< 6 January	8 January >

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

The result was redirect to Branded to Kill#Cast. (non-admin closure) —Theopolisme (talk) 15:15, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mariko Ogawa[edit]

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

This actress has only appeared in one film, Branded to Kill from 1967, and thus completely fails WP:NACTOR. There does not appear to be any third-party coverage of the individual herself which is not related to the film. JoshuSasori (talk) 23:47, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. --Cameron11598 (Converse) 00:41, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. --Cameron11598 (Converse) 01:01, 8 January 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Redirect to Branded to Kill#Cast. I'm unable to find significant coverage for this person and she does not appear to meet WP:ENT. I think redirecting is reasonable as it seems likely that readers trying to search for her would be doing so because of the film. Gong show 08:35, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is a good idea, if no-one else cares to comment on this deletion proposal I would accept that. JoshuSasori (talk) 00:57, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Branded to Kill#Cast as above. I am struggling to find any significant coverage of this person to demonstrate notability. Even Japanese Wikipedia does not appear to have an article on her. --DAJF (talk) 03:07, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Branded to Kill#Cast. Only one role? Unless that role received coverage, then she isn't notable. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:32, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Branded to Kill#Cast. The single role is not sufficient to justify an article. Michitaro (talk) 03:49, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:31, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dr K Murugesan[edit]

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

The subject of the article seems to be known only for the one event and thus fails our notability requirements per WP:BLP1E. There's no evidence of coverage in multiple reliable sources, and there's no way to hunt for more sources, as we are not even provided with his full name. Dianna (talk) 23:41, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a sub-species of promotion—an anti-attack page. הסרפד (call me “Hasirpad”) (formerly R——bo) 00:02, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- And possibly an attempt to influence legal process? הסרפד (call me “Hasirpad”) (formerly R——bo) 01:18, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. הסרפד (call me “Hasirpad”) (formerly R——bo) 01:22, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. הסרפד (call me “Hasirpad”) (formerly R——bo) 01:22, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No way to gather information on Dr. Murugesan without his first name. The notability can not be notified - fails WP:NRVE and he seems to only be notable for one event and thus fails WP:GNG--Cameron11598 (Converse) 01:28, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no comment on the substantive issue of keeping/deleting, but must point out that is common in South Asia for people to be known publicly simply by initial and family name, so the absence of a complete first name is not necessarily a sign of lack of notability, and there is no lack of verifiability, as can be seen by the results of the Google News archive search linked above. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:12, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The incident received some coverage, but not the doctor. Fails WP:BIO. Salih (talk) 17:09, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom, one-event case.--GDibyendu (talk) 19:00, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:44, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confused The event seems to be important, this doctor allowed his 15 year old son to conduct a caesarian surgery which got huge media attention, Guiness book record etc, Gurdian, MSN, Fox News. Search with his son's name "Dhileepan Raj Guinness record ". --Tito Dutta (talk) 18:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted per A7. "Fails Google test" is not a great rationale on its own for an AfD, but in this case, it doesn't matter. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 07:05, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vevekay[edit]

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

Fails the Google Test (267 results) Kinkreet^{~♥moshi moshi♥~} 23:38, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The page's already tagged for speedy deletion, but if it gets declined, I'm !voting delete, since I can't find any WP:RS. Zappa O Mati 23:57, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment First of all, searching this on Google and the amount of results does not have any correlation with notability. JayJay^{What did I do?} 23:58, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes you are right, and I can give multiple reasons, but the Google Test is a good way to make the case that it is not notable more plausible. Whether it is notable is up for discussion. Kinkreet^{~♥moshi moshi♥~} 00:00, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't think that's a good reason for deletion though JayJay^{What did I do?} 00:18, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A search engine test is a requirement for all deletion discussions. It's a means to finding reliable sources in which if none are found by doing a standard search engine test through news, books, and scholar, then it should be considered a strong candidate for deletion. Furthermore, every AfD purposefully links the 'Find Sources' template for this specific reason. Mkdw ^talk 01:44, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete and possible salt. This article has been recreated for the third time in 48 hours. Does not meet WP:BAND and a WP:SET is a mandatory function of WP:BEFORE thus making it not only a good reason for deletion, but a required precursor to every AfD. Mkdw ^talk 01:40, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. Unfortunately, given that this is a unique situation without it's own criteria for notability, multiple rules must be amalgamated and interpreted in spirit, rather than by the letter. As some users have pointed out, this article does not technically meet the criteria for WP:ONEEVENT, as we are not dealing with an event as such, but more a series of events (this woman's life) leading to a single fact which they argue denotes notability. However it appears quite clear that this single fact is not notable enough to stand on its own as a criteria for notability. The closest existing rule to this assertion can be found here (A being in this case the subject and well-known person B being the President or age-group respectively)

The second consideration for deletion is notability. Though the subject obviously meets WP:GNG they similarly obviously fail the general criteria for biographies, specifically criteria two as there is no evidence that an enduring record (significant enough for notability as seen in criteria one) will be made of this woman simply because of her age.

Given the difficulty of interpreting these rules in unique cases such as this it may be pertinent to create a subsection of WP:Notability to deal with the wider issues at play here. However, working within the existing framework, this appears to be the logical conclusion of this AfD. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 15:15, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Byrne (centenarian)[edit]

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

This person had zero notability during her lifetime. Simply being the oldest person of a particular nation at the point of death does not confer notability. Fails WP:GNG. PROD was declined without explanation. Safiel (talk) 17:33, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:45, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:45, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails GNG. Hairhorn (talk) 19:51, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:GNG Snappy (talk) 20:51, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are plenty of other centenarians who have pages on here as well and the only thing they were really known for was being old so why delete this page ? Entity of the Void (talk) 04:28, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The thing about being a centenarian is that unless they've accomplished something notable, they're not considered to be notable enough to have their own article. That other articles exist doesn't really mean anything, as it might just mean that the article has yet to be brought up for AfD or otherwise redirected to another article. Now when the centenarian is dead, that's where it gets tricky. If they didn't reach the status of supercentenarian (110+), then the redirect and article should be deleted as far as I can tell per the rules here on Wikipedia.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:47, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with previous poster per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Many of those other articles would be deleted if they faced an AfD. Safiel (talk) 05:47, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - She was covered in widely read publications. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:27, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question - covered how? Do you mean her death was covered or something she did during her life? As has been pointed out, while living to over 100 is an achievement, it alone does not make the person notable. Snappy (talk) 22:21, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does WP:ONEEVENT not apply here? The subject seems to only be notable for one event - dying at 108 years old. The coverage seems to only cover this one even. I don't see how that establishes notability per WP:GNG. I could be convinced that this case is fundamentally different but it seems to me that picking an arbitrary number (at what age does one become notable?) isn't something that Wikipedia has ever done but if we're covering what humans consider notable, represented by significant and independent coverage from reliable sources, there has been some coverage. Still, that coverage verges on non-significant as it only covers her age. As an example, I've seen longer obituaries but that doesn't make a person notable, even though it can be covered in several reliable and independent sources. What's the difference? Again, it seems to be an arbitrary number. At least the references used in the article aren't in the obituary section. That at least leaves the door open for an argument. OlYeller21^Talktome 05:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Oldest_people There are 196 countries in the world.[1] Are we going to create articles about the oldest person from each one? On the other hand, informative and verifiable content should be kept (somewhere) wherever possible. CorporateM (Talk) 19:10, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - covered by significant news sources. Not saying the oldest ethnic person of each country is notable, however. Royal Mate1 03:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then how is this person notable with only two news articles that were created in the wake of their death? OlYeller21^Talktome 05:12, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As has been pointed out, there are 196 countries in the world, the oldest person in each country probably changes every few years, if we treat anyone who was the oldest person in any country even in the past few decades as inherently notable then we have several hundred articles on our hands. Wikipedia is not paper, but there are limits. There are some things might be inherently notable, e.g. making it to supercenenarian. PatGallacher (talk) 13:51, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:ONEEVENT as mentioned above and, to a lesser extent, WP:N in regards to the level of sourcing. Canadian Paul 16:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She was Ireland's oldest person. Longevitydude (talk) 18:37, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What notability guideline does that satisfy? OlYeller21^Talktome 20:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

She was honored by the office of President of Ireland Michael D. Higgins as the country's oldest citizen. Longevitydude (talk) 13:13, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[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, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have just merged in information from an AFC submission, and I added four more independent sources, including two unique ones from the ones that were already there. Thus, she has been covered by many news sites, and there are probably more out there if anyone decided to put a concentrated effort into this. I would have closed this as a non-administrator in light of those developments, but I'll let someone else figure it out. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:22, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's a good thing you didn't close the discussion as a !voter and as you, at the very least, haven't changed my mind. I'm still seeing that just being the oldest person in a county doesn't satisfy any inclusion guideline. I think others here feel the same. So far, you're the only keep !voter that hasn't failed to answer the questions of others. OlYeller21^Talktome 01:09, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Country, not just her county. Longevitydude (talk) 16:06, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I meant country but missed the 'r'. As several others have stated, where is the line drawn? There are 196 countries and based on this loose, non-consensus, inclusion guideline, are we to include 196 people at any given time. Each time one of those 196 die, we add another? Why not go by state/province? What about continent? By country is an arbitrary distinction that no one seems to have been able to justify yet - just agree with. It seems much more logical to keep a list of Oldest people, if we consider being very old, notable. OlYeller21^Talktome 16:27, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly I'd say state/province is a good line to draw, though I'm someone who thinks every city and town is notable. Longevitydude (talk) 16:30, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As nominator, I still support delete in light of what has been since added to the article, for the reasons I enunciated before and for the reasons others have enunciated in support of delete. Also, I would STRONGLY object to anybody other than an uninvolved administrator attempting to close this. This is a contested AfD and a non-admin close is impermissible. Safiel (talk) 18:28, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per WP:N, WP:ONEVENT and, I suspect, WP:ORPHAN. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 08:13, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
She was noted not just for the title, but also for her birthdays, and those sources prove it. It's not an Orphan either, their are other articles about Irish centenarians. Longevitydude (talk) 13:10, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've only seen references that she was the oldest person and then died as the oldest person. To me, oldest person = one event. I haven't seen any coverage otherwise. Have you? OlYeller21^Talktome 20:05, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, her article has sources covering her 107th and 108th birthdays. Longevitydude (talk) 22:18, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Only articles that cover her being the oldest person. Her actual age is as relevant as her name. Again, do you have any articles that cover her age before she was the oldest person in the country? OlYeller21^Talktome 23:27, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thats irrelevant because the birthday and the gaining of a new title are two separate events. Longevitydude (talk) 23:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I might agree with you if there was coverage that was gained for a reason other than her being the oldest person in the country. That's what I keep asking you to provide - significant coverage from an independent and reliable source that was created for a reason other than because she was the oldest person in the country. OlYeller21^Talktome 23:28, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did, her 108th birthday was covered. Longevitydude (talk) 23:53, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Thank you. You've proven my point that the only coverage of her was for the one event I've mentioned numerous times. I'm starting to get the feeling that you're being dense on purpose to conflate the conversation to make it appear that anyone with a keep !vote has an actual reason to ignore WP:ONEEVENT. Unless you have something new to bring up, I will no longer be responding to you. OlYeller21^Talktome 06:33, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that rather repetitive response, but it is you who ignores the fact that the birthday and title are separate events, her 108th birthday probably would've been mentioned title or no title. I'm sure their were originally articles for her 107 and maybe earlier birthdays, but there is this thing called a "deal link" that I'm sure those articles unfortunately became. Longevitydude (talk) 16:17, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The only birthday coverage was due to one event - her being the oldest person. You keep mentioning other articles that "probably" or "would have" existed but can't provide any. Until you can prove that any article existed as coverage of her outside of the one event (again, her being the oldest person), you're talking in circles about things you apparently can't prove. OlYeller21^Talktome 16:27, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why I've been arguing with someone who states on their userpage that they, "sympathize with other members whose articles got afds". I think you're ignoring WP:ONEEVENT because you feel bad about this article being deleted and are attempting to subvert any legitimate conversation by saying that articles should have and would have existed, all while being completely unable to provide an article that covered this subject outside of the one event. Hopefully you have nothing to do with SPAs showing up to !vote. OlYeller21^Talktome 18:31, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Recognised by the President's office (how much more official can you get on these matters?) and has long-standing significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, dating from before her death as well, thereby satisfying SIGCOV/GNG, and, this being an encyclopedia, so of course it would stock "oldest people". --86.40.107.199 (talk) 18:06, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why ignore WP:ONEEVENT? OlYeller21^Talktome 18:26, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because it permits an article on a guy known for seeing someone get killed? Yet you want to use it to query an article on a woman officially recognised by the President's office? Clearly you don't understand what one event actually means. --86.40.107.199 (talk) 18:56, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OTHERSTUFF. What notability guideline does being recognized by the president of Ireland satisfy? OlYeller21^Talktome 19:20, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What other stuff? How does that apply either? You aren't making any sense. I trust that that the reviewing administrator will have the good sense to completely discount your contributions. You've certainly done your level best to discount mine. --86.40.107.199 (talk) 19:51, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You should really read what I linked. It basically mentions that citing that other situations exist on Wikipedia is not a good argument. Situations are independent here and precedents don't really hold any value. OlYeller21^Talktome 19:58, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I have reported Longevitydude at ANI. It appears that there is a long list of concerns regarding off-Wiki canvassing and special attention paid to !voting Keep on AfDs related to people of age. The list includes SPIs, ArbCom hearings, ANI reports of altering comments, and being banned from websites dedicated to studying old people (I couldn't think of a better way to describe that website). The SPA anon above was listed there as well. OlYeller21^Talktome 19:20, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is that me you are attacking in that derogatory manner? This is the first I've heard about being listed on any website dedicated to studying old people. By the way, if that is me you are calling a "SPA", you should really take a closer look at my contributions. The only reason I've had to make more than one edit here is to respond to your insidious remarks. I have nothing to do with "Longevitydude" and I take umbrage at your shocking attitude, your appalling lack of good faith, and your attempts to discredit anyone who holds an opposing opinion. --86.40.107.199 (talk) 19:47, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are an WP:SPA because the first edit you ever edit you ever made had to do with age and the second was to this AFD. That's not exactly the editing habits of someone who's new to WP or just stumbled upon this AfD (somehow) and started citing guidelines. If you normally edit from another account or IP, noting that on your userpage would be beneficial to you. Regardless, this really isn't the place to make such comments. You should be doing that at the ANI thread. I have only brought up an issue. I haven't accused you of any wrong doing but try to see it from the perspective of others. It appears as though you came out of the woodwork just to !vote here. You can easily correct this issue via the method I mentioned above and commenting at ANI. There's really no reason to be offended. If there's nothing fishy going on, you can easily dispel any confusion. OlYeller21^Talktome 19:58, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have some nerve. The only thing fishy going on is your attempt to disrupt the contributions of anyone who disagrees with your POV. It's listed here. Why shouldn't I "stumble upon" it any more than anyone else here has stumbled upon it? Who said anything about having to be new? I contribute now and again, I have no control over what number I appear as, or when I appear as it, and I don't mess around with user pages - they're nothing but decorations and a waste of time. This is supposed to be "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" - that's some joke. Make one edit and there's somebody there just waiting to report you for breaking some rule or another. You can take it or leave it, I couldn't care less, I have better things to be doing. A SPA? "Limited to one very narrow area or set of articles, or whose edits to many articles appear to be for a common purpose"? Some SPA I am - football, handball, reading, pollution, a plumber, a landslide, war, a dead lady. You're beyond contempt. --86.40.107.199 (talk) 21:55, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Others can draw their own conclusion. You were an SPA when you came here and your second edit was to an AfD - not something new editors stumble upon. You could have avoided all of this by just mentioning what other IPs you've edited under but for some reason, you choose not to. There's no need to get so upset about it. Would you not think something was fishy if you were in my shoes? OlYeller21^Talktome 01:15, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom and others plus WP:N and WP:ONEVENT. BTW the President of Ireland recognises all Irish centenarians, So what is notable about that? ww2censor (talk) 19:30, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:, a WP:ONEVENT. Being the oldest person in the world is probably notable, but being oldest in a single country, not really. Being noted by the president isn't a big deal either, in the US the president will send a greeting to anyone over 80 (70 for veterans), plus various other random events such as bar mitzvahs. Front page news it ain't. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:59, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I would like to explain old yeller's misrepresentation of one event.

"One event" was intended that, if someone were the witness to an event or a participant in one event, then they are not notable just because they did an interview for TV In the case of someone notable for age, the person is notable due to their age, not just an "event". Being recognized as Ireland's oldest person at 107 and dying at 108 are two events, anyway. Old Yeller21 is profoundly misstating and misusing WP: ONE EVENT. Basically, what he is saying is that someone can NEVER be notable for age, and only notable if they were famous before old age. But the Jeanne Calment article proves that is not true. So, use Jeanne Calment as an example that, firstly, someone CAN be noted for age only, and secondly, since Calment's age coverage lasted far more than one event, ONE EVENT doesn't apply. Longevitydude (talk) 23:56, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Heres perhaps a better clarification as my previous post

" If people read the WP: One Event guidelines, someone who is notable only due to their link in one event (for example, a witness gives an interview to a fire; the man who filmed the Rodney King beating, etc) is not usually notable, unless the person was involved in planning the event beforehand. For example, assassins such as Garilov Princip may be notable because they planned out the event beforehand." When it comes to "old age," old age is NOT an event. Celebrating a 114th birthday is an event. Becoming the WOP is an event. Being 114 is NOT an event. There is a difference. Longevitydude (talk) 18:09, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, several people disagree with you. Put simply, she wasn't the world's oldest person as you mention. That's very different. She was only covered for one thing, twice, and something that several people here don't feel establishes notability. OlYeller21^Talktome 01:15, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously several people agree with me. Put simply, I didn't say she was the world's oldest person, I was giving an example. Several people here do feel that establishes notability. Longevitydude (talk) 16:07, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - known only for being the oldest person in Ireland at the time of her death, there seems to be little biographical information to sustain an article (apart from her dietary habits) despite her death being covered in several news sources. Sionk (talk) 00:12, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I would like some, but I'm not asure if there is, any consensus about whether being the oldest person living in one's country is sufficient -- by itself -- for notability. Can we have some clarification? Bearian (talk) 21:42, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably a discussion that's taken place before, considering peoples' comments above about supercentenarians. Maybe someone needs to create a "List of oldest people in Ireland". I see the previous two incumbents died in quick succession. Sionk (talk) 23:00, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Without trying to create new policy, I'd say it logically follows along the lines of our general consensus for world record holders, since they're essentially local record holders. Broadly speaking, while some record holders are notable for other things (like athletics & music records), and a few have spun world records into general notability (the fattest twins became wrestlers), but there's loads of precedent that simply holding a record and being in the Guinness Book isn't notable on its own. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:43, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Selective merge to Oldest people, per CorporateM and WP:BIO1E. -- Trevj (talk) 14:00, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:02, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Charmed Progenies[edit]

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

I can't find any evidence of the existence of this program. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 19:21, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:18, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:18, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks reliable sources. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:24, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[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) 22:44, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unsourced, and unsourceable. This would appear to be a TV series based on Charmed, a televsion series that ran for 8 seasons. It boggles the mind that a sequel / spin-off series slated to air in 2013 has completely escaped the notice of reliable sources. The article istelf babbles on about season 3 when there hasn't even been a season 1. This appears to be a hoax. -- Whpq (talk) 23:04, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a hoax. Utter lack of references and no entry in IMDb, either as a series or as a credit for Holly Marie Combs. It's just fan fiction.[2] Who would cast three nobodies as the leads of a TV series, and what kind of a title is Charmed Progenies? Clarityfiend (talk) 01:01, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was WP:WITHDRAWN. (non-admin closure) Mkdw ^talk 08:18, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Woolrich[edit]

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

Not notable. A claim of notability has been made, so WP:CSD#A7 is no longer appropriate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:17, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Famous old American company, as shown by the sources now in the article and bunches of additional sources shown at GNews, HighBeam, etc. --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:23, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No shortage of sources in Google and Google Books, and I added another to article. Did the proposer do WP:BEFORE? --Colapeninsula (talk) 22:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have also improved the article as much as I can. Unfortunately, though, it seems the company hasn't received much news coverage in the past few years and they have been experiencing financial problems so this may be to blame. I have found several recent press releases so they may have resorted to using press releases now. However, for now, I think the article is better than before and the company has established a fair amount of notability. SwisterTwister talk 23:31, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep When you get see a 183 year old company it should raise some keep flags. Google news archive results as far back as 1936, and consistent mentions of "America's oldest manufacturer of outdoor wear". Several mentions in notable magazines and books: [3], [4], [5], Also, Encyclopedia.com has an article about them [6]. Mkdw ^talk 02:29, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw. Although the version deleted in December clearly failed WP:CSD#A7, it's significantly improved. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:04, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Fan S. Noli#Poems. MBisanz ^talk 23:06, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Moisiu në mal[edit]

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

Although it is wrote in a different language, if translated to English, it is simply a poem and essay, which is what Wikipedia is not, so I propose this be deleted. TBr and ley ^{(what's up)} 20:13, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Change to redirect to Fan S. Noli. Also, the "Poems" section on that main article needs to have links to sub articles for every poem removed, unless there are secondary sources supporting notability of individual poems. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:46, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also add on Mousiu në mal. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:49, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The author died in 1965 so reproducing his poem here is a WP:COPYVIO. If anyone did search here by the poem title it would be in expectation of an article about the poem rather than a copy of the poem itself - Wikipedia is not some kind of Golden Treasury - and there is no claim of notability here, just a copy of the thing in itself. AllyD (talk) 21:09, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:36, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:36, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Fan S. Noli#Poems. The poem «Moisiu në Mal» (Moses on the Mountain) is mentioned in Bihiku, Koço (1964). An outline of Albanian literature. Naim Frashëri State Pub. House. p. 72. and in other books and studies on Balkan literature [7]. I think that an editor familiar with the Albanian language and literature would be capable to develop the article separately, however, redirect is the best option at the moment, at least in my opinion. I've removed the copyvio and I deleted related revisions. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 07:49, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fan S. Noli#Poems. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 03:16, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:52, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Shrewsbury Town F.C. players[edit]

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

List has four players, which is about 1,000 short of its final target. Doesn't look likely to be completed any time soon, and if in the future someone wishes to recreate the article with a more complete list then as it stands this article will be of little use to them. Echetus Xe 19:59, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Struway2 (talk) 10:00, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:34, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. --Michig (talk) 21:16, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Since they play in a fully professional league their players will be notable. Hypothetically you could merge then de-merge when more players were added, but why bother? Football subjects often attract fans who will contribute. --Colapeninsula (talk) 22:32, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A notable club with lots of notable players. An incomplete list is not a valid reason for deletion and the article has potential for growth. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:31, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - something being incomplete is not a reason to delete. I'll happily start expanding this article when I have time. Giant Snowman 10:12, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No-one doubts that the topic is notable, and if there was prior evidence of the list likely being expanded in the foreseeable future, it wouldn't have been nominated. Though I'm pleased that an experienced editor has enthusiasm for improving this and all the other currently nominated similar lists when he has time. And he's correct that something being incomplete isn't a reason to delete. But I'm not convinced it adds much to Wikipedia's credibility if we insist on keeping an out-of-date, unsourced, BLP-violating stub indefinitely – it's already lain untouched for 15 months – until GiantSnowman or someone else finds the time to expand it. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:43, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm busy this evening with the football but I'm willing to start improving as soon as tomorrow - it will be far from complete but will be able to show the potential and hopefully encourage other editors to get involved as well. This is a collaborative project after all. Giant Snowman 10:47, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the topic is notable even if the article is incomplete, which is never grounds for deletion. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 19:04, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
keep As per above. Govvy (talk) 20:36, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —Theopolisme (talk) 15:16, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Rotherham United F.C. players[edit]

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

List has ten players, which is about 1,000 short of its final target. Doesn't look likely to be completed any time soon, and if in the future someone wishes to recreate the article with a more complete list then as it stands this article will be of little use to them. Echetus Xe 19:58, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. --Michig (talk) 21:17, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A notable club with lots of notable players. An incomplete list is not a valid reason for deletion and the article has potential for growth. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:31, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Struway2 (talk) 10:01, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - something being incomplete is not a reason to delete. I'll happily start expanding this article when I have time. Giant Snowman 10:13, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:32, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article topic is notable. I've added another reference and will spend some time improving. Eldumpo (talk) 10:00, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, incomplete does not amount to a reason to delete. As for improving the list, "We need a 12th man here. Where are you? Where are you? Let's be 'avin' you! Come on!" Bencherlite ^Talk 17:34, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Norwich City F.C. players[edit]

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

List has six players, which is about 1,000 short of its final target. Doesn't look likely to be completed any time soon, and if in the future someone wishes to recreate the article with a more complete list then as it stands this article will be of little use to them. Echetus Xe 19:55, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. --Michig (talk) 21:17, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A team with a long history in the top flight of English football. Has notable players, list is valid. --Colapeninsula (talk) 22:35, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A notable club with lots of notable players. An incomplete list is not a valid reason for deletion and the article has potential for growth. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:31, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Struway2 (talk) 10:01, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - something being incomplete is not a reason to delete. I'll happily start expanding this article when I have time. Giant Snowman 10:13, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly notable, could use source for basic verifiability but if everyone who's participated here adds three players a week to the list, we'll be done by Christmas! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:26, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:32, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Halloween III (2013 film)[edit]

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

This is speculation and crystal-balling. IMDB has very few details of this film - its status is "announced", and it has "been removed from the release calendar". The actors mentioned seem to be a hoax. St Anselm (talk) 19:54, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. St Anselm (talk) 19:57, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the notability guidelines for future films. There's no indication that this is a film that is in production. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:15, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, obvious hoax.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 20:52, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was previously nominated for speedy deletion as a hoax, and the speedy was declined. St Anselm (talk) 20:58, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Matt Damon and Chris Rock will star in a Halloween movie when a Brinks truck with a billion dollars backs up to their front door, and even then there will be second thoughts because it's the Halloween series. No sources, made up. Nate • (chatter) 03:32, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete per WP:NOT YET (films). While this topic is not quite a hoax, and is rather a Patrick Lussier project to include Brad Dourif and Scout Taylor Compton, supposedly to be released in 2012,[8] it is apparently still in pre-production[9] and ~~only now getting~~ did receive some buzz in 2010 and 2011. Certainly our article's author used his imagination for its content, and while the topic of this film is not entirely unsourcable, it is still far TOO SOON for an article to be considered. WHEN we do have far more, AND proper verification of cast, crew. studio, etc., an article might then be worth considering. Schmidt,^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:42, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Schmidt. When Lussier was first announced to be working on the film, there was quite a bit of buzz, but nothing really beyond that. There really isn't much to show that this as of yet unmade film would pass WP:NFF. Considering that the film hasn't yet begun filming and as such, would have no set release date, I would argue against a redirect to Halloween_(franchise)#Future. It'd be rather inappropriate for an article name with a specific, (and more importantly) unverified release date that will more than likely not happen. The only working title we have is Halloween 3D, which already exists as a redirect to the series page.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:43, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —Theopolisme (talk) 15:16, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Oldham Athletic A.F.C. players[edit]

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

List has five players, which is about 1,000 short of its final target. Doesn't look likely to be completed any time soon, and if in the future someone wishes to recreate the article with a more complete list then as it stands this article will be of little use to them. Echetus Xe 19:51, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. It's obviously incomplete but better to keep it and work on it rather than delete it. --Michig (talk) 21:14, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A notable club with lots of notable players. An incomplete list is not a valid reason for deletion and the article has potential for growth. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:32, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Struway2 (talk) 10:01, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - something being incomplete is not a reason to delete. I'll happily start expanding this article when I have time. Giant Snowman 10:13, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have started - work in progress but shows potential of article. Giant Snowman 19:15, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:31, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was WP:WITHDRAWN. (non-admin closure) Mkdw ^talk 04:25, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Lincoln City F.C. players[edit]

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

List has four players, which is about 1,000 short of its final target. Doesn't look likely to be completed any time soon, and if in the future someone wishes to recreate the article with a more complete list then as it stands this article will be of little use to them. Echetus Xe 19:50, 7 January 2013 (UTC) I withdraw the nomination now that the article is vastly improved.--Echetus Xe 17:51, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. --Michig (talk) 21:18, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A notable club with lots of notable players. An incomplete list is not a valid reason for deletion and the article has potential for growth. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:32, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:37, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lincoln City is a decent size club, I can't see why this article can't be a good one, I am sure there are plenty of players who can go on the list. 1,000 short? I am sure around 100 players on it would suffice. Govvy (talk) 08:59, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm inclined to delete, thinking that perhaps Category:Lincoln City F.C. players can do that job. Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 09:04, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - something being incomplete is not a reason to delete. I'll happily start expanding this article when I have time. Giant Snowman 09:10, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but only with a stay of execution. What is the point in keeping an article that is started as a stub and never gets improved? I'd say if this doesn't get improved within a month or two, it should go. – Pee Jay 12:03, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Struway2 (talk · contribs) has said they wish to improve the article; if they don't have time then my previous offer to do so myself still stands. Giant Snowman 12:26, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This seems like a perfectly valid list of particularly noteworthy players for a club with a lot of history. The introduction to the list should explain why this is not redundant to Category:Lincoln City F.C. players - the category includes every player who has played for the club (even just one match) whereas this list is only for those who have played a significant part in the club's history, along with details of what their contribution was (see also Wikipedia:Categories, lists and navigation templates). @PeeJay - why should we impose an artificial timelimit on this - there is no WP:DEADLINE. Thryduulf (talk) 13:47, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Because without the threat of a deadline, where is the impetus to improve the article? Having an obviously incomplete article lying around just looks unprofessional. – PeeJay 13:51, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Also these lists are not generally for "club-notable" players (certain achievements / appearances etc.), they should be for all players. Giant Snowman 13:58, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep List is notable and should be expanded not deleted. I don't follow your logic on this PeeJay. There are lots of articles on wiki that start out as stubs and are hardly expanded, by your reasoning they should be deleted too. GianttSnowman has already said he will work on the list and WP:DEADLINE makes it clear we don't work to a deadline. We should not be deleting potentially good material just because it is a stub. NapHit (talk) 14:21, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'd been working on this offline for some time, and have now put my version into mainspace. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:10, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Struway's new version renders the nomination null and void.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:06, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Asilidae species. MBisanz ^talk 23:06, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Asilidae species: D-L[edit]

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

This page was created as an apparantly abandoned attempt to split its parent article. The strategy being used was somewhat inappropriate and a different strategy has been used to split the parent article. This page is now not referenced apart from talk pages. Op47 (talk) 19:25, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as duplicate; an unlikely term for a redirect. הסרפד (call me “Hasirpad”) (formerly R——bo) 19:45, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. הסרפד (call me “Hasirpad”) (formerly R——bo) 19:48, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. הסרפד (call me “Hasirpad”) (formerly R——bo) 19:48, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (or delete) - Per WP:CHEAP, I recommend a redirect to List of Asilidae species. If this option is not elected, then deletion would definitely be appropriate.--Jax 0677 (talk) 20:04, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as above. Duplicates List of Asilidae species: D etc. Worth keeping the redirect just in case there's somebody pointing to it somewhere. --Colapeninsula (talk) 22:37, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'delete, or redirect but I see little point in the redirect as it is a unlikely search term, and the page e quite new, so also not likely to have a lot, if any, links from the outside. - Nabla (talk) 23:37, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to H class battleship proposals. MBisanz ^talk 23:02, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

H-45[edit]

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

The H-45 design never existed, it was created in an internet forum (see here - you must log into the site to see it) and was copied by Porter, who obviously did not do nearly a good enough job on his research. The article creator attempted to insert this material into the H class battleship proposals article, and when that was rejected, s/he created this one. It needs to go. Parsecboy (talk) 19:08, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if any material is salvageable, it should be merged to H class battleship proposals. Otherwise Delete and redirect to H45 as a ((R from alternate spelling)) (delete the edit history; create a redirect to the disambiguation page) -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 01:05, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; seems to fail the GNG, plus the hoaxiness problem. We do actually have articles on hoaxes, but they need to be notable and they need good secondary sources, which this article lacks. An article which presents a hoax (or suspected hoax) as though it's a real thing is a really bad idea. If it's possible to get good independent coverage of the hoax, one or two sentences about it in H class battleship proposals would be fine. bobrayner (talk) 15:37, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There's nothing on this outside of Porter's book and the forum, which isn't exactly a reliable source. The H-45 isn't a hoax, strictly speaking, it was created as a sort of design study, and Porter simply didn't realize the nature of the forum. Parsecboy (talk) 14:52, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:26, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:26, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, who happens to be our resident expert on German naval history. However, it may be worth a sentence in H class battleship proposals ... something along the lines of "Porter, apparently taking his information from [forum], said ___, but there's no evidence for this." Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:01, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to H class battleship proposals. While a latter-day what-if creation, it does have some "presence" in Porter's work and "in the wild", as it were; acknowleding it in that article as a footnote-ish thing is worthwhile, IMHO. (And would also avoid the inevitible result otherwise of a napkinwaffe fan coming along and going "oh, there's no article on the H-45! I need to fix that...) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:01, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect per The Bushranger; it may be worth including a brief mention of this in the H class battleship article to set the record straight. Nick-D (talk) 22:41, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:16, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tussian Empire[edit]

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

Lack of sources describing such empire when a Google search was performed. Not sure whether if this empire existed or not. Wylve (talk) 17:28, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Obvious hoax. Just look at the rulers ("Gingerella?" Seriously?) and the Toasting section. Ridiculous. Howicus (talk) 18:05, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There seems to be a rough consensus here that the available sourcing indicates that this is more notable than a routine crime. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:24, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deaths of Asher and Yonatan Palmer[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The deaths of these two Israelis, while tragic, was the topic of newspaper coverage at the moment, but has not resulted in any lasting effects of historic significance. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:04, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article meets WP:DIVERSE and appears in books by experts in the field [10]--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 20:17, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is still is reported by WP:RS even after two years [11] only from the last month so it was not routine event.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 15:09, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Obviously a notable event, covered by CNN[12] and a host of others. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:10, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Attack was reported by variety of sources and was notable for the alleged police cover up to avoid retaliatory responses. Ankh.Morpork 17:34, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this has 0 chance of being deleted, but it fails NOTNEWS. No persistent coverage. Users will say but it is covered in all these newspapers. Yes, I know that. So is every announcement of a settlement expansion, so are most Palestinians killed by Israeli forces, so are many attacks on olive groves by settlers. These are specific incidents in a more general topic. That general topic is what should be in an "encyclopedia". These articles belong on a memorial site, not Wikipedia. nableezy - 17:49, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So why you didn't voted delete for Khalil al-Mughrabi? or propose Faris Odeh articles for deletion?--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 18:15, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because al-Mughrabi's death had lasting significance and was the subject of in-depth coverage over a long period of time due to the Israeli cover-up. As for Odeh, get real. That is perhaps the most famous image from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. That would be a bit like deleting Tank Man. But there have been nearly 5000 Palestinians killed by Israeli forces since early 2008. Another 40 have been killed by Israeli settlers. I could, if I were so inclined, find sources from the BBC, AFP, Haaretz, al-Jazeera, Maan, ... for a large number of those, and I could, if I were so inclined, write an article using those sources. I dont. Because those arent articles that belong in an encyclopedia. Last year, 516 people were murdered in the city of Chicago, my hometown. I could find sources for most of them and write an article. But that would not make it an encyclopedia article, any more than any of the series of articles created about Israeli victims. This is, supposedly, an encyclopedia. No real encyclopedia would have an article on Asher and Yonatan Palmer. nableezy - 22:18, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:NOTNEWS. Tragic, to say the least, but no historical or major political significance. Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 18:40, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does the fact it changed the IDF policies and was a source of the police spoksman invesigation make it with a political siginificance ?109.226.53.159 (talk) 14:21, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Despite both Israelis and Palestinians thinking everything they do to each other is of earth-shattering importance, it really isn't. This is routine news coverage of a tragic event. No lasting significance, no impact on the larger world or even the local one. People died, people were arrested, and sentenced. Over and out. Tarc (talk) 19:19, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As per Shrike. Was discussed in scholarly sources not contemporaneously to attack. I don't see any deletion discussion on terrorist attacks in which Jews weren't the victims. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 20:00, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioned in a list of events is not discussed. As for the last sentence, yeah ok. Whatever you say. nableezy - 22:23, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here is another example of mentioning [13]--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 20:06, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Yup. WP:NOTNEWS and WP:COATRACK pretty obviously apply here. If these deaths weren't surrounded by the obvious IP-conflict issues, the article would have never been started. For couple seconds I was wondering whether these death might become "of historical significance" and gain notability in future, but given that the deaths occurred in 09/11 and this article wasn't started till 08/12, it seems obvious that this will remain a minor event. NickCT (talk) 20:13, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A couple of points not made before: Firstly, Quite a lot in Wikipedia links to this article. Secondly, rock-throwing in the Israel-Palestine conflict is a controversial and much discussed issue. This is easily Googled. (I get over 3 million hits). Supporters of the Palestinian position vis-a-vis Israel's claim that Israel uses "disproportionate force" against children or adults that throw stones, that rock-throwing is an innocuous activity rarely causing casualties. The Israelis do not see it that way, and these deaths by stone demonstrate that rock-throwing is NOT innocuous and provide justification for Israel to prosecute rock throwers of whatever age. It is understandable that partisans of the opposing side would want to make this evidence of the lethality of rock-throwing to go away, and that could well be the basis for some of the DELETE votes above. Opportunidaddy (talk) 04:02, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (no chance of policy being honoured here of course) while merging the incident into Rock-throwing incidents in the Occupied Territories, if you are serious about encyclopedic quality articles, Opportunidaddy and co. I.e.

As Nableezy notes, there are thousands of similar incidents of Palestinian deaths one could write up as single page incidents such as the case of Mohammed Suleiman a-Zalmut. In October, 1998, Hammel visited his sister, Kama, at Itamar and then set out on foot, knapsack on his back, to Avri Ran's farm. On the way, he encountered a 77-year-old Palestinian, Mohammed Suleiman a-Zalmut, from the nearby village of Beir Fouriq. For reasons that are unclear, Hammel smashed Zalmut's skull with a rock. I hope no one does that. The one-off incident strategy means WP:NPOV is neatly sidestepped by militant POV-pushers, since you no longer have to give an overall picture or context, but just keep piling on articles on victims on one side. If this was a partisan tit-for-tat war, Opportunidaddy, the Palestinian POV-pushers would win hands down for sheer volume of tragic incidents in their favour. They refrain from this generally, fortunately.Nishidani (talk) 11:16, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow, I don't think your post is exactly NPOV either. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 20:49, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Nishidani's argument is perhaps one of the most convincing I've ever read on those delete pages. Perhaps I am a bit biased because I already voted on the same side as he/she did, but if I were to vote again, I'd base it on what they said. Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 18:57, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Significant murder case that had alot of coverage Crystalfile (talk) 15:38, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No convincing evidence has been presented supporting the "enduring notability" of this event (as we should consider per WP:NOTNEWSPAPER). The only sources that have been presented outside of the immediate news coverage of the the event and the trial are:

A listing in Gilbert's "atlas" alongside other listed events that similarly would not meet notability requirements for a stand alone article such as an Abbas appearance at the UN, an Israeli announcement of settlement expansion, a Quartet statement ect.
A brief mention in a Gerald Steinberg Op-Ed. Dlv999 (talk) 19:54, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. A source from only last month was presented above and a memorial service was held four months ago.Ankh.Morpork 22:24, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. The source was not "presented above" at the time I made my comment. Shrike went back to insert the source into the comment twenty minutes after I made the post. On the substantive point as two whether these two sources are evidence of "enduring notability" I would say no. Your source [14] for instance is a news report covering an annual ceremony that commemorates Americans and Canadians that have fallen in Israeli wars. Dlv999 (talk) 22:57, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject received a great deal of attention and is certainly notable. Everyking (talk) 14:19, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Y'know, when I have an AfD on the watchlist and I see someone's entry clocking in at around 174 bytes, the immediate assumption is "this is going to be crap". I am rarely disappointed. Try to provide something more than WP:ITSNOTABLE, please. Tarc (talk) 14:27, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think my comment was actually a good deal better than the nomination itself. The press coverage was quite substantial, beyond the level that anyone could fairly characterize as routine. Therefore the subject is notable. What more argument is needed? Everyking (talk) 14:38, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes indeed it was not routine coverage and WP:DIVERSE was met.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 15:10, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What Shrike (talk · contribs) and others appear to be missing is that WP:DIVERSE is just one of three conditions of coverage (that in itself is just one of three factors) that are described at WP:EVENT. Yes, the event was covered in diverse sources. And yes, the event's coverage has lasted for some period of time (but only because the trial continues and has not yet concluded). But the event has not proven to have any lasting effect. (Will any laws be changed because of this event? Will the conflict between Israel and Palestine be affected one iota by this event?) Nor has the event had any broad geographic effect. (No one outside of the immediate neighborhood where the event occurred has been affected by the event.) So, in the broad sense of WP:EVENT, this event fails the criteria. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:24, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not temporary. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:43, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think you wrong on this WP:EVENT is quite clear on this "Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards (as described below)."-this criterion was clearly met.
Morever it clear meet the general notability criteria per WP:GNG.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 16:40, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - NOTNEWS
- Who else was killed in the conflict on the same day, 23 September 2011 ? One man, mid-30s, father of seven, shot near Qusra in the West Bank. Quick search for sources that covered the killing; United Nations[15], The Guardian[16][17], The Sydney Morning Herald[18], Ynet[19], Haaretz [20], The Telegraph[21], BBC[22], The Independent[23][24][25][26], JPost[27][28], B'Tselem[29], IDFblog[30], Yahoo/AP[31][32][33], AP[34], MSNBC[35], Fox[36] PressTV[37]. For the coverage in Wikipedia, see last but one paragraph in Qusra. It could perhaps benefit from a slight expansion but it's about the right level of coverage for an encyclopedia.
- Who's reading Deaths of Asher and Yonatan Palmer ? Approximately no one.[38].
- Dedicated articles about events like these are a playground for agenda driven editors. If Wikipedia's objective were to demonize people and exploit the death of innocents as part of a pointless and disruptive information war or if the notability of victimhood was meant to be established by ethnicity based sampling of RS, I might vote keep. But at the moment they aren't. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:42, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - obviously received extensive international coverage at the time of the event, and continues to be covered two years later, as documented by Shrike, in [39] or [40] - thus meeting the WP:GNG. Arguments along the lines of "but no one is reading it" are not grounded in any policy as a reason for deletion, nor are arguments that other, perhaps equally deserving articles about other deaths have not yet been written. All Rows4 (talk) 14:13, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, after 101 edits you know all that? nableezy - 16:00, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The tragic event is clearly notable, as per Shrike. The attacks that may or may not occur on Palestinians are a separate situation and do not affect the notability of this event. Also, they were not presented in a reliable or unbiased manner, and I'm not impressed by the attempts to obfuscate the discussion by changing the subject. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 21:01, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is well written and well sourced, and according to WP:N/CA, "media coverage can confer notability on a high-profile criminal act, provided such coverage meets the above guidelines and those regarding reliable sources." The incident is covered by major media in at least two countries. I do also think the international aspects of the case do strength the notabilty of this article. Grrahnbahr (talk) 05:01, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable topic, subject of in-depth AND persistent coverage by reliable sources worldwide. The "impact" section lists several significant results of this attack. Marokwitz (talk) 09:21, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Wouldn't it be administratively more efficient and time-saving just to post an exception notice that says:'All articles created to deal with Israeli deaths at the hands of Palestinians need not be challenged because they are invariably passed by an automatic majority, and are all newsworthy, so neither WP:EVENT nor Wikipedia is not a newspaper applies to them? Nishidani (talk) 16:56, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You aren't helping yourself with the snarky attitude. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 17:46, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not on wikipedia to "help myself" but to contribute to encyclopedic-quality articles. It's not 'snarky' to familiarize oneself with an on-going problem, and a pattern of support. The only improvement is that these template articles started out invariably with a header speaking of murder (one or two still survive i.e. The Murder of Shalhevet Pass) until someone senior nudges the editors to alter at least that. I could write several articles a week like these, for the other side. I don't and have advised others not to do so, or get sucked into this game. I once even experimented to see how reactions would turn out if I wrote up an incident-type hitting the other side (Zion Square assault) and even forewarned admins I'd do so. Unfortunately for that project, far too many articles appeared which transformed the incident into a major episode, so my experiment failed. But compare that page with the kind of stuff you get on this kind of page. Nishidani (talk) 18:32, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All I'm seeing here is someone who appears to have an anti-Jewish bias injecting that apparent bias into this discussion. I am not impressed. It's not my fault if you chose not to write articles "for the other side". AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 18:37, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Try looking for the things you aren't seeing rather than drawing conclusions based on all you are seeing. Nishidani's point is entirely rational. If AfDs have a near zero chance of resulting in delete there is no point posting them. That is certainly the case for articles about Israeli deaths at the hands of Palestinians. Not posting the AfD in these cases would be administratively more efficient and it would save time. That is just how it is. Procedures need to deal with how the ARBPIA topic area actually is rather how it should be. Approximately no one is reading the article so it doesn't matter whether it is deleted or retained. The only effect of this AfD is that it has reactivated a near dormant likely sockpuppet of a topic banned editor involved in the CAMERA infilitration campaign and a likely sockpuppet of another topic banned editor that has been dormant for months. It would have been better if that hadn't happened. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:46, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

anti-Jewish bias????? And the evidence for that bullshit charge is what exactly? Or did it become standard practice to accuse others of antisemitism with no basis around here? nableezy - 19:54, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence is all above. I might not have even bothered to !vote here if I hadn't been so disgusted with the fact that an AfD regarding an article about murdered Jews was being used as a platform to redirect the focus toward perceived injustices against Palestinians. Also, note that I said the editor appears to have an anti-Jewish bias. I could be wrong about that, and if so I apologize, but that was how they came across to someone who had no real prior involvement in related discussions. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 20:29, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See, this is what passes for standard discourse around here now; editors get to freely toss around charges of antisemitism (couched in cover-your-ass verbiage like "it appears", "it seems", etc...) without repercussion. AutomaticStrikeout did it just now, Baseball Bugs did it a few weeks ago. Tarc (talk) 20:38, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sherlock, we havent been using this as a platform to redirect the focus toward perceived injustices against Palestinians. We have said, repeatedly, that article for BOTH Palestinians and Israelis killed that show no lasting impact do not belong. Nobody, and I mean NOBODY, has said that this is only true for Jewish victims of Palestinian violence. It is likewise true for Palestinian victims of Israeli violence. The point that was actually made which you apparently failed to understand, and not the one that didnt impress you, was that if somebody were interested in writing "articles" about Palestinian victims that have generated the same type of coverage as the "articles" on Israeli victims that there would be thousands of such "articles". I use quotation marks because none of them are actually articles, they are memorial pages. If you cant restrain yourself from popping off with bullshit accusations because of an apparent inability to actually understand what people are writing then I am quite happy that I failed to impress you. nableezy - 20:39, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever, the conversation is pointless anyway. The consensus is clear the event is noteworthy and you have a hard time respecting that. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 20:44, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You still dont have a clue about what you are talking about. That hasnt stopped you before, so I doubt me saying anything here will stop you in the future. So for once you are right, the "conversation" is pointless. nableezy - 20:52, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, given that you insist on demeaning the opinion of everyone that dares to disagree with you as to the outcome of this AfD, I guess this conversation is pointless, unless you are willing to consider toning down the rhetoric. As I said before, I apologize if my comment, which I have struck, was in error. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 20:57, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Im the one that said that I think the people who disagree with me are racists. I must have forgotten. Sorry about that demeaning comment, really. nableezy - 21:06, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, satisfies GNG. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 00:19, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable high-profile attack which had persistent coverage in prominent reliable secondary sources worldwide. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 18:03, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep submitter doesn't make a valid argument for deletion (misstates article retention criteria), and most !votes for delete are just variations on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The Editorial Voice (talk) 22:07, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There isn't a valid argument for deletion. This source for instance characterizes the incident as a "setback" to the "hopes" of "direct Israeli-Palestinian talks". The argument for deletion is that the incident "has not resulted in any lasting effects of historic significance" to which I would counter that a setback to talks is of historical significance. Bus stop (talk) 01:05, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 03:45, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Winnie The Pooh's Home Run Derby[edit]

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

Maybe of use as a footnote in game design but I don't think this will have much continuing coverage considering there isn't much substance to it. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 16:45, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are other articles with even less information around, like this one: Ready to Read with Pooh. Also, it can be much more complete, check this, for example.Caith Sith (talk) 17:35, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 17:36, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I want to delete this piece of tripe, but the more one looks, the more borderline sources seem to crop up . I've seen nbcsports.com and the Daily Dot so far. Tarc (talk) 19:23, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe there are enough sources out there to indicate notability. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 03:38, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Can't help but feel similarly to Tarc. There's a Kotaku source too (currently in the article as an external link... Sergecross73 msg me 20:33, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to Kotaku and NBC Sports, I found an article at Eurogamer and another at the Swedish news site Nyheter24 (Google translation). That's probably enough to prove notability. Funnily enough, I didn't find anything in Japanese, other than Japanese blogs that were commenting on how popular the game is becoming overseas. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 22:06, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per my earlier comment, Tarc's sentiments, and Mr. Stradivarius's compilation of sources. Sergecross73 msg me 03:25, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There is no reason for deletion. The article has a potential for growth.--Hot cake syrup (talk) 13:45, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Bloomerang[edit]

The result was Speedy Deleted under Criterion G11 (Unambiguous advertising or promotion). ★ Bald Zebra ★ ^talk 16:31, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Seems like an advertisement. Scientific Alan 2 (talk) 16:00, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. WP:BEFORE reveals stories well into 2005 and one into 2011. The arguments of those in favour of keep and WP:N/CA remain supported while the arguments against have not changed, if not weakened, since the last AfD. (non-admin closure) Mkdw ^talk 03:25, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Diane Zamora[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

BLP of a person convicted for murder which appears to be a classic case of only being notable for one event. Not a significant case in terms of law. Limited press coverage. No long-term press interest.

I stubbed this article back because it was written from an obviously slanted point of view and lacked references for almost all of the claims made. It may be worthwhile to look through the history before deciding to keep or delete this article. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:10, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep: The article needs to be rewritten with inline references, but there is absolutely no question of notability. It was a very high profile case back in the late 90's. However whatever (talk) 17:12, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: Agreed, absolutely no question of notability. Multiple mass media adaptations of the story, including ones not mentioned in the current version of the article (such as the Snapped adaptation). Nominator gives same justification as the failed previous AFD nomination, which was decided in favor of "keep", with no indication that anything has changed from the previous nomination that this should be decided any differently. "No long-term press interest"? The Dateline interview mentioned in the article and a TV series adaptation, both a decade later, don't count? And if that was supposed to mean no current press interest, that's a bad argument for deletion. Of course there's no current press interest, because the press reports current news. By that argument, since today's newspaper isn't currently covering crimes that occurred in the 1990s, all articles on crimes in the 1990s should be deleted. —Lowellian (reply) 19:50, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Paris1127 (talk) 08:08, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No prejudice towards discussions about merging or changing scope. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:44, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1767 in rail transport[edit]

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

Only one entry in list, and that is unsourced. Mdann52 (talk) 13:41, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The fact that there is only one item listed on the page so far simply means that editors here haven't searched around as much for items that should be included in the list. The 1760s was a decade in which a number of other railway pioneers could have been born, or inventions necessary for railway technology could have been developed. I have added three independent sources to the page to take care of the unsourced argument noted above. Slambo (Speak) 14:11, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - without too much effort, I just found something to put in the events section. More a case of unfinished work than unfinishable work, I'd say. Might be worth getting a WikiProject on to these, but otherwise. Stalwart111 14:37, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And I just added two more refs to that entry from items in Google Books (including one originally published in 1831). This is within the scope of WP:Trains, of which I have been a participating member since 2004. Slambo (Speak) 15:31, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - When this had no events and a single birth, it was borderline; but now it has a referenced non-birth event, it can stay. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:38, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to 1760s in rail transport and merge in the other poor articles such as 1765 in rail transport. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:29, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as per Lugnuts' suggestion above. Andrew³²⁷ 08:55, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My only concern with that proposal is that these come from Years in rail transport which includes every year post 1700 (with quite a few redlinks). A new page covering a whole decade would throw that format out of whack (it would be the only one) and would duplicate Category:1760s in rail transport which actually includes three years of that decade and a sub-cat with a page for another year. Stalwart111 04:06, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep somehow but I think merging this and other 1760s articles into one 1760s in rail transport would be better. Similarly all other articles in decades before 1800. There is just not enough possible content for annual articles at this period. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:28, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into decades as above, such articles would be more informative & at this stage most years will not have enough events to be worth individual articles.TheLongTone (talk) 10:22, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear - that would involve also merging three other articles not listed here and depopulating two categories (effectively deleting them rather than this article). I'm just not sure we should be doing that as the result of a single-article AFD. I am concerned about going down that path from here but not strongly opposed to it as an idea. It would need, I think, the folks from WP:Trains to sort out. And amending their existing structure as the result of one AFD might not be popular. But the option needs to be considered. Stalwart111 11:09, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now but discuss merge at WikiProject Level via a RFC at WT:TWP. Peterkingiron's suggestion is a good one. Mjroots (talk) 16:47, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:09, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Creators, sustainers, and destroyers in white nationalism[edit]

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

This topic is currently sourced only to primary sources. Even the SPLC source only quotes Pierce's essay on the subject. Whilst there are plenty of discussions of Pierce's ideas in reliable sources, this particular one doesn't seem to have been taken up by anyone. I would suggest a merge to Pierce's article, but there's really nothing here to merge. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:07, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:42, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:42, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:42, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mkdw ^talk 12:36, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Into some white power/ Ku Klux Klan article. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 12:43, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not an encyclopedic topic. Polemic essay. Carrite (talk) 17:15, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - An encyclopedia is not an essay-hosting service. Unless it can be shown that the essay/belief.whatever is itself notable, there's no place for this here. Tarc (talk) 19:26, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no in depth references MarioNovi (talk) 09:26, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete One-off wacko remark seized upon by the SPLC but apparently not cared about by anyone else out there. Mangoe (talk) 13:59, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:54, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Seinfeld minor characters[edit]

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

Seems like all the notable characters already have their own articles. There are virtually no reliable WP:SOURCES. I understand Seinfeld is notable, but is every minor character who appeared notable as well? WP:NOTINHERITED PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 12:24, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:LISTPURP as that it is a valuable information source. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:19, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's plenty of sources. There's lots of (unauthorized) books about Seinfeld[41][42][43][44]. And quite a bit of online comment. See the articles on the individual episodes for more sources. Having a compendium of possibly non-notable (but verifiable) characters is perfectly valid. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:23, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a good example of what character lists are for: tons of references exist, and it is better to have a list like this than spend time arguing about the article-worthiness of every one of these figures.--Arxiloxos (talk) 15:59, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No deletion for you per all of the above and the fact that one or more of the characters have become embedded in pop culture, and shouldn't be lost in the shuffle. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:06, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's a good directory of characters, no need to delete. May need re-naming though - 'minor Seinfeld characters' better than 'Seinfeld minor characters'? Giant Snowman 12:25, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:32, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hossein Hadisi[edit]

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

Non notable musician. Has several search hits, the most reliable of which appear to be a few linked videos in NME, but otherwise I can't find anything online that establishes notability. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:28, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notability not established, fails WP:Band. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 07:43, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I didn't find any reliable sources for this article. --Cerebellum (talk) 18:27, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted per A7. Bbb23 (talk) 18:57, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bynder[edit]

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

No assertion of notability per WP:WEB; no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Speedy-deleted half an hour ago on notability grounds, re-created by same editor so taking it to AFD. Altered Walter (talk) 12:19, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Altered Walter (talk) 12:23, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as A7. A7 applies for the deletion of this article as per the article has really no significance, it doesn't claim notability either. Fails WP:WEB, WP:GNG and WP:V. The source given was just for its stable release which does not contribute to make the article reliable. Mediran (t • c) 10:27, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Screeming Custard!. MBisanz ^talk 17:51, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Flo (drummer)[edit]

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

Many searches have failed to yield any coverage for this person, whose birth name is Paul Flynn (per the article). It appears that the subject doesn't meet WP:BASIC for a Wikipedia article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:15, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:18, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:18, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Neither he nor any of his bands are notable as far as I can tell. There are very few easily-accessible sources for British music of their era - most of the magazines are long-dead and there's almost nothing digitized, online, or in the usual databases - so it's unlikely any sources will be found, even if there were any at the time. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:03, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Screeming Custard!. I think Screeming Custard! are notable enough, The Pushkins were great but borderline when it comes to notability, and I can't see us having an article on them in the near future. He did play in the band though ([45]). --Michig (talk) 21:10, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Don't see any notable sources for drummer or band. MarioNovi (talk) 10:24, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted A7. Peridon (talk) 12:12, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Scour.com[edit]

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

WP:NOTABILITY, the only notable case found in a Google search was how it was a "redirection virus." It's a Fox! (Talk to me?) 11:12, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Velvet Air[edit]

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

No assertion of notability per WP:CORP; can't find anything about it online in WP:Reliable sources. Proposed deletion contested by anonymous IP editor, which appears to be the IP of the article's creator. Altered Walter (talk) 11:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Altered Walter (talk) 11:03, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Altered Walter (talk) 11:03, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notability or even that it operates any aircraft, the company website is written in a strange fashion which manages to use a lot of words but doesnt give is any information at all about the company, but in the end it looks like a charter broker and consultancy, neither of which activities appear to be notable. MilborneOne (talk) 20:40, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. The only coverage for a "Velvet Air" is a defunct air service based out of Florida. -- Whpq (talk) 17:30, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 23:01, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pulsar 590[edit]

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

Non-notable product. Article mainly consists of specifications. Contested PROD by DGG who suggests a merge. Another editor had endorsed the PROD. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:42, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've found plenty of references on this product, in addition to the CNET review cited in the article: [46] (couldn't check this one, damn school filters), [47], [48], [49], [50], [51]. Some of these are a bit trivial, but a couple of them are quite in-depth, and there also appears to have been a Tom's Hardware review as well, although I couldn't find this. The article needs a major re-write and expanding, but that's not an AfD issue. Lukeno94 (talk) 09:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Being mentioned somewhere on the internet is not a reason to have an article. It is just one of 100s of 1000s of run of the mill products out there. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are enough proper reviews on there for GNG to be met. Lukeno94 (talk) 21:42, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For a product to be notable imo it has to have had extensive coverage or made a real cultural impact. These headphones have done neither. Rotten regard 01:07, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:23, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:36, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Some of the reviews are apparently substantial. DGG ( talk ) 01:48, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 21:18, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 10:19, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of the product's impact. 1292simon (talk) 10:42, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's no requirement that the product have an impact, only that it have substantial coverage in reliable sources. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:27, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just added a second review source to article. We now have significant coverage in multiple sources. Please post a link to the impact policy. This is first I've heard of this. -—Kvng 04:02, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I misled anyone, what I'm getting at is that routine reviews of a product do not make it notable, the product needs to be special for some reason. Similar to WP:EFFECT (I realise this is for events, but I believe it is appropriate to apply here). 1292simon (talk) 07:55, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The essay Wikipedia:Every snowflake is unique is relevant: it explains that it's possible to have a good article for run-of-the-mill products as long as you have detailed reviews rather than bare statistics. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:43, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the links. Apparently there's no cut-and-dried policy. I personally think it best to err on the side of inclusion. -—Kvng 19:40, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I started a "critical reception" section. Lots of reviews; meets notability requirements. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:49, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Product reviews don't prove notability. It needs to have an impact or technical legacy. Just another product, here today, gone tomorrow. WP is not for product listings. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 03:22, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to The Actual (band). MBisanz ^talk 17:43, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Songs on Radio Idaho[edit]

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

Unreferenced stub article on defunct band's first album and tagged for three years, no edits for years, dubious notability, orphaned article also tagged for three years, information can be merged with band article or mentioned briefly - no need for a separate page for an unreferenced track listing Jus da fax 06:46, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to The Actual (band). The tracklist and anything else verifiable can be merged there. --Michig (talk) 12:20, 24 December 2012 (UTC) I have added the tracklisting there, so this article is now redundant and a redirect will suffice. --Michig (talk) 12:46, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Actual (band) per Michig - There's nothing at this article that isn't already explained at The Actual. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 16:53, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:04, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ⋘HueSatLum ? ❢⋙ 19:30, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 10:18, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or merge. Either way, this album does not warrant a standalone article. 1292simon (talk) 10:43, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Jan Nisar Akhtar. MBisanz ^talk 23:00, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eitbar Hussain bartar[edit]

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

Contested prod with the following justification offered by myself: No verifiable references, search of Google, Google Books, and Google Scholar turns up nothing. IronGargoyle (talk) 07:08, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable FailsWP:BLP--Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 09:26, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - to his father's article.--Auric 08:24, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[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) 10:14, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Merger is another possibility, but personally I don't see anything worth merging. 1292simon (talk) 10:45, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The current consensus here is fairly clear, that this article in particular does not pass the notability guidelines. Keep !votes have not been founded in policy and thus bear little weight in the discussion. Considering a similar article exists and is currently under consideration at AFD, if somebody would like to merge the two I'll provide the text — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:40, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Villains in Mighty Morphin Power Rangers[edit]

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

As substantially similar to an article deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Power Rangers villains MBisanz ^talk 22:46, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I'm a bit on the fence here. What we have is way too much plot emphasis, tiny details about nonessential characters, and a whole lot of OR. That being said, this could be a viable article if we limit the list to just the big baddies who were threats for at least a season or so, and not their minions or one-off bosses. The fact that this is just plot summary tips the line to delete; any viable article would need real-world commentary or background information on the important characters. Them From Space 05:27, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 22:18, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 22:18, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 22:18, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You know it would be good if you notify WT:WikiProject Tokusatsu that a article within its scope is up for AfD. Anyway, I notified WikiProject Tokusatsu about this AfD. Powergate92Talk 17:24, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I hadn't thought of that because I don't know the topic area and started the AFD as part of the close of another AFD. MBisanz ^talk 17:28, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A list of characters of from notable television series (all antagonists), the inclusion of which on the parent article would clutter it up. It's not really the same as the previously deleted page (but I don't know what was there to begin with; I assume it was just a list summarizing the other lists). There's plenty that can be removed from the page though.—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:31, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've gutted the article of the monsters of the week/day to leave just the big bosses and related recurring characters. To be quite honest, if this was part of a list that included the protagonists and antagonists I doubt this would be up for deletion at all.—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:05, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Let this page stay. We should have full information on the villains that appear in this show and brief descriptions of it's monsters. Rtkat3 (talk) 2:37, December 26 2012 (UTC)
- Reason why the page would meet our guidelines ?Folken de Fanel (talk) 02:25, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 03:17, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 05:17, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- AfDs are not votes.Folken de Fanel (talk) 02:25, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you didn't grow up watching Power Rangers, but I did. It had Villains; too many to count. I figure a list is justified. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 10:19, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I did grew up watching Power Rangers and had all the action figures at some point. AfDs still aren't votes, though. I encourage you to find policy-based reasons to keep the article, otherwise the closing admin is unlikely to take your comment into account.Folken de Fanel (talk) 16:52, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as list appears to be a summary style parent to multiple existing villain articles. No objections to merging some of them to here if appropriate, and no objection to trimming excessive plot summary, but I see no policy-based reason for deletion. Jclemens (talk) 08:00, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTPLOT + fails WP:LISTN.Folken de Fanel (talk) 02:25, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists"—Ryulong (琉竜) 01:18, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
1) Maybe I'm mistaken but this is not a "more complex and cross-categorization" list. 2) WP:NOTPLOT, being policy, trumps any other criteria you may want to argue for concerning the notability of stand-alone lists about fiction.Folken de Fanel (talk) 11:59, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was more under the "what other criteria may justify the notability ofs tand-alone lists" and plot shit can be edited out instead of throwing out a list page.—Ryulong (琉竜) 12:27, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I understand but you have to make sure the other criteria don't actually conflict with existing guidelines and policies. Besides, don't you think that if we remove all the plot shit the page is left almost blank, without even solving the notability issue ? I think it would be easier and more consensual for you to argue for clean up + merge rather than to blindly stick to conservation.Folken de Fanel (talk) 12:32, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's already a list split off from a parent article. Why would it be merged back into said article?—Ryulong (琉竜) 12:35, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, Mighty_Morphin_Power_Rangers#Villains is essentially that list minus all the plot shit. I thus see absolutely no reason for that list to be separate if its only purpose is to add plot shit that violates WP:NOTPLOT.Folken de Fanel (talk) 12:43, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So basically, and I'm not going to bother posting it twice because I'm just going to be making the same point, you count WP:NOTPLOT as having any sort of discussion of the plot. Your determination as to what makes a list page valid for deletion pretty much includes every single dedicated character list I've ever come across on this project. And that all we should include on a list of characters is the actor who portrayed the role without any sort of fictional character biography. Doesn't seem very encyclopedic to me.—Ryulong (琉竜) 12:49, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're the one who talked about "plot shit" being "edited out" but yes, if, basically, the only purpose of this list is to have plot shit, then it is worthless. Also, I'm sorry, but this is for the sake of our debate: there is absolutely no plot discussion in this list. Please stop making any incorrect use of the word discussion, and talk about plot description or summary instead. Discussion is when something is discussed/analysed/commented on/debated on in secondary sources. That is not the case here and I'd appreciate if you stopped misrepresenting the content of this list. Thanks.Folken de Fanel (talk) 15:34, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again, what the hell is supposed to go on lists of characters? Fictional character biographies exist on this project in various forms for all works of fiction. And if it seems that the characters that are listed on this page and have separate articles aren't worth keeping, then those should be merged to this one with whatever reliable sources might exist and it should be used for what it is, a list of fictional characters, of which there are thousands on this project, all of which have plot "description" and I don't know what you mean about "misrepresenting the content of this list". It's a list of fictional character biographies and links to other articles for a specific group of antagonists from MMPR. I don't know if I've ever said anything different other than your insistence that I'm not using a single word right.—Ryulong (琉竜) 16:45, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And why the hell should we have lists of characters ? WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a good enough reason. Plot points or bios, if necessary, can already be summed up in the main articles, we don't have to make endless lists of every plot point that ever existed. Lists are supposed to have some use, they're not the "throw everything that doesn't fit anywhere else" magic bag. Wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate collection of information. Lists aren't a magic trick to bypass WP:NOTPLOT.Folken de Fanel (talk) 17:03, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Because people are clearly interested in the characters enough that the information about them cannot be kept within the descriptive text of the work of fiction they come from.—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:06, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This boils down to "what a bunch of fanboys want" vs "what the community as a whole wants WP to be". This was settled long ago and I don't want to waste my time anymore. All I can tell you is that wikia is a better place for the kind of content you want. Folken de Fanel (talk) 17:12, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather be boiled alive than edit a fan run Wikia in this topic area.—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:15, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then maybe you can understand why stuff like "Because people are clearly interested in xxx" is not the best argument you could find. A line has to be drawn somewhere if we don't want WP to become another wikia.Folken de Fanel (talk) 17:23, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On a Wikia all the content I removed in a diff I posted at the top of the page would have its own separate article. I'm aware that the article in its current state is crap but that can be fixed by cutting out entire plot summaries, and leaving only a much more protracted fictional character biography. And one of the main reasons I want to avoid Wikia is because the fans despise me for taking a stricter stance on sourcing on newer pages (and also because I force the usage of official translations of Japanese text over what they take to be more looser yet accurate translations or whatever).—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:37, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[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) 10:13, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, as per Themfromspace. 1292simon (talk) 10:49, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:LISTPURP as a valuable informative source. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:20, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- With only 3 entries leading to actual articles, I don't see how WP:LISTPURP would apply here.Folken de Fanel (talk) 16:52, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is cruft, a long list of trivial tidbits about non-notable characters in a kids TV show. I thought we wuz writing an encyclopedia here, which is a book of important things. Drmies (talk) 15:55, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have proof that the characters are not notable? This is just a spinoff list after all, and it can be proven that the subject of the parent article is notable.—Ryulong (琉竜) 01:16, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously? Oozemen? Hatchasaurus? And that's being kind--an encyclopedia should find its secondary sources in published books and printed articles of the highest quality. Remember, we are talking about Power Rangers here, not about brains or countries or Shakespeare plays. You and I probably have different ideas about what an encyclopedia is, but fortunately there's WP:RS and WP:V to make some kind of demarcation between an attempt at a real encyclopedia and a list of Lego toys and TV show characters. Drmies (talk) 05:18, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You cherry picked the worst choices from the list which just shows that those two are probably not notable on their own. You could probably find mentions of the major antagonists on this page somewhere in the depths of this search. Hell, Goldar gets name dropped in this result on page 2 (although most of these articles seem to be about violence on television or gendered marketing).—Ryulong (琉竜) 07:17, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't purposely pick the worst ones. I picked two, and they happen to be terrible. I hadn't looked at any others, but to appease you, I picked another one, from the purportedly notable ones (notable since there's an article): Goldar. The article is terrible, tagged as unreferenced since 2008, consisting mostly of plot and description based on--on what? original research. Try to look for sources--good luck. I searched and found that Spin magazine once described him as "a big freak with wings", and that's all they had to say (I added it to the article--you're welcome). No, this is cruft, and the associated articles don't seem to be any better. Drmies (talk) 15:14, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So that just means Goldar isn't notable on its own and it should be merged into this article. I can find references that mention and describe Rita Repulsa (some mentions of Lord Zedd and Ivan Ooze too) throughout Google Scholar: [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60]. And while I can't access all of them at the moment, it would seem that she is important to discuss if all of these child psychology articles are to suggest.—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:01, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can you find a reliable source that discusses Villains in Mighty Morphin Power Rangers as a topic? Something more than some entry in a fancyclopedia that merely lists them? Because the validity of this article stands or falls with the validity of the topic in its own right. Even if none of the ghost ships in Ghost ship are notable, it's still a viable topic because the concept of ghost ships is well attested. I don't see that being the case for this article. (See also the difference between Angels in Islam and Demons in the Marvel Universe--the one is an article, the other a collection of crufty descriptions.) Again: not mentions of these villains, that's nothing--in-depth coverage of the concept. Because you have latched on to my "non-notable characters", but the main thrust is the "trivial tidbits"--that is, the article is full of factoids but there is no concept of villainy in this TV show that's been discussed in reliable sources, as far as I know. Remember, this isn't a list; that one's already gone. Drmies (talk) 17:39, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This article is simply not a list in name but it is one in function. And that AFD had so many problems. And from the multitude of sources I provide, the bulk of them discuss the fact that because there's the dynamic between good and evil in the show, it leads to issues in informing children of fantasy violence and the like (and also because half of the cast was females it did something with marketing. I'm not sure. I can't read the articles at home).—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:52, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note to Ryulong that per WP:BURDEN and WP:AFDFORMAT, it's up to the users who want to keep an article to prove it's notable, not the other way around. And per WP:N, mere mentions are not proofs of notability.Folken de Fanel (talk) 08:05, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In one of the articles I saw they mentioned one of the characters specifically as an example for gender equality, but seriously these guidelines you're bringing up are for individual items and not the list as a whole.—Ryulong (琉竜) 11:34, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:LISTN, which is for lists as a whole, is a part of WP:N (and as I said above, though LISTN does leave room for more possible criteria, the remark doesn't supercede actual policy like WP:NOTPLOT).Folken de Fanel (talk) 11:59, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
NOTPLOT is an editing rule rather than a notability guideline. Also, how can you not discuss the plot when the article is a list of fictional characters?—Ryulong (琉竜) 12:27, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia" is a valid reason to delete per WP:DEL#REASON, and NOTPLOT is part of WP:NOT. Besides, I see no plot discussion here, merely plot description.Folken de Fanel (talk) 12:43, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are four things on the list notable enough to have their own main articles. Rename this to say "list of" before its current title, and its fine. Dream Focus 17:14, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- 1) You don't provide any policy-based reason to keep the article. Your comment can be discarded by the closing admin. 2) That articles exist don't mean their necessarily notable.Folken de Fanel (talk) 17:18, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - See Wikipedia:LIST. And no matter how much you argue with everyone in AFDs and deletion reviews, you don't seem to ever convince anyone. Do you not understand how list articles function on Wikipedia? And don't tell administrators how to close a discussion. Unlike you, I'm sure they know what a list article is suppose to be. Dream Focus 17:50, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Folken, Dream Focus is correct. There's no need to point out the obvious to the point of badgering. Drmies (talk) 17:53, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - To DF: see WP:NOTPLOT. Do you not understand what Wikipedia is not?Folken de Fanel (talk) 20:06, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        I understand there are thousands of list articles just like this, that have been around for years. I understand that over the years I've seen hordes of articles like this one go to AFD, and they are never deleted, because they are perfectly valid list articles. Dream Focus 22:53, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as legitimate subarticle of parent article, Power Rangers, which would get too unwieldy. Villains are an essential plot element and a directory of them is a good compromise. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The AFD that spurred this one has been at DRV for a week.—Ryulong (琉竜) 16:42, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: What's the deal with all of pages in this template? Are they all deleted or redirected? J u n k c o p s (want to talk?|my log) 05:43, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They're all still there. What made you think they were deleted or redirected?—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:53, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Mighty Morphin Power Rangers#Villains. This list does not meet WP:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists, which says "Being articles, stand-alone lists are subject to Wikipedia's content policies, such as verifiability, no original research, neutral point of view, and what Wikipedia is not, as well as notability guidelines;" all of which this this does not meet. As well, this list does not meet the general notability guideline for which it should per WP:Notability#Stand-alone lists, which says "Notability guidelines apply to the inclusion of stand-alone lists and tables." Powergate92Talk 20:41, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merging into the parent article is not a suitable choice as this is not a standalone list as much as it is a subarticle. If this were to be merged anywhere, it should be into some not-yet-existant List of Mighty Morphin Power Rangers characters page (as would any individual article on single characters).—Ryulong (琉竜) 22:02, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note that List of Power Rangers villains is at AFD again, having been relisted after deletion review. So we're having the same discussion in two different areas for basically the same thing. Dream Focus 10:59, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The list is only very sparsely sourced (WP:V), and none of the sources covers the topic of these villains as a group, making the list fail WP:LISTN. Sandstein 22:31, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Since when have lists of characters not been suitable topics?—Ryulong (琉竜) 22:48, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 23:00, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Planet Bowl[edit]

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

It's big and will be a Pan American Games venue, but still, it's just a bowling alley with no real media coverage. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:19, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Alley will host the 2015 Pan American Games which is an important multi-sporting event. Also other similar bowling alleys such as the Royal Bowling Center are still articles even without any coverage, but hosted the 1988 Summer Olympics. As the Pan American Games approach there will be more media coverage. Intoronto1125Talk Contributions 03:17, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Despite it being relevant in about three years, it serves absolutely no other purpose - even in the sport of bowling. When defining the notability of a facility like a bowling establishment, it already has to be notable before the event even takes place. An event of notability does not make the facility notable. There would be hundreds of articles I could write just on the basis that a PBA major was held there, such as Red Rock Lanes, ROUND1, etc. Even the largest bowling facilities in the world do not have articles on Wikipedia despite them holding world records, and this is because bowling establishments are not notable. Groink (talk) 05:55, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[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) 10:01, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I believe WP:NOTINHERITED applies re the 2015 games. As for the fundraising reference, the coverage is a local media article, which is not enough to establish notability. 1292simon (talk) 11:10, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. While there was some discussion of a merge here, that discussion should probably be continued on the talk page as there is insufficient agreement here to mandate a merge. ‑Scottywong | spout _ 18:13, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Avaya ERS 4000[edit]

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

Contested PROD. This is yet another of the many many Avaya product pages. These all seem to be PR pages. Wikipedia is not a platform to showcase every little Avaya product ever produced. Non-notatable, trivial, (Not to mention spammy) and adds nothing to Wikipedia. Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:43, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but pare back significantly, or merge. Appears to meet GNG via IT World Canada and Techworld. --Nounique names 22:44, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & merge to an article about this product line, but keep a substantial amount of the basic content. Anyone urging an outright delete, should explain why a merge isn't suitable, because according to WP:Deletion Policy, merges are preferred to deletions. In any case, WP should contain an article or substantial section about every major product line from a major company, though not a full article about every individual project. Some earlier merges of Avaya products reduced the content to a single line giving the name of the product in the main article. Those are destructive merge, and all such sections need to be expanded. A single article about such a company and all its products is absurd undercoverage DGG ( talk ) 18:56, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:10, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

there are about a million other similar pages Avaya#Products, someone from Avaya has been very good at spamvertising their products all over wikipedia. delete them all per WP:ADVERT. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:42, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@The Red Pen of Doom, I admit to not reading this article very carefully. However, I really cannot see why you feel it is merely an advertisement? Can you please explain why you feel the way you do? Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 00:48, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If this were the only article for Avaya , i would not see it as an advertisement - however the fact that they have created stand alone article pages for every version of every product of every line they have, it is clear they are attempting to utilize Wikipedia as a free online catalog to promote and advertise their junk. The kind people who have donated their money to wikipedia to pay for servers to create a free online encyclopedia are not making their donations to give free servers and hits from the highest search engine domain to promote outside commercial interests. delete all this and all the corporate Avaya spam.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:35, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[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) 01:31, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 09:56, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep & Merge The importance and impact of the technologies of this company and the industries/persons/scientific formats they serve far supercede the paranoia associated with them "having too many pages on Wikipedia" for "each little product." When we consider that "each little product" they manufacture is of significant use, then we must consider that "each little product" at least should be served with recognition on an overall page. Яεñ99 (talk) 10:25, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not a reason to keep. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:10, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as advertising. Alternatively, redirect to Avaya, per WP:NOTCATALOG. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:10, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge, to an article about the product line. Retain what is notable and verifiable. 1292simon (talk) 11:14, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Each of the products of the various company lines are indeed worthy of acknowledging, whether you understand the uses of the technology or not. Merging retains the information without neglecting it's presentation in article form. Since Wikipedia is all about saving information at the expense of simply deleting it, that approach is probably the preferent. Яεñ99 (talk) 12:30, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

actually, wikipedia is "all about" creating an encyclopedia, not about keeping "stuff" just cause its "stuff"'on the web. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:57, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You say "potatoe", I say "potato"...get over it. It's useful information. Merge it or get a degree in IT so you know what it's all about. Maybe you should ask a librarian if it's worth the research. Яεñ99 (talk) 04:02, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

no, I say "encyclopedia" and you say "WP:ILIKEIT" while also flinging personal insults. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 06:35, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is plenty of "useful information" that is not appropriate for wikipedia. I believe WP:NOTCATALOGUE applies here. 1292simon (talk) 08:03, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Significant coverage in cited sources. Improve, don't delete articles with problems. -—Kvng 04:25, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually, I WP:DGAF about the corporation. Don't own any of their products; don't use their devices. But I do know what it is they do. That I point out there may be valid question of it's worthiness is something for consideration, not offense. Thick skin comes with Wiki, as plenty of times folks make points you do or don't agree with. Don't take it personal, just make your points. I can also be assured you didn't read the comments from others above, as some came from a librarian, researcher, scholar, IT user, etc.. I mean really, look into it before going sideways. You've missed the contradiction of saying; "If this were the only article for Avaya , i would not see it as an advertisement..." while forgetting I (and not just singularly, mind you) made a Keep & Merge suggestion, seeking to combine the article space for their offerings and hence "the only article for Avaya." Alternately, I would not be adverse to a Redirect, as that would basically accomplish it similarly. Typically, informed adults don't worry so while bandying words. Wikipedia is NOT about winning, it's about hitting the <ENTER> key and finding some useful information. Go figure. Oh, ; /hug Яεñ99 (talk) 09:05, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:PRODUCT. The article doesn't seem to be written in a promotional tone and appears to have been created in good faith by an experienced (if currently absent) editor, who I've now notified of this nomination. -- Trevj (talk) 13:47, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LP-E6[edit]

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

Proprietary rechargeable camera battery; a temporary product that has no inherent notability. Entirely unreferenced, vendor-specific material likely to only have a single reliable source. Proposed deletion contested by new account created today, whose sole edits so far have been to revert nine proposed deletions. Altered Walter (talk) 09:01, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Altered Walter (talk) 09:01, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was the original prodder, and Altered Walter has captured my reasoning from the prod post. The battery isn't notable for Wikipedia. We won't find references that provide any information about the subject that isn't simply parrotting a press release or a specificaiton sheet from the manufacturer. Unlike standardized batteries, this product-specific, vendor-proprietary battery isn't an interesting subject for any engineering or reference purpose. -- Mikeblas (talk) 17:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. WP is not a product directory. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 03:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Corpse (band)[edit]

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

This band appears to not qualify for a Wikipedia article per WP:N. Several source searches, including customized ones such as [61], [62], [63], [64], have not provided any coverage in reliable sources. The band also likely fails WP:BAND. They released an album under the Final Holocaust label, but I'm not finding much information about the company to ascertain whether it qualifies as an "important indie label" per criteria 5 of WP:BAND. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:55, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:03, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:03, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find anything that indicates that this band meets the guidelines for inclusion. In addition, I can't see anything that points to the 'Final Holocaust' label qualifying as one of the more "important" indie labels. Fails WP:BAND. — sparklism ^hey! 09:34, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BAND, fails WP:RS, & their "indie label" fails to return anything of significance on a Google search Яεñ99 (talk) 10:30, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree, Fails WP:BAND, fails WP:RS, No Source of reference. Would need expanding drastically to meet criteria for inclusion! Deangunn (talk) 20:43, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:44, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lift Up Your Hands[edit]

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

No indication of notability per WP:NSONG. No significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Proposed deletion contested by new account created today, whose sole edits so far have been to revert nine proposed deletions. Altered Walter (talk) 08:54, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Altered Walter (talk) 08:56, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:SONGS for having no significant chart/no major label demonstrated; a Google search failed to return significant information concerning a "Tinig Award"; & fails WP:RS for not having any. Яεñ99 (talk) 11:23, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:51, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Either delete or redirect to Basil Valdez due to a lack of reliable coverage for this song. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:31, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable per WP:SONGS. Not enough viable material to justify a merge to any particular artist's page. Redirect isn't appropriate since the song has been recorded by multiple artists. -- Mikeblas (talk) 17:25, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ‑Scottywong | soliloquize _ 18:15, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Religious terrorism[edit]

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

The article does not establish the notability of "religious terrorism." Articles already exist on the main topics covered: Islamic terrorism and Aum Shinrikyo. Secondary sources do not tend to link the two, or include the other groups briefly mentioned by the article. BigJim707 (talk) 07:15, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but heavily clean up (userfying or projectifying could be an option). It's a bad article, and as you say, much of its content really is about something we already have an article on, but the topic is clearly notable (see eg. Juergensmeyer) and there's juuuust enough for WP:TNT not to be the best option. An article about the commonalities between various religions' terrorism, as taken from reliable sources, would be encyclopedic and informative. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 08:07, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking into the history, I find that all the material on Aum Shinrikyo was added by one user, and have removed it wholesale. Still not a good article, but this does address one of the concerns in the nomination. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:52, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this article could cover everything from modern-day Islamic terrorism, to attacks on black churches during the civil rights movements, to abortion clinic bombings/killings by religiously-motivated attackers, to the persecution of Jews throughout history. There would be more than sufficient sources to sustain the article. If it's in a poor current state, go fix that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:15, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral: The question, I think, is whether it's possible to treat religious terrorism as a diachronic phenomenon without extended acts of synthesis. Are there, in other words, enough scholarly treatments of religious terrorism in itself, rather than the religious terrorism of this or that country or people, to merit and substantiate a separate article? If there aren't, the article will almost inevitably deteriorate into either a random list of various species and instances of religious terrorism, or into original research. The article as it stands is fairly synthetic, and needs radical surgery. Alexrexpvt (talk) 08:57, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Because Polemical psychobabble is something wikipedia can do without. Also, how hypocritical is it too look at a piece that was blatantly written by someone with a specific agenda in mind, to convince or persuade readers of his own POV, and blithely pronounce it "neutral" "with no discernible POV" ??? This is the hypocrisy that will kill wikipedia, and exactly the flaw that makes it have the laughingstock reputation it has in certain areas. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 10:36, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Has someone "blithely pronounce[d]" the article to be neutral, or did you take my neutral vote (i. e. abstention) to mean that I regarded the article as neutral? Or is it a tacit argument that keeping a POV-pushing article is tantamount to claiming that the article is NPOV? Alexrexpvt (talk) 12:45, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's nothing to do with your "neutral vote"; I am saying the article itself is not neutral, it could have no feasibly neutral purpose, and I am therefore urging it to be deleted outright. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:13, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This strikes me as a polemical essay about an encyclopedic topic. Whether it is fixable or should be blown up with an Improvized Pixel Eradicating Device to make way for a balanced article in the future is the main question here, I think. This is probably the sort of hatrack topic that's not ever going to be decent without being written by a couple genuine experts and then fully protected, however... Carrite (talk) 17:21, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Upon further review, it's not as bad as I thought it was. Flaws are fixable. Keep. Carrite (talk) 17:23, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I like your first comment! But the article should at least start out defining what it means by the terms "religion" and "Terrorism" (should be lowercase), which terms it leaves undefined. Then if it did attempt to define these concepts, it would surely be even worse for pov, it already sounds a bit too much like Goebbels' writing since he also loved throwing out these kinds of words in essays meant to be persuasive, at whomever were pissing him off at any given time. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:34, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just read the article on Aum Shinrikyo and it looks more like they were trying to kill people because they wanted them dead, not to terrorize other people. They also tried to do it in secret, unlike most terrorists who often "claim credit" for their acts. Also note that in many parts of the world most people believe in one or another religion, or at least identify themselves as part of a religious community. That doesn't necessarily mean that all acts of terrorism in, say, the Middle East or Ireland, are themselves "religious." BigJim707 (talk) 18:40, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Terrorism, unless there is another article on motivations for terrorism then merge there. The notability, even the existence, of the topic is not established by the article. Look at the intro. It starts our with the uncited statement: "Religious Terrorism is Terrorism by those whose motivations and aims have a predominant religious character or influence." Then quotes one expert who says: "since 1980 there has been an increase in activity motivated by religion..." Then a government report that talks about: "Terrorist acts in the name of religion and ethnic identity...", not the same thing. Then cites a couple more experts who say: "religion should be considered only one incidental factor..." I don't see a notable topic. However the material should be discussed in a section in the larger article(s). Borock (talk) 20:17, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG, WP:DUE. Islamic terrorism is obviously a form of religious terrorism. Deleting this article would probably result in it being redirected elsewhere, with "Islamic terrorism" being a potential target. We should be countering systemic bias by ensuring we consider topics from a neutral point of view, which we are in danger of not doing by wanting to delete this article. -- Trevj (talk) 13:56, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG. While the article in its present state may not evidence notability, notability is a property of a topic, not an article draft, and the subject of religous terrorism is one which receives specific coverage in reliable sources. [65], [66], [67], [68], [69], [70], .... The nominator's claim that sources (by which he or she should mean "available" sources, not sources listed at the article) on the topic are unavailable is quickly belied by a simple Gbooks search. --j⚛e decker ^talk 15:13, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Welcome to the Punch. MBisanz ^talk 17:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ellie Darcey-Alden[edit]

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

An actor with 3 bit-parts in film and four TV episodes. Fails WP:NACTOR. No independent, reliable references that are about her. Her brother's article is also up for an AfD. Prod was contested for unknown reasons. Bgwhite (talk) 05:48, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 05:48, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:RS & WP:NACTOR. Яεñ99 (talk) 08:36, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just having done some professional work is not a justification for a BLP on a minor. --AJHingston (talk) 12:11, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Welcome to the Punch [71] (if that's the most recent film of hers on which we have an article) per WP:NACTOR and AJHingston. This would be an updated equivalent of the previous redirect to List of Harry Potter cast members#Order of the Phoenix members. -- Trevj (talk) 14:19, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My only reason for updating this existing wikipage with more detail about Ellie was that it existed purely as a redirect link to her role on the List of Harry Potter cast members#Order of the Phoenix members. With a page already existing I thought I would add additional information regarding her acting career and background. If it is appropriate for a wikipage to exist purely as a redirect then I will be willing to undo the additions. Davesewell (talk) 00:20, 8 January 2013 (GMT)

Comment She isn't listed in the cast of Welcome to the Punch so the role, at best, would be minor and insignificant. Sticking with delete until something significant occurs later in her career. Яεñ99 (talk) 04:08, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The subject could be listed at Welcome to the Punch, per the ref I included above. And if not, why not reinstate the previous redirect (previous incarnation was BLPPRODed, with a redirect left in place)? -- Trevj (talk) 08:38, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (I was asked my view of this on my talk page because I had been the deleting admin for the previous BLPPROD, and had introduced the redirect referred to above.) I tend to "work from the sources", and as far as I can see, the available non-trivial secondary sources are two articles from the Oxford Times [72], [73], and one, possibly reliable, from the Hollywood News. Two of the three refer to the Harry Potter role, so if we were to redirect, that seems to me to be the logical target.

One could make a WP:GNG argument for keep here based on the Oxford Times, and I would normally not be reluctant to do so, but some combination of specifics of the sources and the age of the subject leaves me feeling as if there's not quite as much solid information as we might want to really pen a biography. On the other hand, it would allow us to mention other verifiable roles, such as "The Snowmen" [74].

When we don't have a clear target for a redirect there's an argument that can be made for delete as well, and I don't choose that here because I feel that the HP role is still relatively primary in terms of reader's mindshare, based on the apparent distribution of occurrences in unreliable sources. --j⚛e decker ^talk 18:22, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NACTOR. -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:24, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Darcey-Alden[edit]

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

An actor with one TV episode and one acting job in a 14-minute film. Fails WP:NACTOR. No independent, reliable references that are about him. His sister's article is also up for AfD. Prod was removed by sock/vandal claiming "15-minute of fame rule". Bgwhite (talk) 05:41, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 05:43, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If the "film" is only 14 minutes long, how could they claim the "15-minutes of fame" award? Also, fails WP:NACTORS - has not appeared in "multiple, notable" anything; does not demonstrate a "large fan base" or "significant cult following"; nor has he made "unique, prolific or innovative contributions" to the field of entertainment. He's 10 years old, and the page reads like a press release - fails WP:RS. Яεñ99 (talk) 08:30, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We should be doubly cautious about BLPs on children. Lives can change and the very existence of such articles can be problematic. If he goes on to have an established career as an adult his early work can have a mention then. The likes of Hayley Mills should be a rare exception. --AJHingston (talk) 12:07, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NACTOR and AJHingston. -- Trevj (talk) 14:14, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for misunderstanding Wikipedia. Joseph and his sister are rising stars and I thought a page here might be appropriate. Unfortunately I cannot (it appears) delete this page myself so it must therefore go through this 'discussion' process for all to comment - sorry. Davesewell (talk) 00:12, 8 January 2013 (GMT)

Delete per WP:NACTOR. -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:23, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:18, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Legal Reins[edit]

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

article doesnt give evidence of notability, the reference given is to allmusic, which doesnt have any of this info aside from a track listing for their one album. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 20:55, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:28, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:28, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mkdw ^talk 05:39, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:RS for not having any - a simple listing on allmusic is not a reliable sourceЯεñ99 (talk) 07:34, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per Яεñ99. 1292simon (talk) 11:16, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - With four years of activity, it seems they never gained much attention or accomplished much. Searches including with Danny Benatar at Google News and Books provided nothing but two different searches (each with Danny Benatar and Tim Freund) provided this 1989 Los Angeles Times article where they played with another California band and this 1989 Washington Post. Another Google Books search provided this (first result from the top) which appears to be a benefit concert in San Francisco that same year. My next search was with the bassist Eden Unger (whose name now appears to be Eden Unger Bowditch) only provided this forum post which would be of questionable reliability. My last search was with their debut and only album, Pleasure the Pleasure, which provided this and this (both February 1989 and within a week of each other) and this seems to probably be the first February 1989 article. I also found this book to support Tim Palmer as the album's producer. Unsurprisingly, it seems their music never charted or was used commercially. To be absolutely sure that there weren't any links I passed, I performed a few more searches but to no avail. I think they were more of an indie and local band and they probably would've received better attention had they continued because all of the relevant news articles are from 1989, their final year. Redirecting to one of the producers would be an option but there wouldn't be much to support it aside from the Google book for Tim Palmer. SwisterTwister talk 20:34, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. The article was speedy deleted by User:Danger under CSD G3 as a blatant hoax. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:35, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gadget Boy (2013 TV series)[edit]

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

HOAX GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 05:01, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Hoax? How so? This is a modern French remake (they bought the rights) of the mid-90s Gadget Boy & Heather, which seems to have been particularly popular in France. WP:CRYSTAL maybe (does not air until next month), but I don't think it's a hoax. Stalwart111 05:13, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One of the voice-actors from the original (Maurice LaMarche) is supposed to be coming back to reprise his role. If it's a hoax, it's a bloody complicated one! I'm not suggesting this shouldn't be deleted (there are zero news-type sources), just querying the nom. Stalwart111 05:24, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit conflict]: I am interested in what is your source stating that they bought rights to do a remake? Google has none (except verbatim reference(s) to the earlier–2012–hoax article); the article has none. See Wikipedia:Hoaxes_on_Wikipedia; Gadget Boy (2013 TV series) — Purported 2013 revival of a 1990s Inspector Gadget spinoff; 17 October, 2012 — 15 December 2012; "references to the series on other Inspector Gadget-related articles also went untouched for 2 months."

Yeah, no, I don't have one - as I said there are zero sources. And I'm all in favour of deletion nonetheless. Just can't believe someone would put this much effort into a hoax - still can't believe it. But your explaination helps explain it. Bizarre! But in that case...

I think it is the old one resurfaced. Anyway, thanks. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 05:58, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - (now explained) hoax. The lengths some will go to! Stalwart111 05:42, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - see page log for previous speedy and OTRS ticket supporting. Geraldo Perez (talk) 06:37, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Without prejudice to the creation of categories. MBisanz ^talk 22:58, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of criticism and critique articles[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Previous AFD kept due entirely to WP:ITSUSEFUL and WP:HARMLESS arguments. I fail to see how this is a valid list, given that there is already at least one category navigating all these articles, and this does not serve any purpose the category does not. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:08, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete, the listed article have only a very loose connection. Say, Criticism of Islan is related to Criticism of Windows XP?. - Nabla (talk) 23:24, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As creator, and as an argument brought up in the previous AFD brought up - this is a very handy navigation page that can coexist with categories. I for one hate navigating through categories and find this a much easier way to see in one hit what articles share this common thread. In fact, being able to easily compare and contrast "Criticism of Isla[m and] Windows XP" seems like a major plus to me. How are these criticism/critique articles different across Wikipedia? How does this information help us in providing the best quality material for the encyclopedia? Maybe there are some weak links in the chain that haven't been categrorised yet, or that people have forgotten about. I can only find good in articles like this, which is why I have made many.--Coin945 (talk) 11:41, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it has any value as support material for editors - which I doubt, but accept the possibility - then it should be in Wikipedia: namespace, not in article namespace. - Nabla (talk) 16:17, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:05, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 04:24, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, although it's hard to make a policy-based argument because WP:LISTPURP does appear to allow lists like this – those that "serve as natural tables of contents and indexes of Wikipedia". I agree with the point made in the previous AfD that a wider discussion about the appropriateness of indexes would be more constructive than nominating individual lists for deletion. DoctorKubla (talk) 06:14, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will add, though, that since this particular article isn't so much a list of topics as a list of similar types of article, I can't see that many of the advantages of a list over a category really apply. For instance, the entries can't be annotated, the list can't contain any items that don't exist as articles, and no sourcing is necessary. DoctorKubla (talk) 06:21, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Is this all the criticism articles WP has? I would have thought there would be hundreds. I would vote for delete since this mainly seems to be for insiders (WP editors), rather than for readers. Having said that it is very interesting, and somewhat amusing, but that's only to us I'm afraid. BigJim707 (talk) 07:23, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Policy-wise it could also be said that it is based only on a primary source, WP itself. BigJim707 (talk) 07:26, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. The grouping of articles- hence the basis for this article- is WP:SYNTHESIS. Does not make sense to try to catalog every WP article with criticisms of the subject, for example it would also need to include any articles with text about criticisms of a topic. This list would be so large that it's useless. Also, it would be rife for misuse by editors looking to advertise their "criticisms of..." article. 1292simon (talk) 11:21, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In answer to BigJim707's initial question, yes. It is indeed a complete list. In other news, I think rather than saying delete with great haste, we should instead (or at least also) be discussing what can be learnt from such a list. Does this reveal naming anomalies within Wikipedia? Does it show what areas are over- or under-represented when it comes to these types of articles? Can the way criticism/critique articles on different topics are written provide a template for how others should be? I think the concepts behind these types of articles should be analysed as well as a simple vote for keep or delete, as I believe there is much goodness for Wikipedia that will be revealed throughout such a discussion.--Coin945 (talk) 12:09, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not needed, and as people have said, essentially private to WP and also indiscriminate as thousands of articles have sections (or unnamed paragraphs) on criticism. If it's a personal selection of such articles, then it falls foul WP:NPOV. It must go. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:07, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Index of loosely-connected articles. A category would be better. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:23, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I can't see that the arguments for keeping are any less valid this time than they were 5½ months ago. For the reasons stated by Northamerica1000 and postdlf last time, and by Coin945 this time, this list is navigationally and organizationally useful; at minimum, move it into WP space rather than delete. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:10, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If some editors find this list useful for housekeeping purposes, then I am happy for it to exist in WP space. 1292simon (talk) 07:46, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I fail to see why we should delete it just because there's a category, when WP:CLT says that isn't a reason for deletion: "For example, since editors differ in style, some favor building lists while others favor building categories, allowing links to be gathered in two different ways, with lists often leapfrogging categories, and vice versa." --Colapeninsula (talk) 22:49, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and recreate in WP space. A list of semantically unconnected articles is simply not encyclopedic. A simple test is would this article be of interest to someone using this site as an encyclopedia?. In general I don't think so, whereas I can quite see the usefuleness for Wikipedians themselves. Mcewan (talk) 12:52, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a question I pose to thee If these articles just don't have any right to be on Wikipedia in their current form, (and as I still feel that categorisation in this fashion would extremely useful), what do we all think about categories based on these subarticle topics: Category:Criticism or critique articles, Category:Controversy articles, Category:Bibliography articles, Category:Comparison articles etc. ??--Coin945 (talk) 13:40, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I am not a fan of categories at all, as currently implemented, so am probably not qualified to comment. And it's a question for a different forum. But I would object to those categories on the same grounds as to the subject of this AfD - they are not grouping articles as to their content or theme, but as to their form or implementation. Category:French dramatists - OK; Category:Articles containing the word Racine - Not OK. Mcewan (talk) 22:11, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Warden hitting the nail on the head in the previous AfD. The arguments against were in my opinion insufficient, is there any reason why this list should not be held up to Wikipedia's notability requirements? WP:LISTN states "Notability guidelines apply to the inclusion of stand-alone lists and tables.", it makes no exemption for navigational/organizational lists. Nor, as suggested by postdlf, do WP:LISTPURP or WP:CLN provide an alternative guideline or override WP:LISTN in any way. (Interesting to note that all the examples of navigation lists that are discussed on WP:LISTPURP and WP:CLN have long since been redirected to portals). Arguments over the usefulness/harmlessness of the article or whether it conforms to the manual of style are rendered moot if the concept behind the article doesn't even pass WP:GNG. The selection of criticism and critique articles hosted on Wikipedia has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Rubiscous (talk) 04:53, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I question the relevance and validity of such lists as they are, by their very nature, subjective, based on the creator's criteria for selecting the content. Inevitably, other articles and sources will have been left out, making the list incomplete at its inception and bias cannot be ruled out.--Zananiri (talk) 11:59, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no bias involved in this article whatsoever. The criteria for selection is pretty straightforward, and clearly outlined in the intro. Articles like list of lists of lists have survived despite needing to be updated from time to time. I see no reason why these sorts of articles cant exist too.--Coin945 (talk) 12:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Sewing a Friendship. (non-admin closure) Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 03:49, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Natalie Tinti[edit]

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

Self-published author; only claim to fame is appearing on a news segment of a local news show. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 December 18. Snotbot t • c » 03:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Her first book was both self published and hard copy published by a publisher. It also won 7 recognized awards for children's literature. That wasn't long ago. I would argue this article could become irrelevant if subsequent books don't do well - or don't win awards. A childrens book which wins a 7 awards on debut, written by a 12 year old. Meanie (talk) 02:17, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:26, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theo polisme 17:03, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:06, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sewing a Friendship. Until she writes another well-received book, there's too little coverage to justify her own article. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:19, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 04:23, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sewing a Friendship.Enos733 (talk) 05:40, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, as per Clarityfiend. 1292simon (talk) 11:23, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - she isn't notable outside the book so she can be briefly mentioned in that article. James086 ^Talk 15:25, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:41, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Morrone[edit]

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

Effectively unsourced BLP. No awards or award nominations for him alone, always as part of a team. Not too many Google hits (about 18k including social media and Wikipedia-clones). Doubtful if he makes WP:GNG The Banner _talk 21:27, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:41, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:41, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The most glaring thing to me on the page is Reference #8 at the very beginning of the Awards & Nominations section. It's IMDb, which means the whole section was probably copy-pasted anyway. They sourced that section but the Emmy source should violate something since the man is Governor of the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences. — ^Wylie_Coyote 11:39, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Governor positions on the Board of Governors for the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences are positions voted on by your peers who are members of the Academy. In order to become a member of the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences you must prove significant credits in the industry and go through a long review and approval process. To become a Governor, members in your peer group must nominate you to run to represent them on the board and these individual's usually have significant credits and many times are Emmy winning individuals. The Emmy nomination and award process is totally separate and unrelated. The Emmy source is an independent source and is not impacted by being on the Board of Governors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pro999 (talk • contribs) 16:03, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alrighty then. — ^Wylie_Coyote 00:48, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theo polisme 16:55, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:07, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline. More work has been done to this article. It could use more prose rather than lists, but it's better than some articles like this. — ^Wylie_Coyote 13:59, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 04:22, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. His notability is established by the awards and distinguished positions. That EL list could use some winnowing, though. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:14, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Okay, the article is sourced now. But what is the value of a source like Nominees & Winners for the 69th Academy Awards or Golden Satellite Awards 1999 when Morrone isn't mentioned at all? Plain puffery? The Banner talk 06:14, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have removed the Oscar reference as suggested and have updated the Satellite Award reference to a page that notes the award recipients. Thanks - User Talk:Pro999 07:30, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I hope you are willing to remove other unreliable sources, like lostpedia (a wikia wiki), IMDb and Wikipedia (!). All three can be edited by everyone, even by mr. Morrone himself. It would also be nice to have independent sources from outside the industry. And please source the list of films properly, not like "Black Robe" where you claim he was a nominee for a prize, but he is not even mentioned in the source you gave. Don't make up things! The Banner talk 14:04, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Black Robe notation was just a note about the film being a nominee not Morrone. That is why it is just noted in film list not in the awards section. I can remove that if it's confusing. I'll check for other references as you suggested and see what I can find. Realistically sources about the subject will be industry sources. They are not world news topics. Doing my best to try to make the article as detailed as possible with what I can find related to it. = Uesr Talk:Pro999 15:52, 13 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pro999 (talk • contribs)

Keep per meeting WP:ANYBIO for awards and nominations. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:59, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. JJ98 (Talk) 05:55, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, ditto above. Although room for improvement a lot of work has been done by different editors since first flagged AFD. Baldy Bill (talk) 04:23, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 22:57, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FSAstore.com[edit]

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

This article is about an online store that doesn't meet our general notability guideline or WP:WEB as it hasn't received significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. The article seems rather spammy, as well. Them From Space 22:26, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 22:15, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 22:15, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:06, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:10, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep as the site appears to meet WP:WEBCRIT. They are covered in Crain's business and and DowJones. If POV is the only problem a re-write would fix that. Blue Riband► 03:15, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORP which is the relevant guideline, also to my reading, fails WP:WEBCRIT. LK (talk) 04:23, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 04:20, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While Google News and Highbeam both turn up various press-release articles about the firm and its funding, these just confirm existence; I'm not finding anything that could meet WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:WEBCRIT notability criteria. AllyD (talk) 19:41, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:48, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 00:10, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Denninger[edit]

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

I propose that this article fails to meet the notability requirements. All of the sources appear to be either from the subjects own blog, or from very un-reputable sources.Djobouti_phat (talk) 23:08, 5 January 2013 (UTC)D[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mkdw ^talk 23:37, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tea Party movement. Subject does not appear to be individually notable as there is a lack of significant coverage about the individual himself in multiple reliable sources. It appears he maybe notable within the context of an event relating to the Tea Party movement, and thus would fall under WP:BLP1E. Therefore a redirect to that event should be created, and what content is verified to reliable source(s) can be summarized and merged into where the redirect is targeted within the Tea Party movement article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:49, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 04:19, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I replaced various unreliable or self-published sources with reliable ones. More going on here than just the Tea Party thing, which in fact seems to be the least notable and well-sourced part of his biography; he was a mildly-famous Internet entrepreneur back in the 90s and got repeated coverage for that in Chicago newspapers, and between that and his finance blogging (for which, as one source points out, he got "national attention"), he seems to squeak by WP:N quant18 (talk) 08:48, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets GNG. He is covered by multiple reliable, independent sources and the sources are not WP:ROUTINE. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:28, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 17:47, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adfonic[edit]

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

Non-notable company. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:46, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:35, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:35, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theo polisme 16:54, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:14, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. A quick search of Google, GNews and Scholar, discarding coverage instigated by the company itself in one way or another, suggests there may be just enough independent sources to meet WP:CORP. —SMALL JIM 20:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Attempted to bring page in line with Wikipedia guidelines. Not sure why the page states it's an orphan when there's a link from List_of_mobile_advertising_networks? (Disclosure: I work at Adfonic) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brendan Cooper (talk • contribs) 13:54, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 04:17, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The references seem sufficient to establish notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:47, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 17:42, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mother of Divine Grace School[edit]

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

This appears to be a non-notable organization with the same name as several other catholic schools in the US. It doesn't look like there are many sources online that can help establish notability; most hits I get appear to be various business directories, a few blogs and what looks like personal websites, plus some sites from various catholic organizations.

Before nominating this article it was listed for a month over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Homeschooling in order to get more feedback, but as the wikiproject appears to be completely dead no feedback was received. Bjelleklang - talk 21:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:13, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:13, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:13, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:13, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my 2 cents:

I am not knowledgeable enough about "Divine Grace School" to have an opinion about deletion. However, I respectfully request that "Stoa USA" not be considered for deletion. Stoa USA and "Divine Grace School" are completely unrelated and are entirely different in purpose, size, and scope. Stoa USA is much bigger (there are over 2,000 people in the organization) and it operates on a national scale. Stoa USA is also NOT a school (as mentioned in the article). It is actually one of the largest national speech and debate leagues in the country. If we are going to consider Stoa USA for deletion, it would be prudent to also seriously consider deleting articles on NCFCA, National Forensic League, and the National Catholic Forensic League because those organizations are similar in purpose, size and scope. Furthermore, the nature of Stoa USA is such that, when examining the structure and policies of the organization, the most reliable sources are from the organization itself. In light of this, perhaps a more appropriate course of action would be to recommend that more reliable 3rd party sources are used in the references, rather than consider it for deletion. Thanks. EricThompson39 (talk) 03:46, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I'm striking it from this afd and will look more at it later today given the additional information. Thanks for your input! Bjelleklang - talk 06:30, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Elementary schools are generally not considered to be notable unless there is a specific reason. TBr and ley 18:39, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:08, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 01:42, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 04:14, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 17:41, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Corpus Delicti (band)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The previous deletion discussion found that this group satisfied WP:BAND since they had released two albums on Cleopatra Records. However, it looks like they actually were included on two Cleopatra compilations. That's not enough for WP:BAND. I've also been unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources per WP:GNG. Pburka (talk) 03:28, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: the "compilations" are actually "best-of" albums. I still think this is pretty borderline for WP:BAND. Much as I love some of Cleopatra's acts, the intention of WP:BAND is to establish presumptive notability. Cleopatra is not "one of the more important indie labels", and Corpus Delicti's connection to the label is weak. The true test of notability is coverage in independent sources, and publication of these best-of albums by Cleopatra Records has apparently not resulted in any coverage for this band. Pburka (talk) 03:37, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Two of their albums was on Cleopatra (Saraband and The Best of Corpus Delicti), and there's coverage from Trouser Press ([75]) and Exotic Encounters, as well as Mick Mercer's Hex Files: The Goth Bible. --Michig (talk) 19:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:21, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:37, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 01:52, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 04:11, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Michig. Two albums on Cleopatra Records, meets WP:BAND. — sparklism ^hey! 13:53, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 01:00, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neuroscience of multilingualism[edit]

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

I AfD'ed this over two years ago (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bilingualism (Brain)) and, there was no consensus to keep, but no consensus to delete either. Since then no substantive improvements have been made (even though the only argument to keep was 'maybe it can be fixed'), and it still has all the same problems. While WP has no deadline, it is also clear that this article is not going to get improved unless someone who knows WP's guidelines rewrites it from scratch. Since this article is still an essay, like it was last time, I again suggest that it be deleted. rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:44, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – A well-referenced article which will get attention from someone, I guess. Zia Khan 06:09, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note that I didn't nominate this because I thought it didn't have enough references. Number of references is a different issue than content. Having a pile of references doesn't change the essay nature of the article. rʨanaɢ (talk) 10:49, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but rename (again):

(1) "Multilingual" occurs only twice in the body of the text. Most of the article and almost all of the references discuss the neuroscience of bilingualism. Since one can't assume that whatever holds of bilingualism also holds of n-lingualism, the juxtaposition of these two domains creates the impression of original research. Renaming the article "Neuroscience of bilingualism" and purging the article of references to multilingualism would be a simple way to solve the problem.

(2) The neuroscience of bilingualism seems to be a discrete field of research, as borne out by the ample references; it certainly passes the WP:GNG.

(3) The article's fundamental problem is the absence of organic continuity: it seems to be an "everything I've read about the subject" article, which is an organizational problem, rather than an OR problem. Ruthless cutting may be required.

(4) There seem to be a few isolated pockets of synthesis, e. g., in the section on "structural plasticity": these can be tagged or removed. Alexrexpvt (talk) 07:24, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alex: I don't agree with changing from "multilingualism". Multilingualism and bilingualism are nearly interchangeable terms in this field, they are both used to describe research on mostly the same phenomenon. (There is some research specifically on e.g. trilingualism, but this is very little in comparison to most of what's out there.) To make a long story short, multilingualism means able to speak two or more languages, not three or more. In recent years there's been a shift towards talking about "multilingualism" rather than "bilingualism" because the term "bilingualism" kind of implies the U.S. perspective that the 'default' is to have one native language and if you're special you have a second language, whereas the reality is that many people acquire multiple languages early on and then learn additional non-native languages later, and they are not excluded from inquiry on "bilingualism". More broadly speaking, there is not a lot of evidence that learning a third or fourth or fifth language is much different than learning a second, whereas they are all different than learning a first; and likewise, there is not a lot of evidence that knowing three or four languages is a lot different than knowing two (but they're all different than knowing just one), so it's becoming more and more common to use "multilingualism" as a more inclusive term than "bilingualism". rʨanaɢ (talk) 10:48, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the crux of the matter is the ambiguity of "multilingualism": it's used both to denote both the class, i. e., speakers of 2+ languages, and as a synonym for a member of the class, bilingualism. The problem is that to get from research specifically focused on the latter to claims about the former requires either equivocation between the two senses of "multilingualism", or a synthetic leap, e. g., arguing that the scarcity of evidence that 3+-lingualism differs from 2-lingualism is proof (or tantamount to proof) that no such difference exists: the very leap you had to make in your argument. Such a leap might indeed be warranted for other reasons, but it has to be substantiated using reliable sources. The article as it stands moves from multilingualism in the lede and title to bilingualism everywhere else, with one exception, without clarifying the scope of multilingualism, and giving rise to an impression of original synthesis. My proposal then was merely the most expedient way to remove this ambiguity. It could also be removed by adding evidence that whatever applies to bilingualism also applies to 3+-lingualisms. Alexrexpvt (talk) 12:48, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as I just said, bilingualism is multilingualism [being able to speak two or more languages]. So you can't say that a claim about bilingualism doesn't apply to multilingualism, because (once more for good measure) bilingualism is multilingualism. rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:11, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I should make it clear that I didn't deny that bilingualism is a type of multilingualism in any of my posts. Perhaps my point was too obscure. Bilingualism, strictly speaking, is the ability to speak two languages. Multilingualism is the ability to speak two or more languages, that is to say, it includes bilingualism, trilingualism, quadrilingualism, etc. What's true of bilingualism is true of multilingualism only when multilingualism is used as an exact synonym for bilingualism; when used to denote the genus, rather than the species, i. e., to denote bilingualism and trilingualism and quadrilingualism and so on, then what's true of bilingualism is not necessarily true of multilingualism. To argue otherwise is either equivocation or a fallacy of composition. A chain of intermediate reasoning is necessary, which the article, and your argument, conspicuously omits. (Of course it's possible that you're reversing the order of the argument, and using bilingualism as a misleading synonym of multilingualism in the broad sense, but I see no evidence that this is characteristic of the way the word is used in the field).

At any rate, I think this debate is in danger of derailing the thread. I'm not wedded to the idea that the name must change. If anyone else thinks the name should stay as it is, I'll happily defer to their better judgement. Alexrexpvt (talk) 14:51, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:38, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:38, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:38, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a well-written review article on the neuroscience of multilingualism (where, pragmatically, bilingualism is a subset of multilingualism), well cited, and with plenty of references. The references alone show this topic to be highly notable. Converting this to a more encyclopedic style will be a bit of work, but AfD is not for cleanup (see WP:NOTFORCLEANUP for details). The fact that there has been little work on the article recently is not relevant for AfD; there is no time limit for article improvement (see WP:NOTIMELIMIT for details). Mark viking (talk) 04:41, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see an over-reliance on primary sources and I think the article is slightly too technical, but I don't think this is a reason for outright deletion. A better option would be to give the article a good copy edit and to prune some of the content sourced to primary sources. If someone wants to rewrite this from the ground up that would be great, but they can always do that in a userspace sandbox - it doesn't follow that the article must be deleted first. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 14:33, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Very interesting subject and way too specialized to let (parts of) the content merge with other multilangualism articles. Lova Falk talk 08:52, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 01:01, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Electrical, Electronic, Telecommunications and Plumbing Union[edit]

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

Completed on behalf of User:Christian1985. הסרפד (call me “Hasirpad”) (formerly R——bo) 03:16, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly notable. See the book and newspaper articles cited as references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 08:42, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Not clear here what the reasons for deletion are intended to be. Article needs work but clearly notable. Mcewan (talk) 09:20, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 08:42, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 08:48, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep The EETPU was, in its time, one of the principal British unions. The refs could be improved, but even a cursory Google search brings up many results indicating obvious notability.--A bit iffy (talk) 10:03, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Major trade union. No reason given for deletion. Original nom's opinion that "This is just opinionated nonsense" is clearly utter rubbish, since the article is predominantly just a summary history of the union. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:20, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There has clearly been a problem in maintaining standards in this article, but those of us old enough to have been around at the time of the events described will not be surprised at that given the passions aroused. There has been some cleaning up and notability cannot be seriously questioned. Once notable, always notable, and the union was headline material for years. --AJHingston (talk) 11:52, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is appallingly written, full of POV and OR and has no citations or references whatsoever. I feel this article should be deleted, it is not fit for purpose in its current state. Thank you Christian1985 (talk) 11:54, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Not that badly written, little POV, no OR. It now also has a number of references. I really can't see your objection. This is clearly a subject worthy of an article and AfD is not the place to get articles rewritten. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:12, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is very poorly written and full of POV/OR, large swathes of the article were unsourced with ridiculous contentious statements like "they write their own rules and stick up two fingers to the TUC", that is just opinionated nonsense and completely inappropriate. Christian1985 (talk) 15:12, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which you removed. You're surely not suggesting that this major union is an inappropriate subject to have an article on? Then kindly read what AfD is for and don't bring it to an inappropriate forum. Incidentally, lack of sourcing does not equate to OR. You might care to read that policy too... -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:13, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am really not appreciating your tone and attitude towards me. You have come across as very rude and patronising to me since the start of this discussion. You have insulted my views as "utter rubbish" and there is no need for your tone of language. "You might care to read that policy too" I find very insulting. Please be more civil. I am not suggesting it is an inappropriate subject at all, you are twitsting my words. I am saying the very poor quality of the article and the opinionated manner it was written in was inappropriate. I am entitled to an opinion. Thank you. Christian1985 (talk) 17:24, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Christian1985, please remember that we all have to adopt a neutral point of view over Wikipedia articles. I understand that you do not trust others to fairly represent the history of the union, but even at the time people saw things differently from each other. It will be difficult to reflect all of that in the article, and different positions will need to be properly referenced to sources which may not be on the internet. But the proper place for discussing that is on the article's talk page. I do think you have made a case for Wikipedia not covering the subject at all. --AJHingston (talk) 18:54, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may be missing a "not" in that last sentence :) Mcewan (talk) 19:13, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks! --AJHingston (talk) 10:08, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I stand by my statement that "This is just opinionated nonsense" is utter rubbish, since it clearly is not just opinionated nonsense. Most of it is a simple history of the union. I find it rather amusing that you are offended by this when you were yourself referring to an article written by other editors as "nonsense". If you are not suggesting this is not a worthy subject for Wikipedia, then why on earth did you suggest it was deleted instead of just removing the POV sections and leaving the remainder? Which is why I pointed out that AfD was not an appropriate forum for an improvement discussion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:27, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but you have been nothing but rude and patronising towards me since the start of this discussion. Good manners don't take that much. My comment is NOT utter rubbish, I am entitled to an opinion and you need to respect other people's views. Just because you disagree doesn't mean I am wrong. I take on board your comment that the article is more suitable for improvement rather than deletion but I do not appreciate the bullish tone of your comments towards me, you really should learn some manners. That is not a criticism just an observation. You could have got your point across in a much friendlier manner. Thank you Christian1985 (talk) 22:17, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I really have no intention of taking lessons in manners from someone who is happy to describe an article as "opinionated nonsense". You are entitled to an opinion and I am likewise entitled to an opinion on your opinion! If you want manners then demonstrate them yourself and don't dismiss others' work in this way. You clearly don't like your opinions being challenged. -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:17, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep but tag heavily for improvement -- It may be a horrid article and full of POV/OR, but the subject is clearly notable. In its time this was a very notable (and notorious) trades union. Inadequate sourcing is not a ground for deletion, if the material is (or even may be) verifiable. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:55, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn.(non-admin closure) FrankDev (talk) 04:18, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Hassan[edit]

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

Not enough reliable sources. FrankDev (talk) 02:36, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:34, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:34, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:34, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. There isn't a whole lot of in-depth news coverage of him yet, but I'm inclined to agree with the commenters at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tyler Tingley that Exeter is a sufficiently important institution for its principal to be notable, especially also given the connections through his wife. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:44, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- PS there do seem to be quite a few highly unreliable sources either decrying Hassan for having a Muslim-sounding name and for inviting Muslim civil rights organizations to speak on-campus, or calling out the first group as bigoted. Probably best that this hasn't shown up in the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:54, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:57, 7 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Merge and redirect content to Maggie_Hassan#Personal_life. I just don't see enough coverage on him at the moment to justify a standalone article, but at the same time, we have a viable place to put what little there is, until such time that reliable sources have taken notice of him in his own right. Valenciano (talk) 11:36, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Because of Phillips Exeter Academy’s prestige, one could make a case for a “keep” based on WP:PROF criterion #6 (highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society). I believe that this criterion is mostly aimed at higher ed institutions, but does not completely exclude notable pre-higher ed schools.--Eric Yurken (talk) 17:59, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above 19:00, 8 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Friedlad (talk • contribs) (Thanks for signing that for me sinebot!)
Withdraw as there exists enough sources now. FrankDev (talk) 04:15, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Discussion on how the article might be improved may take place on the article talk page. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:42, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of television programmes broadcast by the BBC[edit]

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

This seems to be an indiscriminate list of programmes broadcast by the BBC, one of the most well-known media organisations. The BBC has broadcast hundreds of thousands of programmes. There is no real objective basis for inclusion that I can discern, so the encyclopaedic worth of this must be put into question. Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 02:06, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Arbitrary list (the UEFA championship? Really?) that serves no higher purpose than to duplicate what could be better served by a category. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 03:20, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per precedent of many other recent discussions of channel offerings. Mangoe (talk) 13:06, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too broad to be a list. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:07, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The BBC has produced many notable and distinctive shows such as Monty Python, Dad's Army, Sky at Night, Blue Peter, Doctor Who and so on. If there's an article for the show (which there is in all these cases) then, per WP:LISTPURP, a list is a perfectly valid way of navigating and browsing our content. If the list is large, then it may be organised alphabetically, as at present, or subdivided by decade, genre or the like. The existence of categories is no reason to delete as is made very clear by WP:CLN. The claims that the list is too large to be manageable don't stand up as we have plenty of other large lists or hierarchies of lists including List of movies, List of books, List of minor planets, &c. There is therefore no policy-based reason to delete. Warden (talk) 20:12, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's really nothing to add to what Colonel Warden has already said: this is what lists are for, and no reason for deletion applies. Jclemens (talk) 20:33, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The list is not indiscriminate; it is a list of programs "either currently being broadcast or have previously been broadcast on the BBC". That's the exact opposite of "indiscriminate". The argument has been made that the article is a duplicate of Category:BBC television programmes, but per WP:NOTDUP "It is neither improper nor uncommon to simultaneously have a category, a list, and a navigation template which all cover the same topic. These redundant systems of organizing information are considered to be complementary, not inappropriately duplicative. Furthermore, arguing that a category duplicates a list (or vice versa) at a deletion discussion is not a valid reason for deletion and should be avoided." The argument has also been made that a precedent has been made by "other recent discussions of channel offerings", but I participated in several of those discussions, and the consensus was to delete channel listings for satellite carriers (such as a list of Dish Network channels), not a list of programs for an individual over-the-air broadcaster (see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_digital_terrestrial_television_channels_(UK) for details). The difference is clear: listing a satellite company's channel offerings is in effect advertizing for the company. Listing the BBC's programs is something you might expect of an encyclopedia (I have several American television encyclopedias which do the same for US programs). Firsfron of Ronchester 20:58, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on what you mean by "the BBC's programs," this list may be much vaster in scope and less discriminate than you think. It is a list of programs that have been broadcast by the BBC, not "the BBC's programs," assuming that by that you mean programs that were originally produced by or are owned by the BBC. The list as currently defined includes everything from original BBC productions to the BBC re-airing episodes of American television. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 04:26, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why the list must only include programs produced by the BBC. Certainly the lists of programs broadcast by ITV and (a US example) NBC include series aired by (but not produced by) the broadcaster. As someone who has worked on such lists before, I'm quite aware of what a 'Broadcast by Network X' list is. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:09, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. You can hardly argue that the group of program(mes) broadcast by the BBC isn't a notable group. It's also informational. (I, for one, track all changes to the page out of pure interest in, yes, programs broadcast on the BBC.) Meh222 (talk) 21:13, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No policy reason to delete per Warden. Insomesia (talk) 00:29, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a perfectly acceptable list article. Any show shown to be notable enough by Wikipedia standards to have its own article, should be listed here if its on the BBC. They all have something important in common. The list would be more useful if it was sortable, having tables to list what years they were broadcast. Dream Focus 00:58, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Rename & Revise Scope~~ I am changing my vote, per below, but leaving my comments in place. Warden's argument leads by mentioning shows the BBC has produced. This list is of shows the BBC has broadcast, and as such includes quite a few shows that the BBC had nothing to do with producing, such as (these are pulled from a partial skim of the list):

That seems very indiscriminate to me indeed, and very different from any argument based around shows the BBC has "produced." I think most of the keep arguments above assume the list's scope to only include original BBC programming, which is not the case. Can the list's title and scope be revised to reflect BBC productions, or at least shows that have originated on the BBC ("produced" can get very vague and uncertain)?

Otherwise I strongly vote ~~delete~~, because what we end up with is not at all like List of movies as Warden references above, we end up with literally everything the BBC has ever broadcast, which given the TV structure in the UK is essentially almost everything that has ever aired on TV in the UK. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 00:34, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"almost everything that has ever aired on TV in the UK". Well, List of television programmes broadcast by ITV includes many examples of programmes in the UK which were not aired by the BBC. As do List of programmes broadcast by Boomerang (UK & Ireland), List of programmes broadcast by CITV, etc. Given that these other lists exist, it seems hyperbolic to claim that everything that has ever aired on TV in the UK aired on the BBC. Quite the contrary: 18 other British "broadcast by Network X" lists already exist. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:09, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly never said that "everything that has ever aired on TV in the UK aired on the BBC" :). I was making a point regarding the age and share of the BBC relative to all other UK networks. I also note that List of television programmes broadcast by ITV also includes (or could/should include) a number of programs that were also aired by the BBC, which is more to my point.

All that said, none of that addresses my view on this. A list of programs broadcast by any network inevitably includes a considerable amount of material that has little to no meaningful association with that network. A list of programs that were originated or produced by that network is not only more discriminating, it is more encyclopedic. The arguments for inclusion that have referenced individual programs have referenced classic BBC fare. I absolutely support a list that reflects that, and who wouldn't? That said, if my view is against established consensus -- and the presence of other such lists suggests it might be -- then so be it. Just...seems silly, to me. Seems to me that people looking for a list of BBC shows are looking for a list of BBC shows, not a list of everything they've aired. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 07:27, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:59, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:27, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There may be justification for narrowing the scope of this article, but there are a lot of lists of television series by network, and the BBC is one of the most famous networks in the world. If people want to start getting rid of lists of television series by network, they shouldn't start with BBC. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:35, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Split. At present, the list is insanely unworkable, in my opinion - it's set out like a category, for starters. I propose we split this into decade lists, and include a little bit more information on the shows (number of series, first year/last year, major awards, who produced it, etc.). This would also make the redlinked articles present more relevant and, indeed, their presence more informative. There is simply no way this should be deleted completely (14,251 views in the last 30 days, for example), but it is currently not that useful. Lukeno94 (talk) 15:25, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article has been at AfD twice before, in 2012 here, and as part of a bulk nomination in 2006, here. Both times it was kept. The article has a specified scope and so is not indiscriminate in the normal meaning of the word, nor does it seem to fall foul of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Does it? The list is long and I suppose it very incomplete but those are reasons for improvement, not deletion. Lack of references is disappointing but so long as the entries are linked to articles (nearly all are) that is not a problem. Yes, I agree the list could be repurposed, pruned, made more informative (year when transmitted, production company, etc) but at AfD we should leave editors alone to get on with that sort of thing. Thincat (talk) 23:23, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SAL; a navigational index of notable topics. The article is too large to fit into the main article, and a link is posted there. It does not matter how useful or visible it is, it is if it is warranted rather. Another difference is this article places the items in list-form, which is handy, but not absolute. TBr and ley ^{(what's up)} 20:12, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm changing my vote. I think there is a possible discussion that can be had around re-scoping these "broadcast by" lists, but this is definitely not the right forum for it, and there's really no valid argument (that I can see) for outright deletion. Changing/clarifying my position to help prod this discussion to clear consensus. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 01:50, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to CakePHP. MBisanz ^talk 17:47, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Masters[edit]

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

Biography of a non-notable person. Previously declined for A7 CSD. No Google news results and only a few trivial Google book mentions. Article depends entirely on primary sources. - Mr X 13:37, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Saying he is non-notable contradicts his bio which states he founded CakePHP. At worst, redirect to that. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:43, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That claim conflicts with the account given in CakePHP: "CakePHP started in April 2005, when a Polish programmer Michal Tatarynowicz[3] wrote a minimal version of a Rapid Application Framework in PHP, dubbing it Cake.[4][5][6] He published the framework under the MIT license, and opened it up to the online community of developers. In December 2005, Larry Masters and G. J. Woodworth founded the Cake Software Foundation to promote development related to CakePHP."' More to the point, notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Even if the subject actually did create a notable piece of software, that by itself would not make him notable. We still require sources about him. Those sources do not appear to exist. Msnicki (talk) 18:45, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This claim is correct, there is a reasonable disconnect between the claims of the 2 articles, for which I blame myself. However, that conflict is due to a lack of specificity regarding the "history" of that subject (CakePHP). I would like to update that article, but not to seem I am simply validating the claims of the disputed one. CakePHP Community Manager 19:33, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Added citations and extra references to improve the article's value and credibility. CakePHP Community Manager 16:21, 23 December 2012 (UTC)— CakePHP Community Manager (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Googling turns up nothing, exactly as expected given the mundane claims offered by the article. Further, the article appears to be autobiographical, having been created by an WP:SPA with obviously special access to the subject, e.g., the photo and other details about the subject that don't appear anywhere else online. Wikipedia is not for WP:PROMOTION. Msnicki (talk) 18:45, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am unable to contest these arguments. Sources are lacking on the subject of the article due to "his" lack of interest in being in the public spot-light. The main reason for the article was due to many requests within and outside of the CakePHP community for information regarding the "person" in question. We feel that Wikipedia is the most appropriate source for unbiased information on this public figure. "He" also does have a commercial interest in the CakePHP framework, which has been specifically excluded from the article to avoid a conflict of interest over it's encyclopaedic value. I would like to provide more sources if possible. CakePHP Community Manager 19:33, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's already a CakePHP website, so if indeed you're getting buried by requests to know more about this person and he's that important to the organization, why not up a page there and be done with it? Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, nor is it a web host. For more on what's required to keep a page, please read Wikipedia:Notability (people). Msnicki (talk) 20:11, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to review this and provide feedback. If the decision is indeed taken to delete the page we will consider your suggestion until the ability to provide more substantial information is possible. However, in the event of the page remaining, we will also do our best to provide more sources to support the bio. Larry Masters has been an influential figure in the PHP community, especially regarding frameworks, so I do still feel an article regarding him is relevant, with the hope being more people would be able to provide input on his career. CakePHP Community Manager 21:36, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Who is " we'"? see WP:NOPR--Hu12 (talk) 23:35, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am an active member of the CakePHP community, "'we'" in this sense refers to the voluntary contributing members of this community. I have NOT been compensated in any way for the creation of this article or it's content. I have already stated my reasons behind it's creation (and accept that those reasons may be insufficient in compliance with Wikipedia's fair and respectable terms). I also understand the point of view that my involvement with the related subject, and the public figure who is the subject of the article, and that this may raise concerns over a possible conflict of interest. These are concerns which I accept as valid, as I have no objective way to prove my impartiality towards the content of the article. CakePHP Community Manager 00:19, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here on Wikipedia, impartiality and personal knowledge don't actually matter because most editors are anonymous. More important, under our policy of WP:No original research, that's not how we decide things. We decide things based on what the sources say, i.e., WP:Verifiability, not truth. At AfD, what matters is whether there are sources to support notability. My personal rule of thumb is that it takes a couple articles that are actually about the subject in reliable sources by authors not connected to the subject to establish notability. Msnicki (talk) 00:46, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. insufficient coverage from secondary sources--Hu12 (talk) 23:35, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 02:25, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:25, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete insufficient independent coverage. -—Kvng 04:17, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 22:56, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of the Year: The Dream Team[edit]

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

I removed the PROD for this after finding some sources, but I'm not entirely certain that the coverage is enough to show that it passes WP:NFF at this specific point in time. I was going to just redirect it, but the coverage is just enough to where someone might make the argument that there's enough to show that it passes notability guidelines in that filming has commenced, a trailer has been released, and a release date has been given. I'm fairly neutral, although I'll say that if the consensus is to delete, a copy of this should definitely be incubated or the history left for the redirect. I wanted to bring this here to get more of a consensus. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:36, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:39, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As original PRODer. No prejudice whatsoever to incubating and preserving the work done sourcing this; certainly looks like it will at least meet WP:GNG. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:40, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy back to author for continued work as this project nears its release date, or Incubate for collaborative editing out of mainspace. If this were scheduled to be release next month, the existing coverage might merit it being an exception to WP:NFF... but as that date is nine moths away we can wait. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:01, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:03, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per significant coverage. StanleyTAnderson (talk) 16:50, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate or Userfy. There really isn't the significant coverage in reliable sources that would justify an article at this point, though it will be there closer to release. --Michig (talk) 07:09, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 02:25, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy: back to author for continued work as this project nears its release date, or Incubate for collaborative editing out of mainspace as per Schmidt. - Ret.Prof (talk) 17:49, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have no idea what incubate means but since this film has a firm release date and since there are plenty of sources supporting its notability, I don't see the point of userfying as it will eventually be moved back to the mainspace in the Fall. Seems to me, the article should just stay where it is. There's more sources for Dream Team when searching for it's predecessor Planet B-Boy:

It definitely meets WP:GNG. //Gbern3 (talk) 10:58, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Road deleted, Gulches are no consensus.. MBisanz ^talk 22:53, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bayou Gulch[edit]

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

This is a short, stubby article about a non-notable area. It fails WP:V (as there are few sources) and WP:N because it is an insignificant geographical feature. United States Man (talk) 01:20, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the reasons stated above:

Comment: I suggest giving the creator a few days to improve it. The formatting (and part of the text) is borrowed from from South Platte River, and the creator has not yet filled in the details for the above mentioned gulches. The creator also seems not to be familiar with Wiki-markup yet. הסרפד (call me “Hasirpad”) (formerly R——bo) 01:49, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is puzzling. There does appear to be a Bayou Gulch,[76] but it's (duuh) a gulch, not a river. None of the external links or the first reference even mention Bayou Gulch, nor is it shown on the infobox map. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Look at South Platte River; the creator borrowed the infobox and has not yet filled in the correct information. הסרפד (call me “Hasirpad”) (formerly R——bo) 03:33, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - What am I supposed to see at South Platte River? There's nary a mention of Bayou Gulch anywhere. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:48, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Because the infobox has been copy-pasted from there. הסרפד (call me “Hasirpad”) (formerly R——bo) 13:20, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the road If we were to give the original editor time to fix the road article, I don't think it would be very long or in depth. Some roads you can say a lot about, others not so much. This appears to be in the second category. Neutral on the gulches. –Fredddie™ 06:50, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Selective delete (the road): I had not noticed that the third article was about a road. This seems inherently non-notable. הסרפד (call me “Hasirpad”) (formerly R——bo) 19:31, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral (for the gulches, so far): I'm not really sure how to search or determine notability for gulches (or rivers, for that matter). הסרפד (call me “Hasirpad”) (formerly R——bo) 19:31, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:24, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:24, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the road article, Neutral on the others. Imzadi 1979 → 03:11, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete road article - county roads are generally not notable per WP:USRD/NT, and fails GNG. --Rs chen 7754 06:49, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the road as failing notability. Keep the gulches as distinct geographical features; they meet the five pillars definition of Wikipedia as a gazzeteer, therefore they are notable, and "few sources" does not mean a failure of WP:V; if there are any sources V is met. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:09, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the road - Not notable. Dough 48 72 00:53, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 22:52, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas in the Park (San Jose)[edit]

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

no WP:GEOSCOPE, no WP:INDEPTH, generally does not meet WP:EVENT or WP:GNG Gtwfan52 (talk) 01:14, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 December 30. Snotbot t • c » 16:47, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I am the creator of the article. The editor proposing it for deletion has a point, the event is probably local. At the same time, it is the annual Christmas event of San Jose, California, one of the largest cities on America's west coast, it has been going on for 30 years, and it attracts 450,000 visitors a year. Surely that's more notable than many articles on high schools and cartoon characters. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 19:49, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, i added 2 articles focussing on this event (not just mentioning in passing). Compare Solano Avenue Stroll, which is definitely more crowded, but doesnt last as long.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:09, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think here you meant to say that you added "references to two articles focusing on this event." Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:09, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- You are correct, sir. (to quote Ed McMahon) from the Tonight Show)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 23:41, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. While working on this article I ran into Holiday in the Park, Christmas in the Park (New Zeeland), which appear no more notable than this one. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:08, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 01:04, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are a number of articles about local Christmas events: Frozen Dead Guy Days, Natchitoches Christmas Festival, Brighstone Christmas Tree Festival, Natal Luz. Perhaps a more general discussion is needed. Illia Connell (talk) 04:58, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A major festival with a ton of coverage. Most of the coverage is from the San Jose Mercury News, which is a respected regional paper but just one source. But I also found coverage from the Modesto Bee and even the Providence Journal. More sources should be added, but the article should clearly be kept IMO. --MelanieN (talk) 01:37, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Student unionism in the United Kingdom. MBisanz ^talk 17:40, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Medsoc[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Unreferenced and entirely unnecessary as a standalone educational article. Could easily be covered within medical school. Bob Re-born (talk) 15:09, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Student unionism in the United Kingdom. No reason not to have an explanation of this widely used term and even the nominator suggests a merge! TerriersFan (talk) 01:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 01:01, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as suggested by TerriersFan. The existing article is entirely Original Research, and a brief search did not turn up reliable sources to support it. Currently there is nothing in the article Student unionism in the United Kingdom about student medical societies so a paragraph should be added. --MelanieN (talk) 01:08, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 17:39, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Daffodil International Professional Training Institute[edit]

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

This organization is not notable, AFAICT.

The article was created and edited by a single-purpose user (User:Wikiwebsbd) today. The only other contributions of this user have been to related articles and their talk pages (Md Sabur Khan and Daffodil International University).
Cited sources (from this revision) are either from websites owned by the subject, generic directory sites, or a single Bangladeshi online news site of unknown reputability (and we can't evaluate it because it's in Bengali). No coverage from any known RS.

Mr. Khan may be regarded as quite successful locally, but I don't believe it rises to the level of notability for en Wikipedia, certainly not as cited. The related articles seem to be similar. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 01:21, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable, no real attempt to show notability in the article, references are the phone book (?!) and internal stuff. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:32, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All I'm seeing is self-generated content. Seems to fail WP:CORP. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 05:17, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree subject appears to lack coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources, and therefore does not meet the WP:GNG or WP:CORP. Pol430 talk to me 11:49, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - spectacularly non-notable, fails WP:CORP. ukexpat (talk) 18:18, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable --Nounique names 17:21, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 17:37, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Guest author[edit]

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

Article violates WP:OR, WP:NOTHOWTO, and the only reference is from a blog - not a reliable source. Proposed deletion was contested by the article's author. PK T(alk) 13:37, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:58, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. I can find no evidence that this is in any way a notable topic, under our policies. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 21:29, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 22:51, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Atomic Jihad[edit]

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

Film has no notable coverage and current article is just WP:Promotion. The two "reviews" are simply user generated content with no editorial oversight whatsoever on marginal blogs of no note. Could not find any other reviews of note. Fails WP:GNG on all accounts. AbstractIllusions (talk) 05:03, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep Brand new article still being worked on. We may not agree on the truth or not of the film's subject matter or conclusions, but under its complete title, it has received analysis and commentary in enough sources to meet WP:NF. Article definitely needs more work though... but as it is new, it would seem sensible to let its author continue and not judge his work until it is complete. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:57, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I could care less about the politics of the film, I neither agree nor disagree with it (and won't see it). All I ask is for one reliable source to be added. I looked and couldn't find one anywhere and it isn't in the article currently. I would be happy to vote Keep if there was coverage in one reliable source. But right now the five sources are, in order: 1. A fringe blog which does not pass as a reliable source and is just an interview with the film maker (so probably not an independent source either), 2. A source where "Atomic Jihad" is discussed as merely another film by the author. 3. A source where "Atomic Jihad" is discussed as merely another film by the author. 4. Blogcritics/Overworked Mom which is not a reputable source, 5. and the Finnish source which is user-generated content and thus not a reliable source (and also distorted to only provide positive comments about the film when the author actually gives it 1.5 stars out of five--the lowest score the author gives any film). I hope I'm not drawing too high of a standard for coverage in one newspaper, or one reliable film blog, or even a political site with any editorial oversight (if there was a review on World Net Daily--which is not a reliable source--I'd vote keep just because of visibility). Three user generated blogs and two brief mentions with no content added don't pass any notability guidelines. I'll give as much time to develop the article as possible as soon as any reliable coverage is in the article. AbstractIllusions (talk) 23:28, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciating the contributions and work of the author of this brand new article, I will let him continue work, not judge it under current state, and keep my opinion that the new article is improvable and that under its full title we have enough, even if just barely, for NF to be met. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:23, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per Michael Q Schmidt. - Ret.Prof (talk) 19:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:45, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The film exists. Its author is notable; other work(s) by him are(is) notable (specifically, McCarthy mockumentary). This film is known on right-wing sites. WND is a notable conservative site, they publish stuff about this film and/or its author. I don't see reason why WP should try to omit stuff, it reeks of censorship. The article needs to be improved though. WillNess (talk) 18:04, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 17:37, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disney Channel All Star House Party[edit]

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

Cannot even find a press release of its existence. « Ryūkotsusei » 00:34, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Only source for this "upcoming" game is a two-year-old blog entry that actually appears to be about an "idea" for a game. FallingGravity (talk) 01:39, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The aforementioned blog entry appears to be a discussion board post in a forum where gamers share ideas about what future products they would like to see. I was unable to locate any additional sources and it seems doubtful that the game even exists. --Mike Agricola (talk) 23:35, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Motocross . MBisanz ^talk 22:51, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wilcomoto[edit]

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

Non-notable company lacking ghits and Gnews of substance. Appears to fail WP:ORG. reddogsix (talk) 00:19, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How it can be non notable is slightly beyond me.. Relating to the wiki article on motocross which was first evolved in Britain, I feel it right that wilcomoto be notable under the "Manufacturers that have ceased production" on that page... Just because something lacks ghits does not make it non notable, the bike has been disgusted many times on forums and other areas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Money97 (talk • contribs) 00:43, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'll again refer you to WP:COMPANY for what and how to establish Wikipedia based notability-please note that "real world" notability is not the same as Wikipedia based notability. reddogsix (talk) 01:11, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-Although "real world" notability and wiki notabity appear to differ, the use of the Internet I would assume for the majority of people is there main and most common access to information ie wiki... After reading WP:COMPANY I was drawn to "occasional exceptions" WP:IAR "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it."

I refer you to the facts that the wilcomoto is relevant to the wiki motorcross as it is a british "manufacturers that have ceased production" and the input of the wilcomoto does improve the content of wiki as it has failed to be mentioned prior... It adds information that was previously uninown on wiki. I do have further things to add however I did assume it would be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Money97 (talk • contribs) 02:26, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind removing the deletion notice from the artical and allowing me some time to improve it ? --Money97 (talk) 03:15, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not seeing that this company passes WP:GNG or WP:CORP in any way. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:39, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- So missing out a part of history because it lacks ghits and or "wiki notability" is achieving what exactly ? Surely that practice is "shaping" history not infant creating a reliable source ? And stating actual history ? The fact that the manufacturer existed is a fact and a fact of historic importance relating to British motorcross. The fact that the motorcycle in question was manufactured in the early eighties, is something I feel should be taken into account as the amount of ghits is likely to be way bellow per apparent criteria. I revert you to "occasional exceptions" WP:IAR " a bike was intact auctioned via brightwells auctioneers, whom managed to locate credible information on the bike in order to value it.

“ Our goal with Wikipedia is to create a free encyclopedia; indeed, the largest encyclopedia in history, both in terms of breadth and in terms of depth. We also want Wikipedia to be a reliable resource.—Larry Sanger[1] ”

It can only be reliable if its content is true to fact surely ? --Money97 (talk) 01:25, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - to answer your question, adding an unverified article reduces the accuracy of Wikipedia and therefore removes its effectiveness as an accurate resource. Just because you say something is true does not make it so. Many people believe the earth is flat, but thankfully Wikipedia requires valid references to support such "facts". I am not saying what you trying to include is not true or accurate, but it requires independent validation to be included in Wikipedia. reddogsix (talk) 02:58, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:00, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:26, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Motocross or a new page on motocross machines. This seems to have been reduced to an argument about whether Wilcomoto machines should be mentioned in Wikipedia, which is a diversion. Whilst this is not a topic on which I have personal knowlege, it seems to me that there is sufficient evidence that specialist motocross machines were manufactured under the Wilcomoto name and the facts in the present stub are likely to be correct. The issue here is whether there should be an article on the manufacturer. Whilst I agree that WP:GNG and WP:CORP are often unhelpful where companies outside the US are concerned, and even very large and well known companies can struggle to meet them, it is unlikely that there is much more to be said about Wilcomoto itself which really needs to be in Wikipedia, which does not seek to be a directory of every manufacturing company which ever existed. However, it existed as a marque of specialist motor cycles, and there are several articles on motocross marques (some of which are missing from the motocross article). Even if not notable enough for an article in their own right there seems no reason why Wilcomoto bikes should not be mentioned elsewhere. --AJHingston (talk) 11:32, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to a suitable article; the first reference that came up on google was directed to an enthusiast's blog site (wilcomoto.com) which conveys words to the effect that very little is known about this company, thereby making it unlikely that any published external sources have covered it in depth. Also it was contested for deletion over 2 weeks ago but no references have been found in that time which can broaden the subject. It would seem best if the creator, who undoubtedly has most knowledge in this area, could suggest a suitable article they would like the content merged into? The title should be kept as a redirect.—Baldy Bill (talk) 21:13, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:12, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chantal, Princess of Hanover[edit]

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

Contested prod, not notable. PatGallacher (talk) 01:36, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This person's claim to notability is very weak. Titles like "queen" and "her royal highness" are self-proclaimed and not recognised by any government. The Kingdom of Hanover was a short-lived kingdom which was overthrown and annexed by Prussia in 1866. Pretenders to the throne may be just about notable, but not necessarily their spouses, notability is not inherited, see WP:NOTINHERITED. Describing her as titular Duchess of Cumberland is even more tenuous, this title was forfeited in 1917, I know theoretically the descendants of the last duke could petition for it to be reinstated, but they haven't, she does not appear to have claimed this title even in pretence. There are also no details about the Swiss chocolate fortune, and I question if even being the heir would make her notable. PatGallacher (talk) 01:45, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The People magazine article refers to her father as "a very wealthy Swiss architect"; no chocolate unless he designed the witch's house in Hansel and Gretel and took his commission in kind. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:50, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:22, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Being married for a time to someone who is heir to a long-defunct title does not convey automatic notability. Does not appear to satisfy WP:BIO. Edison (talk) 01:10, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED. Unclear that there is anything of note here whatsoever, particularly since the status of the "realm" is nonexistent/"former"/deposed and the status of her marriage to the Pretender of said House is also defunct. Particularly relevent is this quote; "Ernst August is head of the House of Hanover (and the House of Welf). As such he is the pretender to the former thrones of the Kingdom of Hanover and of the Duchy of Brunswick. In Prussia (which had annexed Hanover in 1866), "the privileges of former noble status" were dispensed with on 23 June 1920 in execution of the 1919 mandate of the Weimar Constitution" ...that clearly demonstrates the end of priviledge to lineage - as such, there is nothing to confer outside of pretence. Яεñ99 (talk) 08:09, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to American Translators Association. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:11, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Colorado Translators Association[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. Gnews reveals only passing mentions like event listings. LibStar (talk) 08:11, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:05, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to American Translators Association. It exists, but there's no basis for an article. Redirecting it will give anyone searching for it just as much information as keeping it. --Michig (talk) 07:24, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:09, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect as above, per WP:ORG. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:13, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No prejudice towards merging discussion or editorial discussions about scope. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:10, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Crotch[edit]

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

This article is about the term crotch, not about crotches per se. Per WP:NOTDIC, Wikipedia articles are not normally about terms, particularly when one term covers multiple topics. That is the job of Wiktionary, which already has an entry for crotch. There is also little chance that this article can be expanded into something encyclopedic. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 18:03, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have begun expansion with some high quality sources. It will take someone better versed in art than I to do that section justice, and I'm sure there's an anatomical discussion to be made in this article. There is a real topic here. LadyofShalott 01:59, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 02:32, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 02:34, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 02:37, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I expect the anatomy is covered under more technical terms. I can see Crotch in art and Crotch in fashion working well. Johnbod (talk) 04:25, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I sure hope it's covered. And I anticipate it groin into a more comprehensive article. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:35, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think this can be expanded beyond a dicdef. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:05, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Casliber. --MarchOrDie (talk) 18:55, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Don't scratch this crotch. The limited expansion already in evidence demonstrates this is an encyclopedic subject. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:56, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, significant discussion in multiple high level quality secondary sources of varying types. — Cirt (talk) 02:59, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment With the recent developments made to the article, it seems that User:LadyofShalott sees this as an article about human crotches, and not crotches of, say, animals, trees, or clothing. If this is so, how would the crotch article differ from the groin one? — Æµ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 04:32, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- While I was indeed focusing on human crotches, it would be fine if others wanted to add material about other sorts of crotches, although it might be better for that material (should someone write it) to be split up into separate articles. As for whether there's a distinction between what belongs in an article on human crotches versus human groins, I'm not sure. My searches were based upon the term crotch, not groin, but if someone saw fit to merge the articles, I'd be fine with that. LadyofShalott 04:53, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You'll see when someone finally claims those still-unclaimed bonus points. Next time that you see an article that says that the subject is a part of a plant, but that is an echo chamber of total ignorance on the matter, try seeing what botanists have to say on the topic. Uncle G (talk) 23:12, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) -- Cheers, Riley 00:13, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tai-pan[edit]

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

This article is about a term, and a seemingly non-notable one at that; per WP:NOT and WP:NOTDIC, Wikipedia articles shouldn't normally be about terms, which is what Wiktionary is for. There is already an entry for tai-pan at Wiktionary. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 20:08, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can't find an entry there for "Tai-pan", "Tai-Pan" or "tai-pan". Could you give us a link? Peridon (talk) 20:42, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yes. It's wikt:taipan, without a dash. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 21:22, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I should have thought of the hyphen. Peridon (talk) 22:00, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sorry, but in my opinion this is an article, not a definition, and it contains far more than the Wiktionary entry, which I quote here: "A foreign businessman in China; a tycoon. [from 19th c.]". Peridon (talk) 22:00, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, I'm not saying that this is only a definition. It's an article about a term and we generally don't do that unless the term is notable enough. This notability hasn't been established. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 22:09, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The history of taipans, particularly in Hong Kong, could be used to flesh out the article more. Here are a few supports for its notability: "The Last Taipan Retires in Hong Kong" (New York Times); "21-st Century Tai-Pan" (Forbes); "The Taipan from Yale" (Time). Also, books have been written about the Hong Kong taipans.[77][78]Clarityfiend (talk) 01:20, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The lead could use some minor rewording, that is, changing the "the term xxx refers to..." to "xx is..." (the former reoccurs often in enwiki). That said, the topic is beyond a dictionary entry.--Cold Season (talk) 14:43, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:51, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:51, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:51, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is more than a dictdef, and similar to such articles as mandarin (bureaucrat). —Lowellian (reply) 19:22, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not a dictionary definition. More sociological and lexical in nature. GeorgeLouis (talk) 21:38, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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