< 9 June	11 June >

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:54, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Malcolm Tarbitt[edit]

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

I see nothing that makes for notability here, and the lack of sources signifcantly about him proves it. They seem to be all mentions or about events he provided security for. DGG ( talk ) 23:53, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The sourcing in the article either is just a passing mention, or doesn't even mention him at all. The only substantial item in the article's sources is a press release which is not independent coverage. My own searches turn up nothing better. -- Whpq (talk) 16:12, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Ditto. Bluehotel (talk) 20:49, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking in depth coverage as required by the WP:GNG. If extra soruces are added to the article, feel feel to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:44, 15 June 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 Art Rooney. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:55, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kathleen McNulty Rooney[edit]

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

Article about Kathleen Rooney that fails WP:BIO. Article alludes to Art Rooney and Dan Rooney who have some notability, namely Dan was an ambassador. So certainly not notable. Perhaps merge. scope_creep 21:58, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Redirect to Art Rooney. Although the article itself is a case of WP:NOTINHERITED, it could make for a useful redirect. 069952497a^{Comments and complaints}_{Stuff I've done} 23:23, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to article for husband Art Rooney. Subject does not satisfy the general notability guidelines with in-depth coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources per WP:GNG. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:10, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Ditto Bluehotel (talk) 20:51, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Nothing worth saving here. --Bejnar (talk) 07:59, 17 June 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. L Faraone 03:42, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jerusalem catholic[edit]

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

This appears to be a recent faction or schism from the Russian Orthodox church in America that fails WP:ORG. Insufficient independent sources are available on which to build a neutral article. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:34, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Promotional article which fails WP:ORG. 069952497a^{Comments and complaints}_{Stuff I've done} 23:32, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is stated that the Jerusalem Catholic page is "appears to be a recent faction or schism from the Russian Orthodox church in America that fails" however they are not a "fail" because they are still in existence. Additionally, "Russian" was not meant to be used. Additional information has been posted since this was marked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ABpIsaac (talk • contribs) 02:09, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ABpIsaac (talk · contribs) has misunderstood the nomination. I have not said that the church has failed. I said that the organization fails to meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 10:22, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable under WP:ORG for lack of coverage in independent reliable sources. I also agree that there are insufficient independent sources available upon which to build a neutral article. The title "Jerusalem catholic" is a poor choice and potentially ambiguous, see disambiguation at Church of Jerusalem; in the event that it is not deleted, it should be moved to Catholic Apostolic Church of Jerusalem. --Bejnar (talk) 07:11, 17 June 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) 15:57, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Evolutionary psychology of kin selection and family[edit]

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

This is an essay written for a course, a content fork of Evolutionary_psychology and Altruism; it's been abandoned since the end of the course. The references that are given in full do not appear to be secondary sources as required by the WP:GNG. WP:MOS is observed more in breach than observation. Conceivably an article could be written on this topic, but it would be faster to start over. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:32, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I said when I removed the WP:PROD tag, if you want to start over then you can do it right now rather than wait for a deletion discussion to complete. Much faster that way. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:30, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't think User:Stuartyeates wants to do it himself, in which case it won't be faster. In any case, delete as WP:Content fork. Ansh666 01:51, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see the fact that this is a content fork as a problem -- there is plenty of material available for an extensive article on this subtopic. The problem is that the article as written is not useful to a reader, and contains essentially nothing that would be useful to an editor setting out to create a good article. I see nothing to gain by keeping this. Looie496 (talk) 01:56, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've posted a note about this AfD at Wikipedia:Education noticeboard, which is the forum through which I first encountered this article. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:11, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed with all above. Moreover, horrible citation format makes the article completely unverifiable, so as already said if somebody was interested in improving it might be faster to start from scratch. Only as a proposal to leave an open for improvement: since most of the article is on inclusive fitness it might be interesting to move such content to a talk page subpage of the inclusive fitness article and linked it from talk page in case anybody finds it useful to work from. --Garrondo (talk) 08:20, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are probably one or more encyclopedic topics somewhere in there, but it is far from obvious that this is the best title/grouping to put the material under. And it's a badly written student project that isn't worth an extensive revision. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:13, 11 June 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--Ymblanter (talk) 16:26, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Olena Pinchuk[edit]

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

Individual who fails WP:BIO. Group manager of Ukranian TV organization. Simply not notable. scope_creep 21:24, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (in at least some form in Wikipedia since she is more important then (fictional character with an entry in Wikipedia) Alexander Rozhenko...); in November 2007 Ukrainian magazine Focus named Pinchuk the 17th among 100 most influential Ukrainian women.^[1] and in 2010 she entered the UNAIDS High Level Commission on HIV Prevention.^[2] — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 22:21, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to add that her Foundation is the first and only private foundation in Ukraine to combat HIV/AIDS, that is raising millions to address the problem. She was also on Focus 2012' rating of 100 most influential women of Ukraine, took the third place - http://focus.ua/charts/252123/ Orekhova (talk) 09:01, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is copious coverage of her, far more than enough to establish satisfying Wikipedia's notability criteria. Despite the fact that she is Ukrainian, almost all the coverage of her is in Russian, where her name appears in the form "Елена Пинчук". Here are just a few of the many pages about her: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:47, 11 June 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) 16:02, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fire department rehab[edit]

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

Unencyclopedic article containing original research, tagged for four years now. That there would be health services available to firefighters really goes without saying. Drmies (talk) 17:57, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination starts badly with WP:NOTENCYCLOPEDIC and gets worse. The topic is notable, being documented at length in works such as Emergency Incident Rehabilitation and Fundamentals of Fire Fighter Skills. And it goes without saying ... Warden (talk) 22:20, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Click the Google news link at the top of the AFD. It mentions Fire Department Rehab Units in it. This is a real thing. Dream Focus 11:20, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While it might be real, this article reeks of WP:ORIGINAL and a large part of the article is WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. Not to mention the lack of sources. ^Jguy_Talk^Done 17:09, 11 June 2013 (UTC)(see below)[reply]

And why can't these issues be addressed by ordinary editing per WP:PRESERVE? Warden (talk) 17:17, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But, where do you draw the line? The article has sat in this state for 4 years. I'm all for WP:PRESERVE but you have to draw the line somewhere. ^Jguy_Talk^Done 19:53, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No one has ever made a single post on the talk page. If someone has a problem with the article, they could've just discussed it there, and done normal editing practices. Deletion should be a last resort, not the first thing done. There is nothing gained by destroying this article. Dream Focus 21:18, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is true...but the article DID have original research and unreferenced tags since 2009. While the external links section might contain sources, the article would do well with inline citations and removal of the Textbook-y feel of the Overview Section. ~~I see no citation or mention of what that list is, where it came from and what it's supposed to mean (trying to put myself in the shoes of an average encyclopedia reader).~~ Actually, after doing research, most of this section is a copypaste of http://www.fairfieldsc.com/_fileUploads/file/SOG-021%20-%20%20REHAB%20on%20Fire%20Scene.pdf. So, I don't believe that deletion is the first thing done, the chance to improve the article has been there for 4 years, as long as those tags were up (besides the copypaste issue just discovered). ^Jguy_Talk^Done 14:33, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That article came out after that information was in the Wikipedia article. It says [ISSUE DATE 11/29/10] and if we check an edit months before then [6] we find that information was already there. Many places copy things from Wikipedia. Dream Focus 14:39, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Missed that. Thanks for pointing it out. But still...what to do with an article that has been tagged as unreferenced and original research for 4 years? Tons of other articles have met the chopping block for the very same reason. The article has tons of potential but still poses problems when it comes to WP:REF, WP:ORIGINAL and WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. I agree that we don't gain anything by hosing an article with tons of potential, but this article sat with those tags for 4 years..surely some cleanup should have been done by then? ^Jguy_Talk^Done 16:27, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTPERFECT. Better to have an article with some problems, than no article at all. References are there if you sincerely doubt the information presented. You can see in the further reading and external link section where to find information at. Grabbing one of those links and putting it as a reference somewhere, wouldn't be fast and easy, but I don't see any point to bother with it. And I don't see this as original research. No personal opinions or conclusions are given. And it doesn't look like a textbook either, it just listing information about the subject. Not Manual might apply. Just need to be rewritten so instead of saying things like instructions, list what is suggested by professionals. Dream Focus 18:26, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : Topic is notable and deletion is not cleanup. Problems with content? Fix it, don't destroy it. Thanks. --Cyclopia ^talk 16:03, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Changing opinion to Keep per discussion above. If I find time I will try to improve this article and have added it to my watchlist. :) Thanks. Jguy _Talk^Done 01:00, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep mostly because deletion is not cleanup. The nominator said: That there would be health services available to firefighters really goes without saying. But if one reads the introduction to the USFA Emergency Incident Rehab Manual, FA-114 one sees that that was not so obvious. That manual and the FireRehab.com site provide verifiability. I would urge the nominator to give up this Afd, and after it is over, to ruthlessly remove the original research from the article, with appropriate comments on the talk page towards improving the article within Wikipedia guidelines. --Bejnar (talk) 07:41, 17 June 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 List of ethnic slurs. As the outcome that appears acceptable to the greatest number of participants. Sandstein 07:04, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gora (racial epithet)[edit]

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

WP:DICDEF Darkness Shines (talk) 19:31, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the reason the nom mentioned. There are sources and at least some of them appear reliable, but they all simply define the term. This is Wikipedia, not Wiktionary. Actually even on Wiktionary I don't think this would work on the English site, because it isn't an English word. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:03, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Wiktionary includes all words in all languages, not just English words, but in the native script. Gora would have to be an entry for the word in English (or another Latin-alphabet language); the Hindi entry would be at wikt:गोरा or however it's spelled in Devanagari. That said, this is already more than a dicdef; it's an encylopedia article about a word, so keep. Angr (talk) 08:49, 31 May 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, czar · · 20:02, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesn't give encyclopedic worth to the term. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:22, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Clearly much more than a dictionary definition, seems discussed in sources, notable, not differently (sadly) from other slurs. --Cyclopia ^talk 17:53, 9 June 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 17:53, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I find it surprising that nobody has addressed certain key points. The "it's a dicdef" camp have failed to consider that wiktionary don't have this definition. We certainly shouldn't delete material our sister projects need, so in my view the "delete" !votes need to explain why they don't recommend transwiki and soft redirect to wiktionary. The "it's more than a dicdef" camp have failed to explain why it doesn't get the same treatment as most of our other ethnic slurs, so in my view the "keep" !votes need to explain why they don't recommend smerge and redirect to list of ethnic slurs. Either outcome seems much better than a straight "keep" or "delete" to me.—S Marshall T/C 18:09, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The amount of content makes a merge in the list unsuitable. --Cyclopia ^talk 18:21, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say "merge", I said "smerge" (a potentially unfamiliar word so I bluelinked it).—S Marshall T/C 19:23, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, sorry. Still my objection stands. I don't see reason for a smerge, not any more than for simply keeping the article (simplest option, WP:PRESERVE, subject is notable anyway). --Cyclopia ^talk 19:33, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You don't see this as a dictionary definition, then? I ask because it seems to consist of (1) a definition and (2) usage notes. It's true that Wikipedia does have articles about words----thou is my favourite example----but in such cases there's always something encyclopaedic to say, and I'm not sure what non-dictionary content the "keep" side in this debate wish to add.—S Marshall T/C 19:43, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thou doesn't seem much less a dictionary definition: it's just larger, but the type of content is the same. In WP:NOTDIC we read: That is, such articles must go beyond what would be found in a dictionary entry (definition, pronunciation, etymology, use information, etc.), and include information on the social or historical significance of the term. -and that's what the current article does. --Cyclopia ^talk 19:57, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I've somehow missed that. It would help me to understand your point if you could say exactly where in the article it goes beyond definition, etymology and usage, please?—S Marshall T/C 23:26, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here:

In place names that date back to the colonial era - there are a number of graveyards in Pakistan such as the Gora Qabristan in Peshawar, which is a graveyard for Britons, [1] as well as one in Chillianwala, the site of a famous battle involving the British East India Company.[2] According to the Natyasastra, an Indian text, the term refers to "yellowish-reddish".[3] Because of Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu's explicitly yellow skin, he was termed "Gauranga".[4]

Again, if this is mere dicdef, so is the bulk of thou. --Cyclopia ^talk 12:50, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, okay. You see those three sentences as transforming this from a dicdef into an encyclopaedic article? I ask because to me they looked like an etymology.—S Marshall T/C 14:45, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They sound to me like an example of content about cultural significance, and they don't seem an etymology at all. For the third time, this is not different from your favourite article thou: where I see basically only usage and etymology (even if a lot of it). If you are consistent as well, and you think this kind of content is mere dictionary, please go nominate thou under the same premise. Personally, I think both this article and thou have merit as standalone encyclopedia articles, and they are not mere dictionary entries. I guess we can agree to disagree. --Cyclopia ^talk 14:59, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect to the List of ethnic slurs. Not enough in terms of reliable sources -- I see only one such in the current version, and one link is very dead. Bearian (talk) 18:05, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge to List of ethnic slurs; not sufficiently notable for a standalone article. Miniapolis 21:35, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I accept the argument that it is sufficiently informative to be encyclopedic. At the very least, merge as suggested. The reason we are here is to make an encyclopedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:02, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just Close Your Eyes[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Available sources do not establish the notability of this song. The article doesn't really discuss the song except for its use as entrance music for a professional wrestler. This was previously deleted in AfD for the same reasons but I guess the content is different enough to require a new deletion discussion. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:44, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete The song is not notable. In addition, articles that have been deleted previously by AFD should be speedied under G4. The article should also be salted too. Citrusbowler (talk) (contribs) (email me) 17:47, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

G4 was rejected, thus this nomination. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:51, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Nothing worth noting about this tune. Drmies (talk) 17:53, 10 June 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 Keep. Overwhelming support to keep, closed early per WP:SNOWBALL. bogdan (talk) 19:19, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Snowden[edit]

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

WP:BLP1E applies, this man is notable for one event only. Much of this article is (or should be) in the PRISM article. Martin451 (talk) 17:32, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because Snowden does not meet two of the three conditions at WP:BLP1E. While it is a single event, he is not likely to remain a low-profile individual, and his role in the leak is definitely substantial and well-documented. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:37, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Does anyone actually read these "guidelines" before posting links to them?

WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of low-profile individuals. -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 17:39, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Very notable person, no reason he shouldn't have an article. Bui (talk) 17:53, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Similar individuals such as Daniel Ellsberg have pages. ZStoler (talk) 17:56, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the subject does not meet WP:BLP1E that was cited by the AFD nominator. 1) At present the subject is regarded as a high profile individual with regard to the leak about the PRISM (surveillance program). 2) The individual's role in the leak is substantial and well-documented. --Marc Kupper|talk 17:57, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Keep Doesn't fit low-profile individuals as Hillbilly noted. Furthermore, the PRISM leak is a significant event in which he played a substantial role. Failing both of those criteria out of the three at WP:BLP1E, there is no reason for this article to be deleted under that policy. Post-edit conflict: Essentially, per Kupper. --RAN1 (talk) 17:59, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Erik: simply does not meet WP:BLP1E criteria. --hydrox (talk) 18:07, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Edward is not of low notoriety, and will likely be involved in more than one event. If you even consider US surveillance to be a single event. The rule seems to be intended to prevent people from making pages about every single person who gets on the local news for no reason. This is a major event, and he is a major player. NAP2013 (talk) 18:12, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Special:Contributions/NAP2013 First and only contribution from user NAP2013. --82.170.113.123 (talk) 18:23, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:BIO1E His role is significant enough to justify a seperate article. --82.170.113.123 (talk) 18:18, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This (Personal attack removed) has made himself into a huge story that is not going away anytime soon. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:33, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(I have removed a completely unnecessary personal attack that has no place on the encyclopedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:40, 10 June 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Keep This fellow is certainly notable, viz Daniel Ellsberg's remark that his leak is "perhaps the most significant leak in American history". Ericoides (talk) 18:38, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- (Personal attack removed) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:41, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Keep the personal attacks out of the AfD discussion, please. Thanks, RAN1 (talk) 18:42, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable and likely to remain so. WP:BLP1E does not apply. —Steve Summit (talk) 18:52, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Big story, hard for media to brand/pidgeon hole this fellow either way so the story is likely to generate even more attention to the subject mater and the subject. May122013 (talk) 19:00, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SNOW. This seems to happen every time a huge event occurs, que ridiculo. Just like when the Tsarnaev brothers article was AfD'd unsuccessfully and the nominator cited BLP1E. — -dainomite 19:04, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It barely gets more notable than this. Without a second 'delete' vote, this deletion discussion should be closed. petrarchan47 t c 19:05, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seriously? #facepalm —Nightstallion 19:07, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seriously? This isn't even debatable. Sprhodes (talk) 19:16, 10 June 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 - creation by block evading sock puppet. Article redirected per solution at Mariah Carey's 14th studio album --auburnpilot talk 00:53, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mariah Carey's fourteenth studio album[edit]

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

This article is has already been created, redirected and protected at Mariah Carey's 14th studio album. User talk:Hashtag beautiful has simply copied the prose here from that article. Unnecessary disambiguation, all he has done is create another article "fourteenth", not "14th", like the original article. Needs to be deleted. — AARON • ^TALK 16:18, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Fourteenth is the correct way.its amateurish to write it as "14th"......Mariah Carey's 14th studio album article is the one that should be deleted...not this one......the album will be out next month, so it is really useless to delete it now only to re-create it again next month......or you can just re-direct the "Mariah Carey's 14th studio album" article to this article.....simple......Hashtag beautiful (talk) 16:25, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that you created an already existing article for no reason, and you've filled it with unreliable sources. Delete this one, and keep the original which was created in April. It was stupid to created this again. No, this will be deleted as it's recreation of redirect and protected content. You're just an obsessed fan who isn't abiding by rules. Thanks for putting me into an edit conflict 6 times. — AARON • ^TALK 16:27, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The other article was protected for no reason, so I was not able to edit it....can you unprotect the 14th studio album article and put the info in this article in it..?.......cause right now it redirects to triaumphant, it should not.....

Because there's not enough information. There's no track listing either. A release date is not enough. Fails notability. Don't bother arguing before you're fighting a losing battle. It was protected partly because of people like you, now you've gone and created this duplicate article for no reason. — AARON • ^TALK 16:54, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is enough information...what about 50 Cent's Street King Immortal...it doesnt have a release date, it doesnt have a tracklisting....

Because it has 10x the information, and reliable information. — AARON • ^TALK 16:58, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the sources are "Billboard (magazine)", MTV, and Carey's official website....how are these not reliable?50.89.124.11 (talk) 17:02, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Carey's isn't, it's self published. I just removed all the Twitter, Lava Lizard, That Grape Juice and other unreliable sources. There's simply not enough info yet. End of. — AARON • ^TALK 17:05, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mariah Carey ~~and merge any reliably sourced info there.~~ WP:TOOSOON. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:03, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An article has already been created, redirected and protected at Mariah Carey's 14th studio album, so this one should be deleted. It's recreation of content and unnecessary disambiguation. — AARON • ^TALK 17:05, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects are cheap and then protect this one too. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:49, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What's the point? One already exists, and it wasn't deleted to stop people like this creating it, instead, he spelt the number out. — AARON • ^TALK 17:57, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per WP:NALBUMS: No title, and no track listing. While I do appreciate the enthusiasm, I believe it's WP:HAMMERtime. Robin (talk) 17:34, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Im sorry but Arron, Robin, Gene ,and Starcheersspeaksnewslostwars obviously have a personal agenda against Carey...so all of your votes dont count...lets wait for new users:

New Voting Here

Delete They're not biased, there just is not enough information in Independent, reliable sources. WP:HAMMER sums it up well. The album will probably need an article eventually, but probably not until it has a name. Howicus (talk) 18:32, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

^ But the album title will be announced by the end of this week, like in the next couple of days...source: http://www.showbiz411.com/2013/06/05/mariah-carey-new-album-release-date

so, is it really worth deleting it now only to re-create it in a couple of days?....and if some of the other users feel like the article doesnt have enough information, why dont they help by expanding it and add more information instead of nagging?.....seems to me that they are lazy and dont want to put the work and effort to make a good wikipedia article......

Comment Say, I just noticed, but several of the sources in the article, [7], [8], [9] refer to Mariah Carey's thirteenth studio album. Is this an error in the title, or in the sources? Howicus (talk) 19:10, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And this one [10] is talking about her eleventh album.

^ Well, some say 11 because they are not counting her soundtrack Glitter and her two holiday albums Merry Christmas and Merry Christmas II You.....and some say thirteen because they do count her holiday albums but they don't count Glitter as a studio album...... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hashtag beautiful (talk • contribs) 19:26, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. We've got a release date a month and a half away. We've got loads of information on the album already, despite not knowing its name (which Mariah tweeted that she was choosing last week). — Statυs (talk, contribs) 20:14, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Status, Mariah Carey's 14th studio album already exists, is redirect for lack of info, and is protected because of edit warring. Therefore this article is not needed. — AARON • ^TALK 21:03, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stop being childish Aaron.....whats the diffrence if the other article gets deleted instead of this one?.........Hashtag beautiful (talk) 21:36, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not being childish, who on earth do you think you are? An article was already created and exists, so this one is superfluous and should be deleted. Christ... — AARON • ^TALK 21:38, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect the other article to this one....period.Hashtag beautiful (talk) 21:40, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, because you've recreated an article with content that has been redirect and protected. Recreations get deleted. But you don't know the rules so of course you wouldn't know or care. — AARON • ^TALK 21:43, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And as I said, you have a personal agenda against Mariah, so your vote doesn't count anyway.Hashtag beautiful (talk) 21:45, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Err excuse me? Mariah is my favourite singer, not that I have to justify myself to you. You're just an obsessed fan with an agenda of WP:OWN and WP:FANCRUFT. I'm actually reporting you. — AARON • ^TALK 21:47, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do what you want...but this article is staying....it will not get deleted....move on......anyway, if you want to get technical, both articles are wrong...because it really is her eleventh studio album......her holidays albums, Merry Christmas and Merry Christmas II You as well as her soundtrack album glitter should not be counted as studio albums...........Hashtag beautiful (talk) 21:51, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You don't decide that. You are an obsessed fan and you are emitting strong signs of WP:OWN WP:OWN WP:OWN. You don't own this article. You can be blocked for thinking you do. — AARON • ^TALK 22:00, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I never said I owned this article.....the sad thing is that you are the one who thinks that you own it.......well, wake up Mr. you dont own this article as well and you dont own any article on wikipedia....you are just a measly editor who bullies new users on the site instead of helping them...Hashtag beautiful (talk) 22:05, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh please, listen to yourself. I've had nothing to do with writing either article, your attempts to make yourself look serious is quite funny. You know nothing about Wikipedia. I've been on here years and made over 25,000 edits. You've made 67. Would you like to redefine who is "measly". Point made. I will not be responding to any of your further meaningless scribbles. — AARON • ^TALK 22:12, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can't you see that you are the only one who is making a big deal out of this?. Hashtag beautiful (talk) 22:20, 10 June 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. There seems to be a consensus that this article is not fit for inclusion in Wikipedia. This closing has no prejudice towards the creation of a different article about the same topic, but it would need to have totally different content. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:14, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Red Hat[edit]

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

Operation Red Hat was a US military mission to store chemical weapons on Okinawa and later to move them to Johnston Atoll. However, a reader will find it impossible based on this article to understand exactly what Operation Red Hat entailed and to establish a chronology. That is because this massive (200KB) article covers an enormous range of politically charged but irrelevant topics, such as nuclear weapons accidents, chemical weapons testing in places such as Utah, the use of herbicides on Okinawa (with no stated connection between these herbicides and chemical warfare agents), the development of counterinsurgency doctrine on Okinawa, CIA drug trafficking, the School of the Americas, etc, etc, etc.

A reasonable article about Operation Red Hat might include some discussion of what these weapons were and why people on Okinawa might have objected to them, but these topics should be provided as limited background information and the connection to Operation Red Hat should be clearly explained. What's happening here is that these and even more tangentially related topics are covered at incredible depth and the claims connecting the topics to Project Red Hat are, in some cases, contradictory.

To take a small example, there's a one-paragraph section regarding the testing of weather modification weapons by the US military. Two primary-source government documents and a newspaper article are cited. Yet there is nothing in the article that connects this project with Operation Red Hat.

This leads me to the issue of sourcing. Much of this article is sourced to primary source documents - namely government publications. Sometimes paragraphs of these documents are quoted. What this means is that this article is (at best) using a source that says "x happened" but there is no source that says "x was part of Operation Red Hat". In some cases the article is drawing conclusions based on very little - in one case the cited source is nothing more than a list of publications from the National Archives. It is original synthesis to draw conclusions from historical government documents without using a reliable secondary source.

There are also cases where this article uses unreliable fringe sources such as Nexus (magazine) and first-hand self-published accounts such as [11] (which is cited as a government document when it is clearly not). This is a symptom of larger problems.

In conclusion, I do think that an article can be written about Operation Red Hat, but this article is just unsalvageable. I would estimate that perhaps 80-90% of content needs to be removed or rewritten. Per WP:TNT, I think the best option here is to delete and start over.

Rationale for deletion:

Massive original synthesis of primary-source documents.
Massive amounts of tangentially-related content, with no clear explanation (based on reliable secondary sources) for its relevance
NPOV issues that are unavoidable when an article is essentially an interpretation of primary sources GabrielF (talk) 16:17, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User Gabriel F has no understanding of the content or of the archived discussion that has taken place on the talk page. He cites his own lack of understanding as the reason for a deletion of content and has acted on that lack of understanding with a massive deletion of the article's content along with more by his fellow editors. The user did not like my addition to the "Allegations of CIA drug smuggling entry and has attacked the page I am working on.

The Red Hat article is not complete and is linked to Project 112 by a newly discovered primary government source an subsequent news sources reporting the discovery. The government does not admit to this location and therefore sources are limited.

GabrielF's judgement is further clouded by the fact that he has no idea what subjects Project 112 might entail or include which is all that he cites above as "tangentially-related content, with no clear explanation (based on reliable secondary sources) for its relevance". "It is original synthesis to draw conclusions from historical government documents without using a reliable secondary source." ::Most of the primary government sources used are copy/pastes, direct quotes, or rewording without any interpretation. Gabriel F cites above two references out of 175 sources. One of them was removed prior to this deletion request being made and he knew it. A user that is acting on his own self admitted lack of understanding is not acting in good faith and his good faith cannot be assumed.Johnvr4 (talk) 16:45, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The fundamental issue here is sourcing. It isn't Wikipedia's role to discover, quote and interpret primary-source documents. (See WP:PRIMARY) Our job involves creating an encyclopedia article by identifying and summarizing reliable secondary sources. If what you want to do is create an archive of documents related to the history of American chemical warfare and related topics, then an encyclopedia article is really not the appropriate place to do so. The Japan Times articles that you are using seem to be perfectly appropriate, but primary source documents are not appropriate sources for an encyclopedia. Consider the following quote from the article: "A U.S. State Department memo from September 2, 1975, concerning a spill of Hexavalent Chromium, a substance now recognized as a known human carcinogen, exemplifies the attitudes and goals of some of the parties involved on Okinawa" This is original research. You are taking a document and you are concluding that it "exemplifies the attitudes and goals" of certain parties. You then draw further conclusions: "In a pattern that is repeated with almost every negative press issue, if a few details were modified, the State Department memo could easily describe current events on the island, be it the controversy over contamination at U.S. military bases, or the deployment of the Marine Corps' Bell Boeing V-22 Osprey to MCAS Futenma." You can certainly try to write a research paper in which you attempt to show how state department documents demonstrate a particular US government attitude that has existed over the course of 40 years, but you can't draw those types of conclusions on Wikipedia. GabrielF (talk) 16:56, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Those are valid observations and I have removed those statements from my future edits or reversions last week.Johnvr4 (talk) 15:17, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TNT to the highest extent, or simply revert back before Johnvr4 started editing it, over 1,500 edits ago. At this point, Johnvr4, I don't trust your referencing ability as to what you are saying. I took one reference out of the bunch and examined it for what the article said. Here are six statements from Reference #7: "Project 112/SHAD Fact Sheets". Retrieved 8 December 2012. (a WP:PRIMARY source):

Officially released documents of Project 112 do not list Okinawa and the island has not been officially acknowledged by the United States Department of Defense as a testing location.[5][7]

Clear WP:SYNTH, a fact sheet does not mean there is no acknowledgment of anything. Reference A says A, not B, so you conclude that C happened.

Sarin was stored on Okinawa under Project Red Hat and had undergone dispersal testing including tests in tropical environments as part of the Project 112 field test program.[4][7][14]

"Sarin was stored on Okinawa under Project Red Hat"? By your own admission in the previous statement about Okinawa being unmentioned, how is this statement even possible? There is no mention of Okinawa in the reference, so this is wrong.

The U.S. Department of Defense has never officially acknowledged any association with Project 112 activity on Okinawa or with Operation Red Hat.[7]

Same as the first statement, a primary fact sheet does not mean there is no acknowledgement of it.

(in image caption) Project 112 tests on Okinawa have never been acknowledged by the United States.[7]

Repeated statement in image caption, if it were verified, this would be fine.

Project 112 is known to have incorporated plans for large-scale field trials of nerve gas and other aerosolized agents in a tropical rain forest environment and included tests named "Red BEVA" (Biological EVAluation), "Red Cloud," "Red Oak," and "Red Oak II."[7]

There is no mention of plans, large-scale field trial with nerve gas or aerosolized agents mentioned in the reference. The only thing the reference mentions is places where tests were conducted, like tests "Red Cloud", "Red BEVA", etc. mentioned. However, reference 7 is the only reference for this statement, so where did the content about nerve gas come from?

Interestingly, among the 141 experiments falling under Projects 112 and SHAD are listed "Red Oak I," "Red Oak II," "Big Piney," and "Pine Ridge." While the "Red Oak I" and "Pine Ridge" tests were completed and concerned use of nerve gases VX, and Sarin and incapacitating agent BZ in a tropical environment, no record of results exist from the "Big Piney" or "Red Oak II." For this reason, the Department of Defense has declared that these tests were either never conducted or cancelled.[7]

Again, "While the "Red Oak I" and "Pine Ridge" tests were completed and concerned use of nerve gases VX, and Sarin and incapacitating agent BZ in a tropical environment", none of this is mentioned in the reference and it is the only given reference, so where did this material come from? You've provided no real connection to what the reference says to what you are claiming.

Like I said, this is from one reference and there have been 173 references since you've began editing it. Please don't make me go through all of them and see what else you cooked up in your spare time. However, Johnvr4, you appear to be too closely associated to the topic to be writing about it and your writing is questionable, so I advise you to get help writing the article and to stop reverting all changes made to it. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 17:29, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The fact sheets are the released information that was declassified per the law that was passed. The facts sheets are secondary while some of the primary were released under FOIA. A Government document that is a primary source is allowed as it is a source about itself. Reinterpretation and reanalysis is not allowed. The law requiring Declassification specified that all test locations be disclosed. The fact sheets are the officially released information and the facts sheets do not list Okinawa which is apparent in the view I used in the linked reference. There has never been any admission by DoD that Okinawa was in any way involved in Project 112 except for one Primary Document apparently accidentally sent from the Army ans is backed by a secondary source. In THIS case, the lack of mention of Okinawa in these fact sheets is exactly what I stated it means. These are controversial issues requiring proper weight to both sides of an argument. I would be happen to remove the DoD side of the argument. They also state there are no health effects for these tests but science has not answered that question yet.

I think you are saying that there is no fact sheet that states Sarin was tested in the tropical environment of the Hawaiian Islands and was chosen because that location was tropical jungle. If this is what your position is, you are wrong.

+ −

Reference 4 states exactly that Red Hat=Project 112 but it does not mention Sarin. Ref 7 which are the Project 112 fact sheets, don't mention Red Hat but do mention Sarin, VX, and BZ testing in the tropic jungle. So it is synthesis to say both Red Hat and part of Project 112 included Sarin? Ref 14 you have read the whole book haven't you?

+

You ask "Sarin was stored on Okinawa under Project Red Hat"? Do you not understand that it was or did you just say that conclusion was based on synthesis? As stated in the text look at or click on "Pine Ridge" from the source link. or directly: http://mcm.dhhq.health.mil/Libraries/CBexposuresDocs/pine_ridge.sflb.ashx

You have another valid point so, perhaps the current citation needs to be made into two or three separate linked references.

Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on.

Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.[4] Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them.

The unreliable source concern was but one citation that had been removed by another editor and it was included only to show that the primary self-published other source material had at least been published.

If you are accusing me of "cooking up something", I take offense to that and again have to point out that you also are not acting in good faith. If you want to go on a witch hunt, don't let me stop you.

If each of you want to debate facts I can do that too. I've been working on this entry for years and am highly knowledgeable on this subject. What you might think is synthesis is possibly not correctly sourced. If you were acting in good faith, you would understand this. The content has been discussed on the talk page where this discussion should have taken place prior to any deletion (coincidentally, after years of writing the entry much of it was by all of you without discussion on the same day). Ho hum recently did the same thing. Now You want to justify the prior deletions by deleting the entire article? I understand GabrielF's Wikipedia talent is excessive deletion. Just saying.

Johnvr4 (talk) 18:59, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT. The article is now unsalvageable. I tried to steer the editor in the right direction several months ago, but it fell on deaf ears. (Hohum ^@) 18:24, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nuke it and restore the pre-Johnvr4 material, per Moe's examination of the sources. There is far too many problematic areas, and John appears to have some WP:OWN issues here. Parsecboy (talk) 18:46, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE I have extensively culled this article of (almost) everything except chemical, biological, and herbicidal weaponry references and transfer of such materials from Okinawa to Johnson Atoll. Some other related material that I couldn't make a quick decision on has also been retained. This has reduced the size of the article from 200k to 100k. I have also locked the article at the reduced size for a week, noting some editors' repeated actions in re-adding irrelevant material. In this regard I am utilising WP:IAR in the interests of the wider encyclopedia. I believe this will aid discussion as to whether the article can be retained in its present form. My personal opinion on this deletion debate follows below. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:08, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Cleanup This article requires further cleanup, and focusing on the primary topic, as well as investigation of sources. There is also an enormous amount of useful material in the previous versions that deserves to be in a wide range of other CW, BW, and Vietnam War related articles. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:08, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a joke. Quit vandalizing my entry. Your changes are unacceptable.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnvr4 (talk • contribs)

This is not your entry. Please read WP:OWN. Parsecboy (talk) 19:47, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For God's sake, If you are trying to help and you don't understand the significance of a section, look to or write on the Talk page of the entry or ask me what the significance is before deleting it. The significance was already discussed on the talk page. Please undo your changes immediately. I have a senator and DoD OIG investigator looking at this info. Senator Nelson.Johnvr4 (talk) 19:34, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please understand that this is not your entry, it is an encyclopedia article which is written collaboratively. Please see WP:OWN. Please also understand that an inspector general or a senate committee has a very different role from Wikipedia. They are looking to uncover information that is not well known and to draw conclusions. Wikipedia doesn't do that. We take information that is already published in reliable secondary sources and we present it in a condensed and digestible (not to mention neutral) form. Please see WP:NOT. If you want to publish your research into government archives and your conclusions about what the documents archives have to say, you will have a lot more success starting your own website or blog rather than using Wikipedia. GabrielF (talk) 19:46, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nuke it Per Parsecboy and others. This isn't a congressional hearing. It's supposed to be an encyclopedia article. Intothat darkness 20:14, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE User:Prodego has just queried why the page is protected. Again, for the information of all, I removed all the irrelevant data I could find, for the purpose of focusing the page on the core subject during the deletion debate. A look at the page history will show that some users have fiercely resisted the deletion of material which doesn't really seem to have much relevance. Thus to keep the page focused on the core subject while the debate is ongoing, I protected the page for a week. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:56, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that the deletion was based on "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." Those are non-sensical arguments and suggestions. A rule to ignore all the rules is also invalid.

Go ahead and look at the Pre JohnVR4 Operation Red Hat reversion or Nuke it. If you don't understand the issue or have not read the entire article and each source butt out. One person was kind enough to speak to me on my talk page. Here is the discussion you missed:

Johnvr4, thank you for your long and hard efforts on Red Hat. However, despite your suspicions or direct knowledge on what may have been connected to the core subject, transfer of chem/bio weapons from Okinawa to Johnston Atoll, masses of other related info does not belong in the article; it belongs in articles such as MACVSOG or the other chemical/bio programs, or 1st Special Forces Group. Too many other subjects in the article make it unreadable. I'm perfectly happy to work sympathetically on this with you, but you *cannot* keep adding huge amounts of non-CW/BW transfer from Okinawa to Johnston material into the article - or you have to change the article's subject significantly. Kind regards from Aotearoa New Zealand, Buckshot06 (talk) 19:21, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

For God's sake If you are trying to help, ask me what the significance is before deleting it. It was already discussed on the talk page. Please undo your changes.Johnvr4 (talk) 19:25, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

The significance of the material needs to be *very clearly evident* in the article itself. I have absolutely no intention of reverting any of my changes, because this is *not* your article. However, should you wish me to drop a copy of the full version in your userspace (see WP:USERSPACE), I can easily do that. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:33, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Should note that (a) all the material in the previous versions can easily be accessed via the history tab, and (b) other people trying to help will find it easier if they don't have to wade through enormous masses of barely related material. I would probably be considered as a knowledgable expert, and I could not see myself why some of the material was in there. Happy to keep chatting... Buckshot06 (talk) 19:37, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

The entry belongs to the community however as the primary author, it is more mine than yours or at least the work that went into it is. It was started by someone else before any of the new information was known. It was just a transfer from on place to another and this is what I began writing about. New info came out and it seems that Operation Red Hat was much more. It is controversial and requires both sides plus a bit of a history lesson that is not completely readily available in secondary sources- which I discuss and provided. It seemed like a lot of material but I included the minimum info for a proper understanding. Nuking it is not an improvement and neither are any of the changes made. The time for discussion was prior to the deletion. Not a justification after. What exactly are you knowledgeable about? If you were knowledgeable about this, you would understand the relevance of the sections you deleted. I am not a wiki expert. I am a researcher and the primary docs I have obtained are are what is available. In some cases, there is a less reliable secondary source. I try to use all sources but you have to understand there are only a few or one sources for some material (it has been classified) and many sources for other material and I don't always include them all.Johnvr4 (talk) 19:53, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

It's the nature of wikipedia that related material doesn't belong all together in one article; it belongs in other articles. Now this may be controversial, but Wikipedia is not for advocacy. What you really need to do is write and publish a research paper on the subject, not paste different chunks of things into wikipedia. We also should not use primary sources only; only things backed by reliable, published secondary or tertiary sources (see WP:PRIMARY and WP:SOURCES). Primary sources unsupported by other material simply don't belong on wikipedia. Now, should you believe that there is other material that should go into the article, go through the normal procedure in such cases: open a header on the talkpage, and request an edit be made, saying what needs to go in and why. Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 20:01, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Way to dodge the issue. Your opinion that it is not closely related to the topic is based upon a lack of understanding of the topics link to Project 112, CIA, Counterinsurgency, covert missions, herbicides, or anything else. The article is not to advocate, its purpose is to state reliable sourced facts. Those facts can be cited by advocates. The Sources link each of these subjects to RED HAT. It was not my choosing to include them nor would have I chosen to if they would fit anywhere else. They are included because Operation Red HAT and project 112 information does not fit under any of those other subjects other than in trials or testing. We should not RELY on Primary Sources for the entire article. They are but one type of source and I have supported them where it is needed. If you have a specific example, I can address it. All of this discussion is already on the archived Talk page. Can you please un-archive that discussion? It blanked the talk page and is useless. I am open to suggestion and improvement. I'm not even done writing it. Can you just put tags in where improvement is needed and let me improve rather than delete entire sections and lock the page? One editor deleted content and after discussion, I re-wrote to address his concerns. He quit talking on the page 2 months ago and apparently came in today again with his two cents.Johnvr4 (talk) 20:28, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Johnvr4 (talk) 21:17, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup per Buckshot06. If there are continuing issues over "ownership" of the article, it might be appropriate to suggest a topic ban at WP:ANI.-gadfium 00:39, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is the "ownership issue" exactly? I said "The entry belongs to the community" Are you making some point about your inability to read or only jumping on the bandwagon of people who did not read the whole conversation I had with Buckshot06 ?Johnvr4 (talk) 00:44, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep and cleanup~~ per above. John, the article is NOT yours more than anybody else's. That statement in itself implies OWNership. (and even though WP:ANISUCKS, it might be the way to go here.) Ansh666 02:02, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The subject seems to be changing here so If you are going to quote my statement, it says the time and effort I put into it- MY WORK is mine and I feel it was vandalized without discussion or merit. I have provided the content to the community. If you did not work on the page, then it not "yours" to delete without discussion and merit. It belongs to a community and you have rights edit it because you are part of that community. You are exercising that right only because you can and not because you put any work into it nor are you trying to improve it. The fact that it has been nominated for deletion and each of you are on board with that ridiculous idea does not imply-it Proves that your motivations are inconsistent with the the purpose of the community project. The communities main goal is to improve a free encyclopedia. Deleting all or huge part of MY WORK on the Community Article is not consistent with those goals.Johnvr4 (talk) 11:08, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI?? It might be the way to go. When I formally accuse a person of WP:Tag team activity or a demonstrating a pattern of it, I will post a notification on their user page. I am not there yet.Johnvr4 (talk) 15:02, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, here's where you go off. Editing is not a right - it's a privilege. Nor is "your content" actually yours. This "community project" has very strict rules on the matter, and you misunderstand them - and the idea of the project - completely. Ansh666 23:38, 13 June 2013 (UTC) BTW, I wasn't telling you to go to AN/I...[reply]

Upon further thought, WP:TNT delete would better serve the article and the community. Ansh666 23:38, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is an opinion piece, not an informational wikipedia article. It needs to be re-written completely. Best to delete it in its entirety, then re-write it as a factual, historical article. Bwmoll3 (talk) 16:01, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT and the above comments. This article is such a mess that none of its current content can be confidently used to redevelop it, even as a stub. Starting again would be the best option. Nick-D (talk) 10:15, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nuke it from space. WP:TNT. Bueller 007 (talk) 23:32, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:TNT while observing Space Law, with respect to suggestion by Bueller 007. Entire article and this AfD is WP:SOAP. Jun Kayama 02:59, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not an encyclopedia entry. It is a partisan essay. Bluehotel (talk) 17:33, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an extreme case of disinformation and propaganda. I suggest topic banning the author for great justice. For example the Wikipedia article says: "Most of Okinawa Red Hat movements were to take place at night to avoid observation of the operation by the Okinawans, who resented the presence of the American military and especially nuclear and chemical munitions on the island.[33]" The entire text of ref 33 is: "The Army leased 41 acres on Johnston Island in 1971 to store chemical weapons formerly held in Okinawa, which were transferred to the atoll from Okinawa during Operation Red Hat in 1971. Phase I of Operation Red Hat took place in January and moved 150 tons of mustard agent munitions to Johnston Atoll without incident. Phase II moved the remainder of the munitions, about 12,500 tons, in September" Nothing about moving stuff at night, etc. Compare this article with Operation Steel Box (which is a topic usually discussed together with O. Red Hat in secondary sources [12].) 86.121.18.17 (talk) 13:04, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The lead itself [13] is a case of extreme misrepresentation and disinformation: it claims that in 2012 a groundbreaking discovery of documents made "Operation Red Hat" into... well... something ominous and vague, but surely different from what it referred to "Prior to the discovery". But the source cited, Japan Times, claims no such thing. It just says "Operation Red Hat, the mission to transport the weapons off the island, [...]". In other words, nothing new about what Operation Red Hat stands for has emerged in 2012; the meaning is the same and a matter of well-known public record since 1971 (at the very least) when a Department of State news letter mentioned "Operation Red Hat, the Army's removal of toxic chemical munitions from Okinawa". This is a serious case of just one Wikipedia editor on a mission of disinformation. I have requested a topic for him at ANI. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 14:33, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And the other bullshit about this being some coverup not only fails verification in the sources cited, but is also contradicted by army documents (1977) which said [14]: "Operation RED HAT, the relocation of all chemical agent stocks stored in Okinawa to Johnston Island was conducted in 1972, again with maximum public visibility." 86.121.18.17 (talk) 14:39, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Resenting and Moving at night sentence citation looks like it is pointing to the wrong source. I think this was from the film Operation Red Hat Men and a mission but I will have to check that one. I thought Phase I was mustard and during the day and Phase II was nerve gases was at night. Good find and valid point on incorrect sourcing.

I don't think that whether the understanding and information from 1977 is prior to 2012 needs to be addressed but the primary Army document source states:

"The 267th Chemical Platoon had the mission of operation of Site 2, DOD Project 112."

The secondary news source states:

"Newly discovered documents reveal that 50 years ago this week, the Pentagon dispatched a chemical weapons platoon to Okinawa under the auspices of its infamous Project 112. Described by the U.S. Department of Defense as “biological and chemical warfare vulnerability tests,” the highly classified program subjected thousands of unwitting American service members around the globe to substances including sarin and VX nerve gases between 1962 and 1974.

According to papers obtained from the U.S. Army Heritage and Education Center in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, the 267th Chemical Platoon was activated on Okinawa on Dec. 1, 1962, with “the mission of operation of Site 2, DOD (Department of Defense) Project 112.” Before coming to Okinawa, the 36-member platoon had received training at Denver’s Rocky Mountain Arsenal, one of the key U.S. chemical and biological weapons (CBW) facilities. Upon its arrival on the island, the platoon was billeted just north of Okinawa City at Chibana — the site of a poison gas leak seven years later. Between December 1962 and August 1965, the 267th platoon received three classified shipments — codenamed YBA, YBB and YBF — believed to include sarin and mustard gas.

For decades, the Pentagon denied the existence of Project 112. Only in 2000 did the department finally admit to having exposed its own service members to CBW tests, which it claimed were designed to enable the U.S. to better plan for potential attacks on its troops. In response to mounting evidence of serious health problems among a number of veterans subjected to these experiments, Congress forced the Pentagon in 2003 to create a list of service members exposed during Project 112. While the Department of Defense acknowledges it conducted the tests in Hawaii, Panama and aboard ships in the Pacific Ocean, this is the first time that Okinawa — then under U.S. jurisdiction — has been implicated in the project.

Corroborating suspicions that Project 112 tests were conducted on Okinawa is the inclusion on the Pentagon’s list of at least one U.S. veteran..." continuesJohnvr4 (talk) 16:00, 17 June 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 - G3, blatant hoax. Giant Snowman 15:56, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamad Mousavi[edit]

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

CSD declined, PROD declined. No sources that he meets WP:NSOCCER. Dewritech (talk) 14:23, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because it is substantially the same article:

Keep I declined the A7 and the BLPprod as they clearly don't apply to this article. According to the article the chap "has played for many clubs in the Iran Premier Football League". If true that makes him notable. The article currently lacks a reliable source and there is plenty of scope to improve it, but no reason to delete as there is nothing wrong with it that can't be fixed through regular editing. Though presumably sources will mostly be in Farsi which unfortunately I can't speak. Ϣere SpielChequers 14:36, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It should have been speedily deleted because the article does not make a credible claim of significance or importance. The single source is utterly unreliable, and perhaps even fictional. We should not keep articles simply because the subject may be notable or sources may exist. The onus is on the article creator to provide at least a hint of evidence as to the notability of the subject before clicking save page. Finally, WP:BLP applies, so the article can be deleted on that basis alone. - Mr X 15:11, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 15:12, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 15:12, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 15:12, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I had already prodded the first article created by same editor yesterday, Seyed Mohammad Mousavi, as he's not yet notable per WP:NFOOTBALL. On his website he claims to have played for the Iranian Premier League sides Esteghlal Ahvaz F.C., Foolad F.C., etc. Esteghal has a Jamal Mousavi, and Foolad has a Cyrus Mousavi, but there's no mention of this player that I can find in English or Farsi (I've added the Farsi spelling to Seyed Mohammad Mousavi), and nothing in Soccerway or Transfermarkt. Possible WP:HOAX. Captain Conundrum (talk) 15:25, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - This is a hoax. I watched his videos, and there is no mention of his name in the videos. I made a search in Persian and what is Captain Conundrum says is correct.Farhikht (talk) 15:51, 10 June 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, per consensus. Also remember that AfD noms cannot primarily advocate for any position other than delete (or else qualify for SK#1). Please see Wikipedia:Proposed mergers to start merge discussions. (non-admin closure) czar · · 14:10, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Monksville, New Jersey[edit]

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

Merge and redirect this page to Monksville Reservoir. This is a one-sentence article that has been here since 2005. The fact(s) in the article never have been supported by citations to sources. The two external links on the page are about Monksville Reservoir; they do not support the statements in the article. The most meaningful information I found about the place called Monksville is an article about the relocation of a cemetery before the reservoir was filled [15]. From that article, I get the impression that Monksville was not much more than a farm where the Monks family lived. Accordingly, it appears to me that its history can be covered in the article about the reservoir. If more sourced content emerges at some point in the future, the article can be created again. Orlady (talk) 14:06, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. According to the USGS (878432), Monks (aka Monksville) was an unincorporated community flooded in 1987 to create the reservoir. This is a ghost town. The statement about Jacques Cousteau appears to be just a rumor. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is nothing in the article that makes Monksville stand out. The article is not linked from either Ringwood, New Jersey or West Milford, New Jersey, it isn't linked from anywhere other than the reservoir article and the park that surrounds it, and the place is not listed on the template of populated places in Passaic County. On the other hand, the threshold for notability of populated places is extremely low. Couldn't the concerns raised in the nomination have been addressed by just turning the article into a redirect, which would have the benefit of retaining editing history should the article be expanded in the future? Alansohn (talk) 14:54, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It does seem that there was a populated place that was flooded out when the reservoir was constructed, per THIS. I'm not sure that a redirect is the right answer to this question; or a merge; or a free-standing article for the populated place. This is a really tricky one. The Cousteau bit seems to me to be urban legend, and I've added appropriately hedging language to that assertion. The "small village" does seem to have existed though and the way to handle it is not all that simple. Certainly something that should be debated; so this AfD isn't at all inappropriate, in my view, whereas a speedy conversion to a redirect would be. Carrite (talk) 15:01, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I was thinking there wasn't even a populated place, just a named section of a township, but a June 9, 2000 obituary in the Orlando Sentinel names Monksville, NJ as a birthplace. There's a interesting, but barely-in-passing-mention here. Evidently the place name goes back to at least 1899. At one time there were people living in the community with a surname other than Monks. [16]. Anyway, that's all I could find not mentioned elsewhere. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 15:29, 10 June 2013 (UTC) (modified, 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 13:56, 11 June 2013 (UTC))[reply]
Keep on the basis of the 2000 obituary mentioned by 78.26. Populated places are notable per se; whether they exist today or vanished as ghost towns or were flooded behind dams is neither here nor there. The fact is there certainly WAS a place called Monks or Monksville. I have a hunch that the former is more accurate than the latter. I will redirect the two names and let that call be made later if this closes a keep. Hopefully the New Jersey historians will go to work on this one... Carrite (talk) 05:29, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Carrite. It is a fine stub. The page content is more extensive than another NJ ghost town, Barber, New Jersey. Gjs238 (talk) 12:49, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Carrite-thank you-RFD (talk) 10:24, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as topic is notable with independent sources to establish notoriety. Tinton5 (talk) 21:18, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For a whole bunch of reasons; WP:NGEO, WP:NPLACE, and WP:DELREASONS. Mkdw ^talk 06:01, 17 June 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) 16:16, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blackhive[edit]

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

Speedy deleted 5 days ago as unambiguous advertising. Was recreated but not much has changed. All "sources" are just spam-style links to the company's website or online directory listing. Doesn't come close to meeting WP:CORPDEPTH now and nothing I could find would help the situation. Not entirely convinced this isn't a hoax. C'mon, more than $300m in annual revenue and 50 employees? I don't think so. Stalwart111 13:49, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as spam. The lede is copied directly from here, and the rest of the article appears to be lifted from their website as well. For example, this page is very similar to the food service section and this page seems to be copied into the industriakl section. -- Whpq (talk) 16:38, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "some of the brightest minds in the business world", "customized solutions that align with their customers needs and corporate purpose."... pretty clear advertisement. Ducknish (talk) 23:46, 11 June 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:54, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yosimar Reyes[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Re-creation of an article previously deleted via AfD, which does not address the concerns that prompted the previous deletion; namely, notability and promotional tone. This version is sufficiently different from the deleted version that I felt uncomfortable deleting it via CSD G4, but the subject of the article still does not meet our criteria for inclusion. —Darkwind (talk) 04:22, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Query - Hello all, I was wodering how I can fix this, so it will not be taken down? I would really appreciate the help. Puliguti (talk) 04:39, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. czar · · 05:25, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. czar · · 05:25, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar · · 05:25, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep - but even then, only just. I couldn't make sense of the references so I went and cleaned them up a bit. Many of them are by the subject, rather than about the subject, which is obviously a problem for notability. There are a couple of sources that are probably okay, like the one from the San Francisco Gate and this from The Bottom Line. He's also been featured on some newspaper-affiliated podcasts like this one. Some of that has been produced since the last AFD. All up, there's probably enough there for me... but only just. I can certainly see how it might not be enough for others and won't campaign against deletion if there's consensus for it - I think the nominator was well within the bounds of reasonableness bringing it here. And I agree it needs major work if it were to stay. Stalwart111 05:37, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New Information has been added - Hello Wiki-Administrators, I hope you all have taken note of my edits. I have looked over your concerns and therefore I have added 3 new links. Two of the links connect Mr. Reyes to universities that he has spoken at in the past, while the third link connects him to a course taught at Columbia University. I hope this new information can add some clarity to Mr. Reyes' notability. Please let me know, what else can be added or removed from the actual entry to maintaing the entry alive. Thank you all for your consideration and time. Puliguti (talk) 18:38, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, subject appears to have receive significant coverage from one non-primary reliable source the San Jose Mercury News, but outside of that the subject has only received passing mention from reliable sources, and one significant coverage IMHO does not make notability. Therefore I have to say that the subject fails WP:GNG, WP:CREATIVE, and that it is too soon for the subject to be considered notable at this point.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:38, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - Tiny mention on Highbeam, nothing worth posting sadly. Other mentions push towards GNG.[17][18][19] Another? Mercury News one. [20]. So I'm going to go for keep. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:40, 8 June 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 13:38, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete per WP:TOOSOON. Currently a self-published poet who has received a little recognition, but not yet enough for notability. I added the San Jose Mercury News reference to the article, because it does provide significant coverage in an independent reliable source, but GNG requires MULTIPLE such coverage and I couldn't find anything else. @Puliguti, if a few more such sources turn up in future years the article could be recreated, but you should study WP:42 to see what kind of coverage is required. --MelanieN (talk) 16:37, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment An alternative to deletion would be to userfy it to User:Puliguti, if they want it. --MelanieN (talk) 17:43, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep -- I found some academic references, I think with the San Jose Mercury News, an academic article about art responding to the DREAM Act, and some lesser mentions and documentaries this squeaks by. [21] Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 15:04, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link, Jodi. It's a passing mention in a minor journal, and doesn't get him over the top IMO. I do think it's possible that more sources will be forthcoming in the future; that's why I suggested userfying it - preserving it in somebody's userspace until there is enough material to substantiate notability. If Puliguti does not want it, would you want it to be put in your namespace for later development? Note to closing administrator: if neither of these users wants it, you could userfy it to me. --MelanieN (talk) 15:46, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any ongoing interest in the article, it would be great if you'd userfy it. So far as you say, it's passing mentions -- not just in that journal but also mentioned briefly in Gay Latino Studies: A Critical Reader, as well as in a master's thesis. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 16:20, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think on balance the references are sufficient to show notability , when all considered together, though any single individual one would not be by itself individually sufficient. DGG ( talk ) 16:50, 20 June 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. L Faraone 03:44, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kalim Hazique[edit]

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

Delete: After cleaning up this article to get a good look at what remains after the removal of clutter, and having searched the internet to see what Kalim Hazique has been doing, I am not convinced that he meets notability requirements. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 11:16, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not every published poet is notable. Given the lack of coverage it fails the basic general notability guideline and Wikipedia:Notability (people) both in general and Creative professionals. --Bejnar (talk) 08:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bejnar. 8th place in an online competition you say? :) -- Y not? 18:00, 18 June 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. Mkdw ^talk 05:59, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SKINNER[edit]

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

WP:CSD#A1 and WP:CSD#A3. -- ^(T)Numbermaniac_(C) 08:55, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy close~~ ~~Invalid AFD nom (CSDs are for... CSDs...) Article has already been deleted. --Randykitty (talk) 10:37, 10 June 2013 (UTC)~~ Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7. --Randykitty (talk) 08:57, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note - has been recreated. I have re-added the AFD tag for this discussion. Stalwart111 12:02, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
New AFD nom - article was speedy-deleted then recreated but with substantive copy-vio. Copy-vio has been fixed but I still cannot find a single reliable source to confer notability. Author is an SPA clearly here just to promo this artist and keeps trying to remove deletion and clean-up tags. Delete and salt, in my view. Stalwart111 12:41, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - non-notable bio. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:00, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable, per above. 069952497a^{Comments and complaints}_{Stuff I've done} 23:26, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7 and salt. Ansh666 02:04, 11 June 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 M5 South Western Motorway. A case of duplication. The edit history of the page is retained for those who wish to selectively merge content not already discussed at the destination page. (non-admin closure) v/r, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 00:32, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Metroad 5 (Sydney)[edit]

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

Another article M5 South Western Motorway, which is majority of Metroad 5, has history and other information about Metroad 5 (Sydney) Marcnut1996 (talk) 07:53, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you meant to start a merge discussion? --Rs chen 7754 08:03, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope. The M5 motorway article already contains ALL the information that is found here. Marcnut1996 (talk) 08:10, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect -- Nbound (talk) 08:51, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect -- 124.168.177.19 (talk) 09:42, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - I don't see a reason to delete the edit history of the page. --Rs chen 7754 09:49, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Rschen7754. Even though the article is redundant, we should preserve the edit history. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:07, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Initially delete, now redirect per Rschen7754. Basically everyone wants redirect, because it is the same now as M5 South Western Motorway. Marcnut1996 (talk) 11:58, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To others who want to discuss, see WP:GD#Recommendations and outcomes to determine which is the word you want to put down, then add reasons. Marcnut1996 (talk) 12:07, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, a brief mention of the bits of Metroad 5 that are not part of the M5 is probably warranted on M5 South Western Motorway, but that's about it. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:31, 13 June 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. Speedied via WP:A7, Article about an eligible subject, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject). Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:16, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paša Zirgs[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

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

Seems to be non-notable band, no coverage on Internet. Edgars2007 ^{(talk/contribs)} 06:56, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 07:46, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 07:46, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - poorly written and not-notable $Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} (Whisper...)$ 08:53, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:V and WP:MUSIC. Note: I deleted contributions to this AFD from a bunch of obvious sockpuppet accounts. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:55, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fun band, but can't find anything to suggest they meet WP:NBAND. Bondegezou (talk) 09:37, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. A7. No notability here. duffbeerforme (talk) 02:08, 12 June 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) 16:17, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Goodrich Petroleum Corporation[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORGIN. All I can find is mentions about the stock,no other coverage. We know it is a publicly traded company, but there millions of these. Tyros1972 Talk 06:41, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 07:25, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - We are continuing update information of this company. Still we need more time and others help. Our supervisor think this company is considerable important in the petroleum area. And some of the public include but not limited of investors may want to know this company. This is one of the reasons we put it on Wikipedia. Talk 15:40, June 2013 (Beijing) —Preceding undated comment added 07:41, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not for promoting and advertising your company. Please see: WP:NOTADVERTISING. Tyros1972 Talk 08:41, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - like nom, I can't find anything (WP:N, WP:CORP) on this except bare facts about the stock. The "we put it on Wikipedia" suggests a connection with the company, presumably either inside or paid, so use of Wikipedia for Advertising appears likely. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:10, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - You can delete it. But "Advertising" is not acceptable for me! Do you need I show you my student id card? Talk (Talk) 15:40, June 2013 (Beijing) —Preceding undated comment added 08:27, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. Please also consider WP:NOTADVERTISING. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 12:05, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Salt - Considering the creator has admitted why he created this page, I also ask that it be salted. Tyros1972 Talk 08:41, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, salt if required - Virtually all of the press releases refer to the stock, and nearly zero results for the company itself aside from its website, nothing out there that would satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. The claims made by the creator are also of increasing concern, per WP:COI and WP:PAID. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 12:09, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 10 June 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 by Jimfbleak, non-admin closure.

Munshi Faruque Ahmed (politician)Munshi Faruque Ahmed[edit]

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

Not formatted correctly and seems to lack any RS. Tyros1972 Talk 06:30, 10 June 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) czar · · 03:22, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Krishna Teja Junior College[edit]

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

No reliable third party source can be found. No scope for improvement. Benedictdilton (talk) 18:03, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note the article is mistitled; it should be Krishna Theja Junior College (see official site here). We tend to keep articles on degree-granting institutions so long as we can verify their existence. postdlf (talk) 05:22, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has civic importance, and is part of Wikipedia's role. Likely to be expanded in the future when someone improves it, even as a stub it is informational. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:25, 8 June 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) 03:49, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I see Chris point, but can we have an independent ref that this is a degree-granting institution? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:29, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep now per DGG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:50, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The independent reference is http://www.aicte-india.org/downloads/PHARMECY/Andhra%20Pradesh_Pharmacy.pdf items 1279-1284. (yes, the url is spelled as indicated) The various tables in the MIS/Reports section of the AICTE site is the best verification for actual existence of higher education programs in technical subjects in India. I call special attention to http://www.aicte-india.org/downloads/Unapparoved%20_Institutes.pdf, which I have just discovered. DGG ( talk ) 06:20, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. -- DS1953 ^talk 16:25, 13 June 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. Consensus since sourcing was improved is clearly for keeping. Michig (talk) 09:19, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stu Klitenic[edit]

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

A former Atlanta Braves radio host. Not notable. Ashbeckjonathan 02:19, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Repaired malformed nomination. Bearcat (talk) 03:05, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, there's not a whole lot of notability being demonstrated — or, more importantly, sourced — here. Its only cited source is quite literally a blurb, and Google is turning up a lot of pages in which his name is mentioned but almost nothing that would count as a valid source for a stronger claim of notability. Delete. Keep per sourcing improvements. Bearcat (talk) 03:19, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If someone like Robbie Bullough was deleted, despite being on a national TV Network and calling games for every NCAA sport there is, then Stu Klitenic needs to be deleted. Where is the notability about what he did. Was he a player? Did he get some sort of illness that forced him out of the radio booth early on, because 15 years is rather short for any type of baseball radio host or announcer. I understand him being a pre and post game host, but was he present during their World Series runs? If he was, then maybe he meets the guideline for notability, but with the article written as a stub the way it is, it should be deleted. Delete. - Bigddan11 (talk) 04:23, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The subject lacks sufficient notability for a stand alone article. I suggest merging with Atlanta Braves subsection Radio and television. If that is not practical then I would support a delete. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:34, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~Unsourced for now 7 years since 2006. Not likely to improve~~ . Solomon7968 05:26, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 05:33, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 05:33, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as an athlete who won a gold medal representing the United States in men's basketball at the 1977 Maccabiah Games and as a broadcaster whose 30+ year career has been the subject of multiple in-depth stories in reliable sources over an extended period. Like this one from 1982, this one from 1989, this one from 1996, this one from 2005, and so on. Also, I have significantly expanded and improved the article since this AfD began. - Dravecky (talk) 07:19, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well the sourcing has been improved now, and 'Unsourced for now 7 years since 2006. Not likely to improve' is not in itself a reason for deletion, if the sources which are given are OK. (It would be utterly irrelevant if, say, the subject had died or entered a monastery in 2006). Therefore, keep.--Smerus (talk) 09:11, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Smerus withdrawn after improvements. Solomon7968 06:37, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There's enough current info on there for major credits. The article would be greatly improved if the lead of the high school (which is probably what tripped the afd) was put down lower but still being a commentator for a major sports team and a sports caster in a major market is enough for a keep.09:43, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Delete. His basketball career won't get him past WP:ATHLETE to me. The Maccabiah Games aren't major enough to pass that standard, nor does playing for a Hall of Famer. His broadcast career doesn't get it either. He's simply had a job, nothing notable about it (major awards etc). Niteshift36 (talk) 12:19, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability. This article fails to reach the Wikipedia notability guidelines. Ashbeckjonathan 12:57, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Conditional Keep - Keep if a source can be found to verify his Emmy Award (when and where he won it). (talk) Vjmlhds 13:16, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You could but this article still fails to meet the notability guidelines. Ashbeckjonathan 13:52, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Ditto Vjmlhds (talk · contribs). Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Creative professionals, point 3 because of the award. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 14:20, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are four major options to discuss about the article: deleting, merging, redirecting, or keeping. You could also possibly do a redirect to List of Atlanta Braves broadcasters and I won't have a problem with it, but I still think that this article fails to reach the notibility guidelines; once again I say delete in my opinion. Ashbeckjonathan 14:24, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

At this point WP:HEY is beginning to apply to the pagespace. His profile on his company site (click on his name at the bottom) claims "Emmy-winning", but I wouldn't count that as reliable (could be used to support RS). That said, as a public media professional, I doubt he'd be claiming an Emmy without some reason. I'm seeing some untrustworthy google summaries which point to his being involved in Emmy-winning production during his time at WSB-TV. This PDF seems to indicate nomination for regional Emmy during the 93-94 season. I'm not finding anything easy online, but offline sources are sure to exist for this stuff. He's certainly documented enough to pass WP:VERIFY. The question is the threshold for WP:CREATIVE... BusterD (talk) 05:54, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see no reason to merge or redirect this one because he didn't actually broadcast the Braves games he worked as a host for the pregame show which isn't really all that notable.. Nothing in his high school or college sports career that stands out and the Maccabiah Games arent a major international competition. Spanneraol (talk) 14:41, 10 June 2013 (UTC) Change to keep due to article improvements and better sourcing. Spanneraol (talk) 18:08, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you Spanneraol and I don't think it is necessary to merge or redirect this article. Ashbeckjonathan 15:26, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ashbeckjonathan 18:52, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Comment. I'm neutral as to the outcome of this procedure, but I must report I was canvassed by the nominator to visit this page, as were many other editors (40+), most of whom had never edited this page. I feel compelled to report that this morning I messaged User:Ashbeckjonathan about notifying the page creator, but that user deleted my comment and has still failed to Afd-notice pagecreator per instruction on the AfD page. Further, nominator has placed ~~three~~(my miscount) ~~two~~ (user unbolded one) one bolded delete assertions on this procedure. I don't usually bite newbies, but with 3000+ edits since 12/12, a certain competence might be expected, or at least willingness to listen to feedback. I urge that user to read further on deletion procedures, especially Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Nomination assertion is WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE. While a user is welcome to maintain their own talk page as they wish, I'd also suggest that user not ignore/delete useful feedback on talk, as has been done several times recently ([22],[23],[24],[25]). BusterD (talk) 20:01, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That has nothing to do what we are talking about. Besides, this is my only time doing this since I am not an administrator. Ashbeckjonathan 20:19, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I'll stipulate to the first comment. As to the second, most of us here are non-admins, but we are willing to learn as we go. BusterD (talk) 20:25, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, put it this way, I am still new at Wikipedia. And yes, I do understand what you are talking about. Ashbeckjonathan 20:33, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I could also give anyone credit who really agrees on having this article deleted, even though I have said too many times already. Ashbeckjonathan 20:55, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 21:38, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps there may be a way to get the job done to decide what to do with the article. Ashbeckjonathan 23:04, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Delete. Although I don't have much opinions about him, but I think that I would take it seriously about deleting it and to me the article fails to meet Wikipedia's notable guidelines. 184.158.68.216 (talk) 23:43, 10 June 2013 (UTC) — 184.158.68.216 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Yes, but there has been multiple issues for Stu Klitenic; it did not meet Wikipedia's notable guidelines, it was incomplete, and stuff like that. Ashbeckjonathan 23:52, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I can't find a single reliable reference for Stu Klitenic to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Ashbeckjonathan 03:15, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi. You don't need to comment on every comment. You don't need to cheerlead for deletion. You do need to examine the article as it stands now to see that mutliple reliable third-party sources in-depth about the subject have been added since your nomination. This is starting to look less like "valid concern" and more like "vendetta" against the subject. Also, your baseless accusation on my talk page was inappropriate and wrong. - Dravecky (talk) 03:33, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator deleted the above comment by User:Dravecky. I've reverted this blanking and warned the user about doing so again. BusterD (talk) 22:34, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Based on this editing history I now strongly suspect that this IP editor is actually Ashbeckjonathan editing while logged out. - Dravecky (talk) 07:24, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, subject meets WP:GNG, the article is informative and well referenced. Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 06:03, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Cumulatively there is enough coverage of this individual's career achievements in reliable sources to merit inclusion based on notability. Candleabracadabra (talk) 20:13, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep From my perspective, the article does not that many issues. It is in pretty good shape. The article does reach the Wikipedia notability guidelines. WisconsinBoyClevelandRocks228844 (talk) 17:44, 15 June 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. Michig (talk) 09:15, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mishel Gjorgjiev[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:52, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:53, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:54, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - has not played in a fully pro league or represented his country at senior level, which means the article fails WP:NFOOTY. Also fails WP:GNG due to lack of in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 09:48, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Walls of Jericho (talk) 16:42, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This could have been almost speedily deleted consider it lacked any credible assertion to notability or had any reliable sources. Mkdw ^talk 05:58, 17 June 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. Michig (talk) 09:13, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A New Breed Of Darkness[edit]

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

Basically a web-based dojinshi with no sources that are not independent. Can't find any independent RS in English, and absolutely no references to the supposed original Japanese company in Japanese. Fails WP:GNG. Michitaro (talk) 02:48, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unless reliable sources are added, then please ping me so I can re-review this. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:30, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 05:41, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 05:41, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable. Not enough reliable coverage. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:27, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious delete. The article is self-promotional rubbish for a clearly non-notable company. Bueller 007 (talk) 23:39, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Concur with Bueller 007 and others previous to my vote. Jun Kayama 02:45, 16 June 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. No input since the second relist. Michig (talk) 09:30, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All I Can Say[edit]

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

Non-notable album from a notable band. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:12, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (parlez) @ 08:59, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (tell me stuff) @ 09:00, 26 May 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, czar · · 06:33, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to David Crowder Band or create discography as mentioned in the other AFD. Album does not meet standalone requirements. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:07, 8 June 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, L Faraone 02:48, 10 June 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) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 00:35, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Queensland Urban Utilities[edit]

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

- DELETE** Non notable organisation. No references apart from its own web site. WatersFlowing (talk) 02:30, 10 June 2013 (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/2013 June 10. Snotbot t • c » 02:46, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
keep a gnews search reveals many third party sources. LibStar (talk) 05:08, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 05:34, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:BEFORE, people. As I said in my deprodding and as confirmed by LibStar above, Gnews has sources. Deletion is not for cleanup. I suggest the nominator to improve the article rather than trying to remove it. --Cyclopia ^talk 09:43, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep QUU is not a non-notable organisation. It's a company owned by large councils in Queensland with about A$5 billion in assets that supplied water to more than 1.2 million people including the entire population of Brisbane. If that doesn't qualify as notable I don't know what does. Velocidex (talk) 23:23, 13 June 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. Michig (talk) 09:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Commtel Networks[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Looks like this article was already deleted very recently for notability issues, so I'm presuming the same still applies. CorporateM (Talk) 17:12, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. czar · · 20:20, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. czar · · 20:20, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. czar · · 20:21, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. Sources offered are all links to the company website, interviews with their executives (both WP:PRIMARY) and routine coverage of their press releases. None of this comes close to what is required. Msnicki (talk) 00:08, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Same issues as before it seems. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:35, 8 June 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, L Faraone 02:43, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - None of the sources I found are actually usable, issues quite similar to those as mentioned in the deletion log, fails WP:NCORP. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 04:55, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evdence of notability (being a local reseller doesn't inherit). Press coverage is routine; fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 05:33, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above Misscric indi (talk) 02:40, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not seeing strong WP:SIGCOV and borderline WP:ADVERT considering it fall short of many points at WP:CORP. Mkdw ^talk 05:57, 17 June 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) 16:19, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gilflo[edit]

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

From the looks of it this article does not meet WP:GNG. Koala15 (talk) 02:27, 26 May 2013 (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/2013 May 26. Snotbot t • c » 02:53, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 03:40, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 03:40, 26 May 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, czar · · 20:42, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not one RS, the Wikipedia publishing sites do not count, it'd be circular. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:16, 8 June 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, L Faraone 02:41, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- There are no RS's in the references. Just Myspace and IMDB pages. None of which are reliable. Thekillerpenguin (talk) 06:10, 10 June 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. Some people thought it kinda smelled notable, but in the end I think there is consensus to delete here. COI doesn't help. -- Y not? 20:59, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Michele Forsten[edit]

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

Non-notable public relations person. Autobiography and fails WP:CREATIVE. Has written plays and articles (described by subject as "essays") receiving nonnotable recognition. Subject of article has not been the subject of multiple reliable sources, nontrivial in nature, focusing on this person, and playwright section is not adequately sourced and it is not clear if it can be. Google News Search of "michele forsten playwright" yields nothing. Does not appear to fit the four criteria in this part of the notability guideline for creative people. Google News indicates a number of hits in her capacity as a public relations person for a New York City technical college, but that is insufficient to establish notability in that field.Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 23:12, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (chinwag) @ 23:32, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (articulate) @ 23:33, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (confer) @ 23:33, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (articulate) @ 23:33, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lesion (talk) 14:55, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 06:25, 3 June 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, J04n(talk page) 22:50, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh right, we have to give a reason? ("DeleteyMcSheep" =D ) Then I agree this person is not notable for their own page...and this is compellingly argued by the initial poster above... it doesn't seem to be notable according to policies either. Lesion (talk) 09:55, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - May meet GNG, some of the "citation needed" tags are added when the citation is already given, but not cited in accordance with typical Wikipedia referencing styles. It seems silly to have the tags when the location is mentioned in explicit detail. It needs work, but deletion is not cleanup. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:48, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that a claim that a play was produced needs to be cited, and that's not available anywhere. The utter lack of coverage of basic facts is part of the reason why GNG and CREATIVE isn't met here. Cleanup will not rectify the notability issue. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 14:03, 9 June 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, L Faraone 02:30, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

weak Keep Somewhat notable as a playwright, since her work has been included in anthologies. Not notable as a PR person. Hard to tell about notability as an advocate, but at least the playwriting has a good criterion. . DGG ( talk ) 06:24, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that, but they don't seem to be notable anthologies, so as to rise to the level that an article is warranted on their author. Looking at the criteria in WP:CREATIVE, I just couldn't see any justification for this article. Honestly, if she hadn't written this herself, as she admits to have done, would anyone write an article on this person? I wish her well, and hope that someday her work rises to the level that warrants a Wikipedia bio, but at this stage I think it's clear that the criteria just are not met. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 16:45, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article is a good example of why our conflict of interest rules are too weak. Subject of the article is a college public relations person who has a hobby of writing plays and articles. The article was created by an account created by Ms. Forsten. Despite being specifically cautioned not to do so, after creating this article she actively edited it and continues to do so to this day. It was originally copied from her website, but some alterations have been made since then. Wikipedia readers have a right to expect that articles are written by persons unconnected with the subject of the article, and that expectation is not met in this instance. I agree that Ms. Forsten's personal story is inspiring. But she simply has not met the level of coverage in independent, reliable sources for an article about her, or that her prominence as a playwright meets the GNG criteria. Coretheapple (talk) 22:07, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - promotional.Deb (talk) 15:17, 18 June 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 by admin INeverCry (non-admin closure). Stalwart111 13:24, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dindindara[edit]

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

Non-notable Nigerian word with 10 Google hits for its supposed meaning, "Loud Continuous Wonder". Delete per WP:V, WP:NOTDIC and WP:NOTNEO. jonkerz ♠talk 02:15, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. jonkerz ♠talk 02:18, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. jonkerz ♠talk 02:18, 10 June 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) czar · · 03:28, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status of work by U.S. state governments[edit]

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

As noted on talk. Let's discuss whether the split off from Copyright_status_of_work_by_the_U.S._government is appropriate or should be reversed by deleting this offshoot. Elvey (talk) 02:09, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Copyright laws regarding work created by U.S. state government agencies are significantly different than laws covering works created by the U.S. federal government. In my view, this is a notable and different topic worthy of a separate article. If someone was willing to do the work, 50 separate articles might be good to have. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:32, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This wasnt really a split. I copied a section from Copyright status of work by the U.S. government as the first edit because it was relevant, and I wanted to ensure the history of that text could be traced back. I then removed the specifics from the main article, as they dont belong there, and started the table of U.S. state laws. The U.S. federal laws are very different, esp. with regard to works of the government. We already had a dedicated article about Copyright status of work by the Florida government, and I hope/expect we'll eventually have articles about each U.S. state jurisdiction. In the meantime, this article is a reasonable place to put the most pertinent aspects of any U.S. state jurisdictions, and to compare them easily. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:38, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note that this AFD is a good-faith query that was launched during a move request at Talk:Copyright_status_of_work_by_U.S._state_governments#Move_proposal/request, and there is more discussion about this at Talk:Copyright_status_of_work_by_the_U.S._government#Works Made for Hire for the US state Governments etc. --John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:37, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 05:38, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 05:38, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, educational and encyclopedic, — Cirt (talk) 16:57, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable legal topic.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 22:04, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because the talk page is the right place to be sorting this out. Thincat (talk) 23:35, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment; This article should clearly not be merged to Copyright status of work by the U.S. government. That article is about the scope and limitation of the exclusion of works of the U.S. government from the subject matter of copyright under section 105 of the 1976 Copyright Act and its predecessors. That article has nothing to do with works of state governments, except to make clear that the § 105 exclusion does not apply to works of state, local or foreign governments. The inclusion of this material on state governments in that article stemmed from a misunderstanding of U.S. copyright, and not getting the distinction between a work not being subject to copyright (U.S. government works) and a work being subject to copyright but having its copyright disclaimed by its owner (some state governments actions with respect to certain of their own works).

I am, though, concerned that this article is almost entirely original research and lacking reliable sources. It has only a single reference to a secondary source. (It's a Wired article, discussing California, but that source uses the word "copyright" only once and does not clearly support the premise in the Wikipedia article; it seems to be much more of an open records law case than a copyright one.) All other content is the editors' original research and interpretations of and citations to the various state statutes as primary sources. But that's an argument as to content, not an argument on deletion. TJRC (talk) 20:21, 14 June 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. Michig (talk) 09:04, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pteridophobia[edit]

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

Removed prod. I am unable to find any reputable source for this word. This may be a hoax that has gone viral. I find no evidence that Freud disliked ferns (as the article states) and some evidence that suggests the contrary (he writes of a "wonderful wood full of ferns and mushrooms"). Looie496 (talk) 01:59, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete First, I could find zero reliable mental health sources discussing this topic. Zero. Yes, it is mentioned in a few unreliable, trivial, pop cultural sources, such as blogs and lists of goofy phobias, which people apparently enjoy reading. Just because a nurse writes a blog, that doesn't mean an amusing cut-and-paste list becomes a reliable source. But never did I expect to see Cracked.com put forward as a reliable source. I guess Mad Magazine rejected the article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:48, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What, Cracked.com doesn't fact check? I am appalled. Both the phobia and the Freud reference appear in Fact #54 in the book Scared Sh*tless: 1,003 Facts That Will Scare the Sh*t Out of You Often books are reliable sources, but I don't know about this one. Even it if was reliable, it is the only one I could find. The topic seems to fall below threshold for general notability guidelines, suggesting that the article should be deleted. --Mark viking (talk) 03:44, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't even seem close to real, supported by the lack of WP:RS on the matter. Ansh666 05:16, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 05:43, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - surely a hoax, though per Mark Viking, seems to be a hoax-in-a-book for once. Guess there's a clue about its degree of unreliability as a source in its title. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:05, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The book was published less than a year ago, so there's a good chance the author got the "fact" from the internet. Looie496 (talk) 14:22, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I will assume good faith that the sources are sincere, not hoaxing. Even then, and even if the phobia is real, it should not have an article here unless there is something that takes it beyond "pteridophobia is a fear of ferns," and then some general info on phobias. Borock (talk) 16:38, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: nothing on Gbooks, nothing on Gscholar. Sounds like a hoax to me. --Cyclopia ^talk 16:42, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I might not be as quick as others to jump on the "hoax" train, but this would seem to fail our inclusion guidelines anyway, so it's a moot point really. Stalwart111 02:11, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, maybe its category is Internet WP:BOLLOCKS and excited wishful thinking, but given the WP:SNOW of deletion certificates, it's pretty academic. Could someone please close this AfD? Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:06, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha, yeah, absolutely. Seconded. Stalwart111 07:23, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've nominated Geniophobia, by the same author, for deletion as well here. Ansh666 21:54, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete With no evidence and a few editors having attempted WP:BEFORE I would strongly delete with no prejudice -- hoax or OR. Mkdw ^talk 05:55, 17 June 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 now that's it's cleaned up a bit -- Y not? 18:02, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Meze Headphones[edit]

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

Corporate spam, this looks like. Key indicator: this article is the sole contribution of Roseradtke. Rose Radtke is a "Social Media Marketer". - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:28, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. nothing in gnews. LibStar (talk) 06:08, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Quiet, quiet keep~~ No opinion. Their products have been reviewed by Wired, CNET and Thrillist. I've ditched the spammy bits. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:23, 31 May 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, L Faraone 01:46, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not particularly prominent products per se, but I've seen a few reviews so I guess it can be presumed to be notable per GNG. The article is not spammy in its current form. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A few reviews don't muster CORP, so I'm going to have to say delete on GNG and N grounds, the product may go with it in this case as there is no place to merge. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:20, 8 June 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, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:06, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A few full reviews are exactly what shows notability for products, per the GNG. The wired and the CNet reviews in particular are full reviews, focused on these particular products, and are therefore exactly what is needed. (what doesn't count is brief notes in a group review, so all reviews need to be critically inspected. These pass.) Companies making notable products are notable, if the article is focused on the products--it's better than trying to cover individual headphone models. DGG ( talk ) 06:31, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Looks notable enough and sufficient content for a short article. --Michig (talk) 09:25, 17 June 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. Michig (talk) 09:02, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

El Marg SC[edit]

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

Article fails to establish notability as per WP:CLUB and WP:SPORTCRIT. Sole source is an Arabic website about local sports clubs. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:10, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On a side note, the author clearly put a lot of work into the article. I would be more than happy to withdraw my AfD nomination if he/she can just add some sources and text that establishes notability. My main problem is that I don't speak or read Arabic and I fear any such sources would be in that language. Help from any Arabic speaking editors would be appreciated.-Ad Orientem (talk) 04:14, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. czar · · 05:28, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. czar · · 05:30, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. czar · · 05:30, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 18:18, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:CLUB. Walls of Jericho (talk) 17:55, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While a lot of work was put into this, some sourcing can be found, but not much to meet GNG or N. Here is one.[26] I cannot find too much in Arabic, but I don't know where or how to look effectively. I'd like this to get a fair shot. As more is likely to be verified by local paper sources. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:48, 8 June 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, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:01, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Regardless of the amount of work put in I can find nothing on rsssf to indicate that they have taken part in a national cup and they haven't been in a top division either so they seem to fail GNG and NCLUB. Fenix down (talk) 08:34, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - independent notability not established. C 679 22:19, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems like it's been given a WP:CHANCE and nothing has come of it for two weeks. Mkdw ^talk 05:54, 17 June 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) czar · · 03:29, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ole Christian Bach[edit]

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

Contested PROD. May lack notability. I dream of horses (T) @ 00:56, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative keep. According to the only source in the article, he was convicted of a "pyramid scam worth hundreds of millions of kronor" in 1988. It also says he was involved in the theft of a Munch painting a few years later. It also describes him as one the wealthiest men in Norway. If these are true (and we have no reason to believe otherwise), one would presume that he must have been the subject on significant coverage in reliable sources. A GNews search confirms this, although the sources are mostly non-English. Pburka (talk) 01:04, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 05:44, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 05:45, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 05:45, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There was as Pburka says significance media coverage of him. Some of it can be seen with an internet search, but there are many more sources in printed media from the pre-internet age (1980/90s). Here is what Nationen wrote after his death: "The Fashion king, playboy and deceiver was Norway's biggest yuppie, he was the incarnation of the 80s." Regards, Iselilja (talk) 06:46, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes WP:GNG, not because of one event (like the original PROD rationale claim), but most of his life has been covered in reliable sources. Though it should be noted that I might be a little biased, as I am too En vanlig gutt fra Sandefjord (a normal kid from Sandefjord) :P Mentoz86 (talk) 09:27, 10 June 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--Ymblanter (talk) 07:03, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Young William (rapper)[edit]

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

There are insufficient accomplishments or RS to establish notability. Taroaldo ✉ 00:09, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable, should be deleted. Koala15 (talk) 00:29, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not satisfy WP:GNG or WP:MUS. No real possibility of doing so... see WP:CRYSTAL. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 11:48, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. Probably an autobiography or at the least a WP:COI issue. STATic message me! 15:49, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources, no credible claim to notability and nothing to suggest this person meets MUSICBIO. Seems like a clear case of delete. Mkdw ^talk 05:53, 17 June 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.