almost every experienced Wikipedia editor is familiar, as in "List of political leaders renowned for their integrity," the current title of this list following its renaming. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:11, 5 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • On Wikipedia, editors routinely disagree about anything and everything so we would never get anything done if absolute standards of mathematical rigour were required. For example, see List of rivers by length which states, "... the length measurements of many rivers are only approximations. In particular, there has long been disagreement as to whether the Nile or the Amazon is the world's longest river. ..." Many topics are like that because there is no final or absolute authority for anything. What people are suggesting here is that there is a special problem with the topic. But they talk in vague generalities without giving any specifics or evidence. So far, there have been no edit wars nor any significant disputes about the entries. Not one. Warden (talk) 18:15, 5 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • And the article has existed for a whopping 10 days so far, so I don't think the absence of edit wars is particularly comforting. Dirtlawyer1, while I appreciate the name change, I'm not convinced that it has actually changed anything except the name. There is very little difference between a "list of honest politicians" and a "list of politicans renowned for their integrity". So, this list will now include anyone who has reliable sources that demonstrate if they are widely known for their integrity. What if that same person also has reliable sources that suggest they did not act with integrity and honesty? Are they still considered renowned for their integrity? Consider this book about Abraham Lincoln. Should he still appear on this list given the content of this source? This same argument will occur for virtually any person you ever put in this list. Perhaps a more appropriate title would be List of politicians described as honest by at least one reliable source. ‑Scottywong| babble _ 19:38, 5 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Scotty, please see WP:WEIGHT. One revisionist biography does not refute the existence of a widely held reputation documented by multiple, independent, reliable sources. Again, the issue is not the integrity of the persons listed, but the demonstrated reputation for integrity of the listed persons. This is really no different than any other article or list where every statement should be verified and sourced per WP:V and WP:RS, with due weight given to any minority position that is credible. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:16, 5 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I withdrew the nom due to new refs and performed a NAC. dci | TALK 01:13, 28 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

North American Native Plant Society[edit]

North American Native Plant Society (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 third-party, RS coverage. Almost entirely self-sourced; notability is not established. dci | TALK 23:40, 27 February 2013 (UTC) Sorry I didn't notice the author's comment sooner; my original analysis was that the article was relying on the organization's own magazine for the bulk of its refs. As that's now not the case, I'm withdrawing the nom. dci | TALK 00:55, 28 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm the article author. Please review and possibly reconsider your view…I've just added a number of additional references. Third-party reliable references now include three published books (two from academic presses), two newspaper articles, a peer-reviewed academic journal review of the magazine published by the organization, and references from both the city of Markham and Toronto Botanical Garden to their partnership with each. I certainly won't argue that it's not a small organization, but it has been referenced by a significant number of reliable sources. Strong keep. Goyston talk, contribs, play 00:22, 28 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. J04n(talk page) 01:56, 7 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

St. James Church (Marion, Indiana)[edit]

St. James Church (Marion, Indiana) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to be a thoroughly average church. One wedding for famous people doesn't make a church notable. Nyttend (talk) 23:13, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 28 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 28 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 28 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. J04n(talk page) 04:23, 7 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Independent Publisher Book Award[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Independent Publisher Book Award (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 previous nomination: "Tagged as unreferenced since 2007, re notability since 2009, seemingly nobody can find any sources to address this. The bulk of ghits seem to be from the body which awards it or sources asssociated with recipients. I haven't found any clearly independent and reliable indication of its notability." Also, per reply to re-creator of article: "Sorry, I think the reasoning for the deletion still very much stands. Almost all sources are closely tied to the award, a large number from the very body which awards it. Probably the only truly independent RS which mentions it is in a brief biographical blurb about a contributor to the Huffington Post, the article itself making no discussion of the award." Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:37, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can you elaborate re "The sanctioning body for the award has won an award of recognition their self, from an independent organization" please? One of the sources for it being "the largest book awards contest in the world" is a press release from an author who has won one of their awards, so hardly independent and unbiased. I'm also rather bewildered by the logic of "The very fact that it is independent publishers that are being recognized by the award is a testament to their independence." - their independence is from large corporate publishers, not as sources regarding an award for their type of publisher (which happens to be independent ones). Quite the contrary, it makes them more likely to be an interested party in talking up the awards. Mutt Lunker (talk)

The publishers are either independent of the source, or they are affiliated. The people are either lying in their publications, or you are inventing reasons why it is more likely that a conspiracy exists. So a book wins an award and that book publisher chooses to re-print the cover showing the award won. What publisher doesn't? I just recently finished writing 90% of the book stubs for the Edna Staebler Award, which I have no doubt that you would find non-notable. When writing those 50 odd book stubs, I came across the IPPY several times. That is why I mentioned to the deleting admin that if the award was know as an IPPY I found it hard to believe it would be non-notable. As far as the award won by IndependentPublisher.com. It's in the awards section. Obviously the people are interested in the award, or I doubt they would compete for it, and if their the liars you make them out to be, they ought to just slap Ophra's name on their books and say she gave their book the nod.—My76Strat (talk) 00:11, 28 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do not twist my words. I talk about whether the sources are independent and/or interested parties. That's a very different matter from accusing them of lying and conspiracies, matters which you alone have contemplated. The award may well be notable but basing the article largely or solely on material by the body responsible for the award and by those who, as recipients, have a perfectly understandable vested interest in reflecting it as significant, does not adequately establish this notability. Mutt Lunker (talk) 01:00, 28 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 28 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your words manifest twisted. How about you don't synthesize wp:gng. "Significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" does not include "and/or interested parties". I think it's best to leave that part out of the equation. I challenge you to show me one article about a book award that you feel is notable that doesn't have references in it from some source that received the award. Like I said earlier, I just finished a pretty extensive writing endeavor which involved the exact concept of books and their association with literary awards. It is presumptuous of you to suggest these thousands of independent authors who compete for this award, and then reprint the covers of their books to display the award, if they happen to win, are not contributing to the notability of the award the are collectively seeking. Or that when a publisher, that is independent of the subject, publishes a news release like this, that it doesn't qualify under the wp:gng.—My76Strat (talk) 04:36, 28 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"It is presumptuous of you" to attribute to me things I have neither said nor implied. You are setting up Aunt Sallys. I have no problem with articles including amongst their references some from interested parties. If however the only references that can be found are from interested parties, that should ring alarm bells. It seems odd that if this subject is notable that there is such a dearth of coverage outside of those awarding or receiving. Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:04, 28 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

preliminary comment It's obvious that the organization and its awards are intended for the purpose of promotion; the key indications are that authors as well as publishers may submit a book, and that about 200 awards a year are given. . That does not mean the awards are meaningless at their top level, nor that they might not be notable--even advertising and even promotional campaigns can be notable, though for obvious reasons we have a pretty high bar in that subject area, especially with regard to the independence of the sourcing. (A case could be made that we have some sort of an obligation to be sure not to remove articles about notable publicity campaigns that actually highlight items of no merit, to serve as a warning--but this may not be NPOV) It's also obvious that the article was written in a very promotional style, indeed, some of the contents appears to be promoting two extremely not notable books -- I've just removed them--they were added by My76Stat in what looks like an attempt to add every finable link, one of them was actually written by the author of the book itself in the Huffington Post. I don't think 76Strat would have added that reference if he had read it. (And I'm in the process of checking every book and author linked to for notability & other problems), References to awards being made for a particular books are only useful for the purpose of showing notability if they show that independent RSs have thought the fact the book received the award was worthy of writing about, and I do not see a single one that does that--judging by the uniform wording, they are mostly press releases apparently prepared by the awarding body for the authors to send to places that might use them, such as their home town or college papers. , and they are actually references to reviews of the book in a RS that verify that the award was considered important & can at best. The evidence I am looking for is first, whether the books receiving the top awards are actually notable by any reasonable standard, and whether reliable review sources even mention this award in their reviews. This may take me a few days to check, so I'd avoid doing anything precipitous. DGG ( talk ) 01:08, 1 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've found one possible informal evidence of notability. The books must be entered by the author or publisher. Several major university presses, including the Yale University Press, [2]are entering many of their books; Even the best publishers seek (and need} publicity. but I assume assume ones such as Yale use some judgment when deciding where to look for it. (More cynically, I wonder if the University category of acceptable publishers --the other categories are totally independent publishers--whatever they actually mean by that, or corporate entities publishing fewer than 50 books a year) was added in order to get some respectable books in the list of awards.) DGG ( talk ) 01:18, 1 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've now checked their list of awards. It makes no sense whatsoever. The Gold prize winners range all the way from one book that won a National Book Award but about which we scandalously do not have an article (Lord of Misrule by Jaimy Gordon, down to many self published books that have no copies in a library whatsoever. Some of their prize books aren't even in WorldCat, The award is meaningless, and I think the publishers submitting their titles don't realize what they are doing. But, again, that doesn't say it isn't notable. There is still the possibility of sources DGG ( talk ) 04:14, 1 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Two (Lenka album). (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 02:59, 6 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Roll with the Punches[edit]

Roll with the Punches (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)

Looks like an advert. No prove it reached the charts, if not so would fail on notability. Outdated. The Banner talk 22:22, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 28 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 28 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  11:50, 7 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ibragim Magomedov[edit]

Ibragim Magomedov (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:NMMA with one top-tier bout. Has very poor sourcing and no secondary sources, so probably fails WP:GNG as well. Luchuslu (talk) 19:49, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Luchuslu (talk) 19:57, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Luchuslu (talk) 19:57, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Luchuslu (talk) 19:59, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment - He was notable fighter that fought outside Japan, has one fight for top tier organisation, a loss to Cro Cop, very remarkable liver kick KO and last fight and test to sea can Mirko handle russin fighters before facing Fedor. If you ask me he is notable, but I am not shure is it enough for wikipedia. Master Sun Tzu (talk) 01:06, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I do agree that his bout against Cro Cop was notable for the reasons you mentioned. But it was his only bout with a major fight promotion. He did fight some notable guys in M-1, but WP:NMMA says that doesn't count toward notability. I think the bigger issue is that the article has no secondary sources, thus failing WP:GNG, literally step one in determining notability. Luchuslu (talk) 05:52, 1 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree...so
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. J04n(talk page) 04:42, 7 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Survey on NIT[edit]

Survey on NIT (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 current state of the article is nothing but original research -- not only does it not provide any criteria by which the judgments are made, but it even states that survey information from respected institutions such as the Times of India is ignored. However, importing ranking lists from other sites may run into copyright problems. I'm not sure how one can maintain such an article without violations of guidelines. ArglebargleIV (talk) 19:46, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Strong delete. Not salvageable at all. This looks like someone trying to use Wikipedia to legitimize his/her own opinions on these Indian universities. —KuyaBriBriTalk 23:15, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 28 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 28 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No it is an original ranking — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.209.209.28 (talk • contribs)

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

The result was KEEP Non-admin closure and tagged with Cleanup AfD template Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign) 10:57, 6 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stark Industries[edit]

Stark Industries (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)

As well written as this article is, it simply does not belong on Wikipedia. It's basically an article written as though it were a real company, but its subject is a fictional company. Nearly all the references are to comic books.

The relevant information in the article could very easily be added to the Iron Man article. ReformedArsenal (talk) 19:40, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 28 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 28 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That doesn't change the fact that the article is written as though it were a legitimate real company, when in fact it is a fictional company. ReformedArsenal (talk) 04:49, 28 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Are you aware of WP:ATD? Specifically, that if a page can be improved through regular editing, deletion is not appropriate? Jclemens (talk) 05:37, 28 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Are you aware that if you eliminate all of the in-universe content from this article you're left with about 3 lines that say "Stark Industries is the fictional corporation in the Marvel universe. It serves as a plot device to provide Tony Stark, the alter-ego of Marvel's Iron Man, with the funds to research and produce his mechanized suits of Armor. Stark Industries has also served an important role in the development of various other technology driven characters in the Marvel universe, including Captain America, Hulk, Spider-Man, and many others." I'm failing to see why the article cannot be distilled down to non-in-universe statements and added to the Iron Man article. ReformedArsenal (talk) 05:49, 28 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So have you worked in fictional elements articles much? Because what you describe is not in any way required to deal with fictional elements. Seriously, go look at Hogwarts. Jclemens (talk) 06:00, 28 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The fact that Hogwarts is bad too, doesn't make Stark Industries good. ReformedArsenal (talk) 14:41, 28 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You failed to answer the question. Rather than presuming to answer for you, I'd prefer to redirect to the original question: Have you worked in fictional elements articles much? Jclemens (talk) 05:00, 1 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete as G11 : Unambiguous advertising by Jimfbleak (talk · contribs) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:01, 28 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copify[edit]

Copify (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 article is nothing but a commercial for the site. Examples:

"Orders are made available to the site's network of freelancers on a first come, first-served basis" is not informative, but a sales pitch. Nor is "Clients also have the option to order copy directly from a writer of their choice." That too, is a sales pitch.

The site is not unique as well. It does not stand out from the hundreds or thousands that operate the way and offer the same product/service. Example:

"Copify charges for content by the word, with a payment being issued by the customer before each order is placed" is not a unique service and is duplicated at all available writing services.

In addition, it's criticism is not unique to the service, and is a broad criticism across all online writing services. Example:

"Copify has been wide criticized by copywriters who have questioned the relatively low rates of pay that are offered. Many also dislike the controversial 'pay per word' model, arguing that it restricts creativity and encourages writers to create substandard copy. Concern has also been raised that those using Copify will not necessarily get the ability and experience they intended, and of a conflict of interest with Nublue, another copywriting firm."

These criticisms can be said about any online writing service (and they are). First, offering low pay rates are what these types of services are known for (and sought for). Second, there is nothing controversial about its pay per word model especially since writers have charged for per-word services before the typewriter was even invented! Third, as stated here: http://www.abccopywriting.com/blog/2010/10/28/copify-nublue-quality-copywriting Copify was co-founded by a former Nublue employee. Copify operates from the same building as Nublue, and staff from the two firms know each other personally (confirmed in comments on the post). Copify is a supplier to Nublue. Copify was nominated by Nublue for a Mashable award.

The author is probably trying to promote both Copify and Nublue.

Lastly, 4 of the 5 references points to a blog post - not a news article even though the link makes it look like a news reference. Another reference points to a listing in an online directory.

This article probably should have been marked for immediate deleteion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RDR2013 (talk • contribs) — RDR2013 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment Thanks for responding, and my apologies for the poor grammar above. Nevertheless, I disagree with your assertion of 'significant coverage in The Guardian'. I searched the site and only found 2 blog posts -- both of which were written by a Alexander Velky. Alexander Velky worked through Copify, and is not a journalist. I would assume that an objective article about such a service would come from someone who does not have a history with the service. I also must apologize for not knowing how to reply to your comment. Wikipedia is rather confusing. I simply copied and modified your comment to make mine. If that is not proper, please assist.RDR2013 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:56, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is the reference in question, and I can see eight paragraphs that are directly about Copify, which makes it qualify for the "at least one length paragraph, preferably more" clause as found in WP:VRS. That, in my opinion, is enough to halt a CSD - which should be reserved for articles with no sources at all and no claim whatsoever that any might be found. I appreciate you're new, but for what it's worth, AfD is not a good place to begin a wiki career, as you'll be debating head to head with experienced wikipedians who have a thorough grounding in policy, particularly if the Article Rescue Squadron turn up. By the way, to sign posts here, type four tilda (~) characters. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:04, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not sure I buy that. The Guardian has a strict editorial control, which means that anything that its writers post will have to go through its filter, so we ought to generally trust that, while an opinion piece, it is a strong enough one to receive notice to the world at large. I'm not going trying and puff notability out of this, but I reckon this is a borderline case that could go either way. I think we need the full discussion here at AfD. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:22, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 28 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 28 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 28 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 28 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Hi all, I respect and admire the editorial process here, but when things are being written that are factually incorrect, it kind of calls into question the integrity of the whole thing. There are a few examples of this, but probably the most worrying is the fact that the article has been edited to now include "…and of a conflict of interest with Nublue, another copywriting firm." If you take a look at Nublue's website: http://www.nublue.co.uk/ you will see that they don't offer copywriting as a service, they are a web development company so this is simply not correct. "The Guardian blog post was written by someone with a close connection to the company." - His connection was that he signed up, took a dislike to the site and wrote a blog post condemning Copify, followed by this piece on the Guardian. He's not connected to Copify in any other way. If a bit of common sense is applied here, you should note that it is a talked about company, discussed by the Guardian. The article is more negative than it is positive and I have tried to be honest about the offering and not promotional. MartinCopify (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:42, 28 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm ducking out of this now, but can we please stop calling this an advert? I've tried to neutralise the article and put solid criticism in, so just saying it's an advert without citing any examples implies my edits have been a waste of time. Sorry. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:57, 28 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Monty845 22:55, 6 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rajesh Jain[edit]

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

Unreferenced BLP, no evidence of notability. Chutznik (talk) 17:08, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 28 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 28 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - does non pass WP:BIO and WP:RS. In fact there are no sources available on person. Speedy delete article. Jethwarp (talk) 09:00, 28 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete as an unreferenced WP:BLP –TCN7JM 02:33, 1 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - unreferenced, makes no assertion of notability. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 07:46, 1 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete as an unreferenced BLP that fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. A PROD would have sufficed, IMO. dci | TALK 17:16, 3 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, I thought so too, but it looks like a prod was contested here. the edit summary makes the claim that Jain was "one of the few entrepreneur who inspired internet based businesses in India", which might be significant, I guess, but this hasn't been added to the article and is unsourced. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 22:46, 4 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My apologies; I was a tad hasty with that statement, although the contest statement isn't a particularly compelling rationale, particularly in the absence of sources. Thanks for taking the time to procure the info. dci | TALK 03:16, 5 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete as a ((db-hoax)). Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 08:37, 28 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

David Katylen[edit]

David Katylen (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)

Hoax. This footballer doesn't seem to exist. The article has no references and no usable reference can be found. - Andrei (talk) 18:10, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article was WP:PRODed shortly after creation, but author added a few bogus links as "references" and fought diligently against every single maintenance template added to the page, including ((Orphan)). Of the links he added, one goes to a YouTube film of which nothing can be understood, and another links to a Facebook profile (also, apparently bogus).- Andrei (talk) 18:16, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 28 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 28 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 28 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 28 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Rahul Jain (talk) 02:51, 28 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Chitharal Jain Monuments[edit]

Chitharal Jain Monuments (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 does not cite any sources or references to demonstrate its notability and hence should be deleted. Rahul Jain (talk) 18:02, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Withdrawn by Nominator The new references added shows the notability of the topic. Rahul Jain (talk) 02:42, 28 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - the monuments at Chitharal are listed in numerous books Books mentioning Chitharal which easily enable the article to pass GNG. Please recall that our criterion here at AfD is not whether an article contains references but whether suitable sources exist (in the world, online or not). I will add some sources to the article now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:41, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. J04n(talk page) 11:03, 28 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PCMan File Manager[edit]

PCMan File Manager (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 software is not famous to the degree it would be found in an encyclopedia. disclaimer: I have used this software. AMFMUHFVHF90922 (talk) 06:35, 20 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ♪ talk ♪ 06:50, 20 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think that is a fair criticism. In the technology media there are a number of websites that I like to call "journalistic"; they are more than some random person's blog but less than a professional news outfit. I think Unixmen fits into that category of marginally reliable sources, in the form of a blog with a wide readership, but it is obviously a gray area and a somewhat subjective assessment on my part. --Mark viking (talk) 21:06, 21 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AMFMUHFVHF90922 (talk) 17:33, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Pearson PLC. J04n(talk page) 04:49, 7 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pearson VUE[edit]

Pearson VUE (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 was very promotional; I've cleaned it up and tried to add some reliable sources, but I really can't find anything to establish notability. There are some passing comments in a few articles, but nothing more than "Company X uses Pearson VUE, a provider of electronic testing, for Exam Y." Mention of the company is brief at best. Merging with Pearson PLC is possible, but I don't think there's anything in the article worth merging. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 16:29, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ; nominator has withdrawn the nomination and there are no outstanding delete !votes. Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBriTalk 23:17, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

John Cowperthwaite[edit]

John Cowperthwaite (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)

Unable to find reliable, secondary sources providing in-depth coverage of this kit car designer. j⚛e deckertalk 14:40, 27 February 2013 (UTC) (Withdrawn below)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. J04n(talk page) 04:55, 7 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Crispystock[edit]

Crispystock (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 music festival, the two articles from the Andover Advertiser look like, well, advertising, no other evidence of reaching WP:GNG. j⚛e deckertalk 14:38, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. J04n(talk page) 04:56, 7 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Saidjon Saidrahmonov[edit]

Saidjon Saidrahmonov (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 removed by article creator, no rationale given. This player fails WP:GNG (no significant coverage) and WP:NFOOTBALL (has not played in a fully-professional league or at senior international level). GiantSnowman 13:29, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 13:31, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Soccerway shows he has only been on the bench for international games and does not play in a fully professional league so fails WP:NFOOTY. Looking at his squad number he is the third / fourth choice national keeper. No issue with the article being recreated should he feature for the national team in a full FIFA intl game. Fenix down (talk) 14:50, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tajikistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. J04n(talk page) 22:33, 8 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Marcus D[edit]

Marcus D (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 have been looking for sources but there does not seem to be any hard and fast ones except for Auburn's local paper, the artist's home town. He seems to fail WP:BAND. Guerillero | My Talk 03:55, 19 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

-=-=- He meets 2 of the WP:BAND criteria (more information on this can be found within the discussion), and if "An Eternal Soul" (A documentary that Marcus D contributed to) is considered notable enough, the artist will have met 3 of the criteria. only 1 of the criteria is required for proper notability. He does not fail WP:BAND.

-=-=-I have added over a dozen new references to the page, including interviews, videos, articles, and tracklistings, so the topic of sources should no longer be an issue.

Once again, I'm new to wikipedia, but i will link my user in place of the process used by Guerillero, as seen above. Kaoskitteh 07:54, 19 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The notable indie label Elevation existed between 1987 and 1988 and is not the same label that Marcus D released on. --Guerillero | My Talk 21:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

-=-=-This has been confirmed. The Elevation label that Marcus D worked with is not the same label as the label from 20 years ago. This is a link to the current Elevation label on bandcamp [3].

-=-Including more information, Marcus D was also featured on the soundtrack for the Nujabes Documentary, named "An Eternal Soul". If considered notable enough, this could fill the WP:BAND requirement of "10. Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g., a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc.". The soundtrack can be found at [[4]], and the documentary itself can be found at [[5]]. This documentary was made after the death of Nujabes, and features many of the artists he worked with. Kaoskitteh 08:12, 19 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is there a secondary source that discusses this? --Guerillero | My Talk 21:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

-=-=- [6]

-=-I have added multiple references to the page, and can now fill the WP:BAND requirement of "9. Has won or placed in a major music competition.". the link for this information is here. [7]. all other added references can be found on the wikipedia page itself. If anyone has tips and/or requirements that would help move this page to a stable situation, tell me. please. Kaoskitteh 08:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

-=-At this point, I believe there are enough sources to fill the WP:BAND requirements, as well as an acceptable amount of verifiable links, including multiple interviews with the artist from reputable sources, and links to the artist on music sites such as Bandcamp, iTunes, and the Hydeout/Tribe record label online store. I respectfully ask that the Marcus D Wikipedia page be kept online, and that the deletion form be closed, unless there are still issues with the page that are notable enough to keep it from being considered worthy. If any issues still arise, tell me, and I will fix them. Thank you for the encouragement to add sources to the page. It was my fault that the page did not fully meet the requirements before-hand, but from what I can see, it meets the requirements now. Thank you for your consideration. Kaoskitteh 10:08, 19 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

-=-If the page is still considered unworthy of being on Wikipedia, I have the page backed up on a Notepad document, and I will re-post it after the artist has released more music, which would undeniably add to his notability. I am quite frustrated with the lack of hard research conducted by the initiator of all this before submitting the form for the deletion of this page, and I respectfully ask that, for those who submit such pages for deletion, you conduct more research on the topic before committing the act. I also admit that there is a large, almost needless, amount of information on this talk page, but the more information you can acquire, the better. Thank you again. Kaoskitteh 10:21, 19 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I did the research suggested by policy. Even with the sources you added I still fail to see how he passes the GNG or BAND --Guerillero | My Talk 21:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

-=-=-Policy suggests that, if notability is the primary issue of a page, to search for additional sources before nominating for deletion. I have been able to add over 10 different references that confirm the artist's notability in a relatively short period of time. This tells me that the page was nominated for deletion before any substantial research was conducted that may have contributed to the notability of the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaoskitteh (talk • contribs) 16:37, 21 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

-=-The BAND requirements state that, in order to be considered notable, the subject must meet at least one of the requirements, and as I stated before, Marcus D won the Red Bull Big Beat Seattle competition in 2009, which meets the category of winning a major music competition. the link can be found above. He has also released 2 albums on notable Independent Record Labels, which is the required criteria for "5. Has released two or more albums on a major label or on one of the more important indie labels". The page meets not just one, but two of the required categories, and have verifiable reference sources. Are the provided sources not reliable enough? I've seen multiple wikipedia pages on Music Artists that have far less information and references, but even with the one or two links that are provided for them, they meet the notability criteria. I've provided 15 links to verify as much information as I can. The information on this page that does not have a reference would be the information on various single and collaboration releases, and if that is something that you consider an issue, please let me know. Also, if you see any other issues, please tell me, as I believe that I have properly verified that the artist meets the Musician Notability Criteria. If you still feel that he does not meet the criteria, please explain to me your reasoning so that I may attempt to fix the errors. I have no problems with long explanations. Kaoskitteh 16:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

-=-Another link about his work on "An Eternal Soul OST" can be found here [8], and while it provides less information than the other link, the information that is there is the same as the information on bandcamp. On the topic of "Substantial and Marcus D are Bop Alloy" being released under the record label "Elevation", I have a link to Elevation's Bandcamp page right here [9]. I doubt that this would satisfy people who are more focused on full verification, but Substantial clearly states "Elevation Proudly Presents..." in the first song of the album, which is very minor evidence that the album was released under the Elevation Label. What other information do you request that I provide you? Kaoskitteh 16:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

-=-I have more information to add. This is information that the artist prefers not be posted on the wikipedia page itself, but he has given me permission to use it to prevent the page deletion. Marcus D's first album release in Japan, "Revival of the Fittest", [10] was released under the Goon Trax label [11], which is a section of the major Media Factory corporation, which is very widely known for their contribution to the world of Anime. The Goon Trax label itself has a large multitude of music releases, and pairing this with Marcus D's release of "Substantial and Marcus D are Bop Alloy" with the Japanese Label Elevation [12] (Which I do believe is a label that is different from the label that has a page on Wikipedia), and with the artist's release of "Melancholy Hopeful" with the notable label Hydeout Productions (AKA Tribe) [13], the artist is fully within the guidelines of the BAND page. Kaoskitteh 08:01, 20 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

-=-Here is a more verifiable link for information about Marcus D's success in the 2009 Red Bull Big Tune Seattle music competition. [14] Kaoskitteh 08:36, 20 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

-=- This is a personal message to the admin who is assigned to determine the verdict of this discussion. If there is any information that I need to add that would prevent the deletion of this page, please contact me, and I will provide you with whatever you need. Thank you very much. Kaoskitteh 09:02, 21 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 20 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 20 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 13:26, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Most contributors though agree that this is worth covering in one form or another.  Sandstein  11:52, 7 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Franz Strasser[edit]

Franz Strasser (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)

Does not appear to meet WP:BIO as indicated; just a mid-rank Nazi official. Stifle (talk) 13:21, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The crime is notable as it received significant coverage which continued years after the event occurred. Outright deletion is inadvisable, and the normal outcome for individuals only notable for one event (WP:BIO1E), is to summarize, merge & redirect the content about the perpetrator to the article of the event.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:34, 4 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Adobe Flash#Players. J04n(talk page) 05:01, 7 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Swfdec[edit]

Swfdec (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)

Flash as a technology is dead, and so is this project to make an open-source alternative to it. There is no news coverage of consequence about it. AMFMUHFVHF90922 (talk) 06:42, 20 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 21 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 12:27, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. J04n(talk page) 05:03, 7 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Elguja Grigalashvili[edit]

Elguja Grigalashvili (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 IP, no rationale given. This player fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL - no significant coverage, has never played in a fully-professional league. GiantSnowman 12:14, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 12:15, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  11:46, 7 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Petocracy[edit]

Petocracy (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)

Fractionally better than original research. No attempt made to demonstrate that anybody uses this term. Sgroupace (talk) 11:36, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:23, 9 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

John J. Hartin[edit]

John J. Hartin (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 contested prod, the subject does not meet the criteria of WP:PERP. The victims are not famous, the crime was not unusual and the subject has not been to trial. J04n(talk page) 10:32, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Yes, I agree that the fact that the subject has not been to trial is a very strong argument to delete the article. It is unethical for an encyclopedic project to keep this kind of information. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 14:43, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete per WP:PERP and WP:GNG. He has neither been tried nor arrested....William 19:27, 1 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. J04n(talk page) 22:36, 8 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Luke Bozier[edit]

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

There are two fundamentally important reasons why this article should be deleted.

Firstly, as Paul MacDermott said in the previous AFD, anything that could be said about him can easily go in the menshn section of the article on Louise Mensch. He was never a Member of Parliament, Member of European Parliament, or even a local councillor. Any notability drawn from him has come because of his defection as a party functionary, and not him himself as a notable subject. Coverage regarding his departure from Menshn and relating to Menshn in general can simply be mentioned in the aforementioned section.

The second aspect, and arguably the more pressing one, is that - for reasons beyond my comprehension - this article was created in complete violation of WP:BLP policy, right off the back of the subject's arrest for the alleged possession of indecent images of children. Creating an article on an individual undergoing investigation for a serious criminal offence is astonishingly misguided and completely unacceptable. To conclude, I recommend in the strongest possible terms regarding WP:BLP1E, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:PERP that salvageable content be merged to the place it is already relevant, and the entry itself be deleted. WilliamH (talk) 14:54, 7 February 2013 (UTC) WilliamH (talk) 14:54, 7 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 02:17, 9 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 02:18, 9 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 11 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 11:46, 14 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 22:45, 20 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 09:56, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. By about 2:1, which is close enough to consensus for the purposes of this discussion, contributors are of the view that coverage of this murder is not significant enough for inclusion in view of the policy that we are not a newspaper.  Sandstein  11:50, 7 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Scarlett Keeling[edit]

Scarlett Keeling (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 murder, currently mis-titled (the person was certainly not notable); previously deleted 3 times. It's understandable that there was some news coverage, but there is nothing about the murder that makes it worthy of coverage in an encyclopaedia. Should be salted as well. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:56, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That is a link to an essay. Not a policy nor guideline. Read over: Wikipedia:Search engine test. It isn't marked as essay, guideline, nor policy, but it does make the point on notability. The first forty pages I checked were subsantial coverage by reliable sources.--Canoe1967 (talk) 11:45, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
GHITS may be an essay, but it is widely-used as it raises valid points. If you believe she is notable, then evidence it. GiantSnowman 11:53, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
...Neither is WP:Search engine test a policy or guideline. Hilarious that anyone would dismiss an essay as a non-guideline and offer a how-to that is only partially about notability. Hit quantities are meaningless in themselves (cf. qualities), but may indirectly indicate notability; notability isn't automatic or assumed. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 19:55, 1 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I fail to understand why your link above to Wikipedia:Verifiability has to do with notability. WP:V deals with verifying material in the article, not how notable it is. I agree the title may need a tweak as it should be more about the incident and its effects being notable, not just the notablity of the person. Casper (cat) has less coverage, only a book written, but has survived here. I am not trying to say that 'other stuff exists' but others may wish to read the deletion discussion on that article.--Canoe1967 (talk) 12:05, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We have to verify notability, simple as. You cannot simply say "X is notable", you need to prove it. As for the kitty, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS applies here. GiantSnowman 12:12, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You keep linking essays. 'Substanial coverage in reliable sources' is guideline/policy. I have done this. There is mention of the incident in 127 books and 11 scholarly documents in the find sources links above as well as the numerous news reports.--Canoe1967 (talk) 12:28, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And where is this "substantial coverage"? I cannot see it. GiantSnowman 12:39, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Numerous news articles, 127 books, 11 scholarly documents, and one movie so far.--Canoe1967 (talk) 13:07, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You might want to investigate those book results. Not only is "127" unreliable -- you'll find that some of them were published well before the murder. Others (even some of the later ones) do not in fact mention her (e.g. this one). The search function is not reliable. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:27, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • How do you think your vote squares with WP:NOTNEWSPAPER? Being on every font page on earth is not the same as being encyclopedically notable. Rather than the prominence of the coverage, the content of the coverage is important: substantial coverage — in-depth biographical coverage — is the key. Otherwise, it shouldn't be a biography, but a WP:1E (compare WP:BLP1E). Your !vote, apparently not based on biographical considerations, might support an article called Murder of Scarlett Keeling, but it doesn't come close to supporting an article on the individual. JFHJr (㊟) 19:55, 1 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Reading the last line of my last post "Though I also feel the article has been named incorrectly (it is not a biographical article)"! --Tito Dutta (contact) 20:11, 1 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Sorry, I read too fast. So where's the in-depth coverage of the 1E? If you have links to sources about the murder (not a movie about a murder in an entertainment section), that might be somewhat convincing. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 20:28, 1 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I did not mention WP:1E, and I am inclined to join that group of participants here who are primarily aiming to establish the notability of the event and not of the person, therefore WP:1E, which deals with Notability (person), is invalid in my argument. In my last post I added two links, the first link was of Google News which showed multiple newspaper coverages of the incident and then, the second link, which informed a film was made on the event. I feel, this article should be written in this structure Murder of Scarlett Keeling>> Lead (Short summary) >> Incident >> Investigation >> Criticism/Reactions >> Influences (i.e. a film was made... etc) >> See also >> References etc. Here a similar article which has followed more or less similar structure 2012 Delhi gang rape case--Tito Dutta (contact) 21:40, 1 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • ...And the event has become no more notable than the last three times the article was deleted. Hm. JFHJr (㊟) 19:57, 1 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment : While was voting delete citing WP:NOTNEWS, I was thinking arguments as per WP:1E may crop up. I would like to say that as per my opinion article is not acceptable under WP:1E because an event is notable only if did the event cause any noteworthy change to the ground reality to make the event notable so as to have an article in itself. For example 2012 Delhi gang rape case lead to change in amendment of criminal law of India. However, I feel a movie being made out of this incident is not a notable result of the event. Film makers may pick up any incident from daily life or incidents to make a film!! I, therefore, am also against a new title or redirect like Murder of Sacrlett Kelling, etc. By the way, I just noted that the incident is already mentioned in article Rape in India. Jethwarp (talk) 04:01, 2 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Philipp Hebestreit[edit]

The result of this discussion was delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Delran Township, New Jersey.  Sandstein  11:55, 7 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delran Fire Department[edit]

Delran Fire Department (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 independent coverage thus failing WP:N and WP:GNG Curb Chain (talk) 07:01, 20 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 20 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 20 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 09:51, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.  Sandstein  11:59, 7 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yuri Leonidovich Nesterenko[edit]

Yuri Leonidovich Nesterenko (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)

Topic has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Fails WP:GNG. Not even close to satisfying WP:CREATIVE. Nathan Johnson (talk) 16:25, 13 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 16:40, 13 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 16:40, 13 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL (in Russian) --SU ltd. (talk) 17:51, 13 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL (in Polish) --SU ltd. (talk) 17:51, 13 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Find sources : Ozon.ru : Юрий Леонидович Нестеренко (Россия) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SU ltd. (talk • contribs) 18:05, 13 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Find sources : Yandex : Юрий Леонидович Нестеренко (in Russian) --SU ltd. (talk) 18:11, 13 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 01:22, 20 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Find sources : AVEN : "(Yuri) Nesterenko" :
  1. A nonbigoted antisexuality
  2. Nonsexual?
  3. Free-will
  4. Zdravstvujte! in "Alternate Language Forum"
  5. antisexual stronghold

--SU ltd. (talk) 20:18, 20 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 09:51, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Monty845 22:53, 6 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Musa Bin Shamsher[edit]

Musa Bin Shamsher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Bin Shamsher Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:GNG--Freemesm (talk) 16:37, 6 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 02:33, 9 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 11 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep: Enough sources given in the article and more sources can be added to claim the notability of the person. Besides, I have reverted the massive content removals of the article. If needed, the contents should be removed through a discussion in the talk page. --Zayeem (talk) 05:05, 11 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:06, 13 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:09, 20 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 09:49, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - But article needs a lot of work. Almost the entire article was written by the IP address 180.149.7.184, which makes me think that the person editing from that IP is connected to the Bin Shamsher or is him himself. Applesandapples (talk) 09:42, 6 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 anyone wants any of it merged somewhere I would be happy to userfy it for them. J04n(talk page) 12:05, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

American Son (comics)[edit]

American Son (comics) (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 nothing more than a plot dump, and provides no indication of being notable. Relevant plot details already exist in various character pages, but there are too many main cast members to redirect to just one of them. Page was previously PRODed, which was contested in favor of merge, though no merge candidate was suggested. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:38, 13 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The "Dark Reign" section could be merged into the Harry Osborn article and the "Heroic Age" section could be merged into the Gabriel Stacy article. Obviously both sections would have to be drastically cut down. Then this page could be made into a disambiguation page leading to both of those articles, and possible The Amazing Spider-Man since that is the comic book series the first storyline was in. Spidey104 03:33, 14 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - At best, and this may be opening a bigger can of beans, this and a lot of similar articles should be compacted into "List of Character Foo story arcs" similar to episode lists. As it stands the article:
  • Does not demonstrate that the story arc is notable in its own right. (Yes, Spider-Man, the Osborns, and The Amazing Spider-Man are notable. That doesn't make the story automatically notable.)
  • Does not demonstrate that the later limited series is notable.
  • It implies a strong linkage between the two with out providing secondary sources for that linkage.
  • It has next to nil real world context. An even that is bundles into only the infobox and lead. (American Son (comics)#Reception is sales trivia and shows nothing about a critical response, review, or discussion about the story.)
As for merging or redirecting... I don't see it. It's a blip - 1 line - at best for Harry Osborn, which needs a hell of a lot of attention as it is most a plot dump itself. And Gabriel and Sarah Stacy is something that should be merged in to List of Marvel Comics characters: S, not have more plot added.
- J Greb (talk) 22:49, 14 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I only mentioned those articles for places to merge because Argento Surfer said "no merge candidate was suggested." I would be fine if the article was deleted. Spidey104 19:43, 16 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:02, 20 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 09:49, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. J04n(talk page) 22:36, 8 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Georgia Godfrey[edit]

Georgia Godfrey (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 article is recently created from WP:AFC after being reviewed and accepted by Fashdiva7601. I couldn't find any source with significant coverage about her, the few sources out there are either about Condoleezza Rice or George W. Bush. It unfortunately fails WP:GNG and WP:BASIC without independent sources that discuss the subject in detail and not just a mention is passing. Nimuaq (talk) 20:07, 13 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:09, 19 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:09, 19 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:01, 20 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 09:47, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: tagged as a copyright violation, deleted by User:RHaworth. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:03, 1 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Top 10 highest earning websites in 2012[edit]

Top 10 highest earning websites in 2012 (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 dunno what criteria to use but I don't think worthy enough to be included --Ushau97 talk contribs 09:41, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  12:01, 7 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gilbert Geagea[edit]

Gilbert Geagea (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)

Possible autobiography reads like a resume and I do not believe the subject meets notability guidelines. I did not tag for A7 because I think the list of works/projects could be construed as asserting notability, but I think the notability still falls short. Nick—Contact/Contribs 08:45, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I redirected that to the article being discussed here. My thought was that if this is kept, it might be a valid redirect. If not, then it'll probably be deleted with this article at that point in time.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:09, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  11:50, 7 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Palestinian Peruvian[edit]

Palestinian Peruvian (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, unsourced, possible hoax, part of a series of dubious "culture X in country Y" articles

PROD was removed without improving the article [29].

see also:

—rybec 06:49, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  11:56, 7 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Japanese Costa Rican[edit]

Japanese Costa Rican (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, little more than a dictionary definition —rybec 06:49, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was KEEP. Non-admin closure Based off discussion here, WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES and discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hartselle City School District. While I can't speak for the many other stubs that have little to no content, this one clearly does and has been expanded to bring it easily up to a passing standard. Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign) 10:20, 6 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rincon Valley Union Elementary School District[edit]

Rincon Valley Union Elementary School District (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 dont think elementary school districts qualify for articles, esp. sub stubs with information suitable for lists or directories. unofficially included in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hartselle City School District. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:42, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yet another duplicate AfD. Do you like adding to Wikipdia's paperwork? Again, for the record, US school districts are generally governments with taxing and legislative authority devolved to them by their respective sovereign states. None of the districts that I've added are dependent school districts without their own taxing, spending, and regulatory authority. For example, in my own state of Indiana, the public school district of residence issues under 18 work permits whether or not the child is in school. They are the only body that handles that. This sort of regulatory power over all children in their districts make school government bodies notable even when they only teach K-8 as seems to be the case here. TMLutas (talk) 03:54, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 02:52, 6 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pope Valley Union Elementary School District[edit]

Pope Valley Union Elementary School District (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 dont believe elementary school districts qualify for articles, esp. sub stubs with no more information than would be in a directory of districts. this article is unofficially included in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hartselle City School District. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:39, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have expanded the article a bit. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:29, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 02:51, 6 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mark West Union School District[edit]

Mark West Union School District (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 dont believe that elementary school districts qualify for articles. this article is unofficially included in the afd, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hartselle City School District. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:35, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This school is a government, officially listed in the US census of governments. Pray tell, what tax and spending authorities are not notable? In California, these districts can put thousands of dollars on your property tax bill and are often the largest single item on it.

There are hundreds of existing elementary school districts (which often cover school systems K-8 grade) pages. Killing this one on the grounds that it is an elementary school district is contrary to general practice. TMLutas (talk) 03:44, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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