Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday August 31 (Sat) August 30 (Fri) August 29 (Thu) More...

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< 30 April	2 May >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 03:40, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of senior office holders of non-european descent in European governments

[edit]

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

Original compilation. No references indicating possible interset in the topic senior office holders of non-european descent in European governments. Vague and arbitrary classification. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:55, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. czar · · 01:01, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. czar · · 01:01, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. czar · · 01:01, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. czar · · 01:01, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Classic violation of WP:NOT. Ray^Talk 21:32, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I know there is interest in this topic. All the article's failings to meet required standards RE: classification can be fixed. (ie. I am certain this pertains to what the definition of a Senior government post is that is consistent across Europe) WP:DEMOLISH Other than that my main defense is consistency; its intention is to be a parallel of these pages: List_of_African-American_United_States_Cabinet_Secretaries, List_of_foreign-born_United_States_Cabinet_Secretaries, List_of_ethnic_minority_British_politicians, List_of_African-American_United_States_Senators, Electoral_firsts_in_Canada, etc etc etc BrigSockface (talk) 16:44, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of the US lists, the lists have precise, readily identifiable criteria, they are in some case of legal importance (foreign-born secretaries are outside the presidential line of succession), and the topic is politically important and relevant to the country as a whole. A vague generalization across all of Europe is not useful or nearly as well delineated (what if somebody's grandmother came from Turkey? Is Turkey European or Asian? What about Russians?). A list like this invites invidious and spurious classifications on the basis of what somebody thinks race should be, and we'd do far better without it. Ray^Talk 17:07, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - even if the people in this list are notable, grouping them together into this list is not. Note that other stuff exists (eg the USA pages) is not a valid argument. 1292simon (talk) 05:46, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete - I think this could be split to individual nation states, i.e. Britain, France, Germany, etc, but I think the biggest problem is that it lumps all of Europe together for no apparent reason. Barney the barney barney (talk) 09:23, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article meets WP:LISTPEOPLE, WP:BLPCAT and WP:EGRS. Miniapolis 13:34, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, IMO you are mistaken. WP:EGRS explicitely excludes super-ethnic grouping. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:43, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree; WP:EGRS permits ethnic categorization "as appropriate", which I believe applies in this case. All the best, Miniapolis 02:12, 9 May 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 result was delete. J04n(talk page) 03:41, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Feel Good Musical/La Magdelena

[edit]

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

~~The play La Magdalena appears to be non-notable or nonexistent: the article has no references, and I didn't find any information about the play or its ostensible playwrights~~. —rybec 22:20, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Changing rationale to "redundant fork": I struck out my original nomination because the article does indeed have references; they just were not displayed (thanks to Pol430 for fixing that). I found an online abstract of one of them: [1]. I also found http://www.villalobos.ca/Magdalena which links to a Time magazine review of the play. That review names the play's creators: "music by Heitor Villa-Lobos; book by Frederick Hazlitt Brennan & Homer Curran" whereas this article says "Omer Curran and Frederick Brenna and with Villa-Lobos’s compelling compositions". I didn't realize at first that Omer and Brenna were errors. Searching for the correct names, I found Magdalena: a Musical Adventure. I want to withdraw my original nomination and instead nominate this article for deletion as a "redundant fork" because of the other article about the same play. —rybec 00:09, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. czar · · 01:03, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Why bring it to AfD instead of moving it back to AfC (per the banner)? czar · · 01:10, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article was not moved from AfC, but was instead created directly in the main space about half an hour after Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/PUMP BOYS AND DINETTES/LA MAGDELENA was declined. This clearly shows that the author no longer wanted to continue using AfC for developing this article and believed it was ready for the main space. —rybec 20:22, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. While that is one possibility another is the submitter just made a mistake. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:28, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On the balance of probability the author decided to create the article directly in the mainspace. They are entirely at liberty to do so, but they risk an AfD nomination, as has been the case here. The practice of unilaterally moving mainspace entries to AfC space (including reversing a page move) is controversial and can rightly be regarded as an out-of-process deletion method. It should be remembered that AfC exists to assist annon editors with creating articles, not to have right of veto over what will, or will not, appear in the mainspace. I'm not suggesting that it should never be done (I've done it myself), but you have to be damned sure you've judged the situation appropriately, lest it backfire. The AfC project talk page archives have several threads on the subject. Pol430 talk to me 12:18, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The text screams copyvio, but I can't find any evidence of it online (either with Google or the copyvio detector tool). It's also highly promotional and badly written – it reads more or less like an essay on musical theater. So badly is it written, that it would require a total hatchet job fundamental rewrite to become encyclopedic. Also, the presence of the forward slash renders it a bad page title that will affect its talkpage. I have no opinion of the notability of the topic, but I feel that its problems outweigh its value, as it stands, and it would be better all round for the author to continue to work on this in the AfC namespace until such time that it can be acceptable. Pol430 talk to me 20:39, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I found this when I was reviewing AfC submissions, and it's horrible. Its content is not established until about three sections in, it's highly promotional, non-formal language, strange capitalization, the problems with this article are legion. The source doesn't even appear to exist. I Googled it, used JSTOR, and enlisted the help of a librarian via chat to find information about this musical. Nothing so far, although the librarian is doing a more in depth search. I expect to hear from her soon with more information. TheOneSean | Talk to me 21:51, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Decline if it isn't closed early with a move back to AFC. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:34, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Propose immediate SNOW-return-to-AFC if there is some support for no objections within 24 hours (and rybec has had an opportunity to object and chose not to). This looks like EITHER it's legit but needs verification and WP:AFC is the proper place for that to happen, it is a WP:HOAX hiding behind offline references, or a it's student's assignment, in which case WP:AFC is the best place for both this submission AND for the student's education. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:34, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per redundant fork. Sorry, I didn't catch that before making my previous comments. Forecast calls for WP:SNOW. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:41, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I honestly think this was mistakenly moved to article space before it was ready. It wasn't passed from AfC with due cause, content-wise, but the topic doesn't work either, since it forks Pump Boys and Dinettes and Magdalena: a Musical Adventure, which are both fine on their own. Also there's just nothing to merge. I'd recommend userfying this fusion-essay-thing, but I don't see how it could ever become its own article. czar · · 02:25, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Speedy-deletion criteria WP:A10 "Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic" may apply. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:10, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A10 doesn't apply to forks (if this even is one), but that doesn't mean you can't try. czar · · 03:14, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Redundant fork of Magdalena: a Musical Adventure. Sorry to sound harsh, but I don't think there's any text worth salvaging.1292simon (talk) 05:51, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to Blanchard's_transsexualism_typology#Autogynephilia_and_autoandrophilia. Black Kite (talk) 18:14, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Autoandrophilia

[edit]

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

Self-admitted fringe theory created by someone with an admitted CoI: "the concept has received much less attention than autogynephilia, its counterpart." Given that autogynephilia itself is a fringe theory and not supported by WPATH (doi:10.1080/15532739.2011.606195), I don't think this warrants an article either. See also: andromimetophilia, gynemimetophilia, both redirects; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gynandromorphophilia (3rd nomination). Sceptre ^(talk) 20:36, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:16, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Search engine hits suggest this term may be notable:

194 results on Google books
10,400 results on Google Web search
15,800 results on Bing (but no results on Jstor or Google News)

The article mentions several meanings of the term—does the nominator assert that all of them are fringe?

Blanchard's transsexualism typology has a section about this term; this article could perhaps be merged to that one. —rybec 00:20, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt there is anything worth merging, although a redirect may be prudent in any case. The theory only comes up in relation to Blanchard's typology, which enjoys little support outside a clique of sexologists. WPATH, which is the recognised authority on transgender healthcare, reached a consensus that there is no evidence for autogynephilia/autoandrophilia to justify its inclusion in the DSM-V (see AfD), and Moser (doi:10.1080/00918369.2010.486241, et ) has found that the theory as proposed is incredibly flawed. As to the Google Books results: most of the results are either critical of the concept or only mention it as part of the list, and compared to "gender dysphoria" and "gender identity disorder", it is numerically dwarfed. Sceptre ^(talk) 01:30, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to Blanchard's_transsexualism_typology#Autogynephilia_and_autoandrophilia. Curiously, it has more text and context on the subject. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:21, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.

(1) The consensus at the Fringe Theory Noticeboard is that this is not fringe.

(2) Rybec's search above indicates this is not fringe.

(3) Autoandrophilia is not part of Blanchard's autogynephilia theory. (The autoandrophilia page contains no cites to Blanchard, and none of Blanchard's works on autgynephilia contains autoandrophilia.)

(4) Staszek appears to have misread the pages a bit: The autoandrophilia page includes 10 RS's about autoandrophilia, almost all high end, peer-reviewed research journals, whereas Blanchard's_transsexualism_typology#Autogynephilia_and_autoandrophilia contains two sources: a dead link, and a caption in a CBS photo essay.

(5) Regarding Sceptre's accusations of me inappropriately editing under a COI, the recently closed ArbCom case (WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology) indicates the opposite of Sceptre's claims, as other non-involved editors have tried to point out to her.[2]

Sceptre is certainly entitled to disagree with ArbCom's findings, such as here, but she is not free to disregard them and to engage in the behaviours that ArbCom just ruled against.

— James Cantor (talk) 12:38, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus either way, although little evidence has been brought up to refute the evidence I've provided that it is a fringe theory.
This is a glorified WP:GHITS argument. Searching Murray "Bell Curve" brings up 48,000 results on Google Books and 214,000 on Google proper, but that doesn't that the Bell Curve theory is valid (because it's not).
Nice try, but Blanchard has equated autoandrophilia as the male equivalent of autogynephilia, most notably in his proposed changes to the DSM 5 (opposed by WPATH) as of October 2010. Although that statement also creates an argument as towards the unscientificness of the theory.
Source one rejects the theory. Source two is a glorified Cracked list. Sources 3 and 5 discuss it in relation to the DSM 5. Source 4 and 8 are written by known advocates of the theory (one of them redirects to Blanchard's transsexualism typology; the other is, of course, the infamous author of The Man Who Would Be Queen) Source 7, published pre-DSM 5 draft, says that it's only a "logical extension" of autogynephilia. Source 9 is part of WPATH's papers on the DSM 5 changes, and opposes addition due to lack of evidence. Source 10 also opposes it, but from a different angle. ~~I cannot access source 6, but I guess it either mentions it in passing or is in opposition~~ Edit: Source 6 mentions it in passing only; either it fails WP:FRINGE or WP:N.
That ArbCom didn't vote on the issue doesn't mean you don't have a COI or aren't editing inappropriately. In 2009, you undertook the pledge on your user page not to edit in areas relating to transsexuality due to concerns you may be COI editing inappopriately; is there any reason why it is no longer valid?

Thanks, Sceptre ^(talk) 03:46, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-redundant bits of contents could go to Blanchard's and this encyclopedia would be better off. Aside from this, I regret that the loud parties here don't declare CoIs.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 15:42, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Blanchard's_transsexualism_typology#Autogynephilia_and_autoandrophilia, as per Autogynephilia. Bringing the content into a single article should help avoid Content Forks and Fringe Theories. That's not to dismiss the content in autoandrophilia, much of it could be moved across. 1292simon (talk) 06:03, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. There are clearly some issues here, as noted above. But what this comes down to is that the target article has a much more detailed treatment of the subject, and I think it would be better to focus on that than on splitting the article. Targetting the redirect to the specific section helps as well. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 16:17, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and keep content per 1292simon. — Scott • talk 10:15, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:53, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rhodri Giggs (footballer)

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

For the same reason it was deleted here, here and here. It is an unlikely redirect, so should not be kept. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 20:28, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 20:30, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - per WP:CSD#G4. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:36, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 10:06, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Baba Yorichika

[edit]

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

See list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan/Historical people. The sole cited source is not reliable. A quick search of Google books shows no support. --Ansei (talk) 19:59, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:17, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:17, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:18, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- In contrast, please compare the growing number of article marked "done+cites added" at WP:WikiProject Japan/Historical people. --Ansei (talk) 22:53, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--I could find no significant information on this historical figure in Japanese reference databases like Japan Knowledge. Michitaro (talk) 22:59, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He is an actual historical figure and has an article in JA Wikipedia here [3] but this is an article for a fairly obscure retainer for Bizen-no-kuni killed during a series of backstabbing intercine battles common to that period. Unless quoting directly from one of the two available 16th century historical records on him, this stub article written using auto-translate doesn't have much of a future. Jun Kayama 02:37, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 20:59, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 16:10, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Despite having lived a long time ago, and having a dramatic life, I do not see any strong assertion of notability. Old =/= notable. I would need to see a very strong reference from a reliable source -- and substantial mentions. Until then I wouldn't feel comfortable keeping the article since it seems dangerously close to 'legend' OR. Mkdw ^talk 01:28, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Courcelles 23:08, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Naoe clan

[edit]

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

See list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan/Historical people. The sole cited source is not reliable standing alone. A quick search of Google books shows no support. --Ansei (talk) 19:53, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:17, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:17, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:17, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I checked the original article and its source, and it looks like it came form an unsourced wiki itself. I can't find anything that would warrant this being kept. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:08, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- In contrast, please compare the growing number of article marked "done+cites added" at WP:WikiProject Japan/Historical people. --Ansei (talk) 22:54, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 21:00, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. This is one-line article; if sources are found, it can be restored or recreated.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:16, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fuwa clan

[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:18, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:18, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:18, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I checked the original article and its source, and it looks like it came form an unsourced wiki itself. I can't find anything that would warrant this being kept. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:06, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- In contrast, please compare the growing number of article marked "done+cites added" at WP:WikiProject Japan/Historical people. --Ansei (talk) 22:54, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-- The Japanese wikipedia article jp:不破氏 is more detailed but relies mostly on one source: a local history entitled Shinshū Tarui Chōshi. Most localities in Japan have at one point produced a local history and this one is held at libraries both in Japan and abroad. This may indicate that references may exist in other published sources, or this may only be a local phenomenon. Michitaro (talk) 23:40, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Questions: Does this have something to do with Wikipedia:Inherent notability? Is it reasonable to decide that all historical Japanese clans are good article subjects when we can point to one published source, any reliable source support? --Ansei (talk) 12:54, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I personally am not making an argument about inherent notability. I am merely saying that there is a presumably reliable history book that devotes space to this clan. The problem with medieval topics is that good historical sources are not always to be found on the net. We might have to find other sources in paper printed publications, most likely Japanese ones. Michitaro (talk) 04:38, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As per nom. 1292simon (talk) 06:05, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep per WP:SNOW, not a single policy-based reason given for deletion. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:48, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

General Motors streetcar conspiracy

[edit]

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

This article is terribly biased and is slandering General Motors. It quotes references, these however couldn't be called objective. The article also completely ignores the fact that after the war people in the US became richer and preferred much more comfortable way of commmuting - a car thus crowded streetcars became obsolete. SHAMAN 19:23, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep The reasons given are grounds for rewriting the article, not deleting it. Mangoe (talk) 19:28, 1 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 1. Snotbot t • c » 19:43, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - bloody hell, are you a GM employee (or boss) Peter? This conspiracy very clearly meets WP:GNG. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:04, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. As the main author of the current text, (which has been broadly stable for about 2 years) I find it strange that this forceful complaint has come out of the blue, with no attempt at discussion on the talk list and supported by claims that appear groundless. I also note that the complainant has not contributed to either the article or the talk page for the past 500 edits except to insist on this banner.

To quote from the article in a couple of places to indicate the current balance:

" Both Quinby and Snell argued that the deliberate destruction of streetcars was part of a larger strategy to push the United States into automobile dependency.[1] Others say that independent economic factors brought about changes in the transit system, one writer going so far as to accuse Snell and others of falling into simplistic conspiracy theory thinking, bordering on paranoid delusions.[2] Other acknowledged contributory causes include the Great Depression, the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935, labor unrest, market forces, rapidly increasing traffic congestion, urban sprawl, taxation policies that favored private vehicle ownership, and general enthusiasm for the automobile."
"A number of analyses have suggested that the eventual replacement of electric-powered street cars with buses was inevitable and indeed occurred within the same timeframe in several other cities where NCL was not involved.[n 17] It has been suggested that the ultimate reach of GM's conspiracy extended to approximately 10% of all transit systems,[23] but the areas affected by GM's interference include 7 of the currently largest 9 metropolitan areas in the country."
"Others have suggested that streetcars were naturally replaced by the private automobile and the bus following the development of reliable internal combustion engines. These include Cliff Slater[n 18] and also by Randal O'Toole."
"According to Snell's testimony the New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad line in New York was profitable until it was acquired and converted to diesel trains.[n 19] In reality the line had been in financial difficulty for years and had filed for bankruptcy in 1935.[31] Ironically, the rail company had itself been indicted in 1914 on a charge of "conspiracy to monopolize interstate commerce by acquiring the control of practically all the transportation facilities of New England".[32]"
"GM Killed the Red cars in Los Angeles".[n 19] In reality Pacific Electric Railway (who operated the 'red cars') had been hemorrhaging routes as traffic congestion got much worse with growing prosperity and car ownership levels after the end of World War II long before GM became involved in 1953.[n 20]
Also... notice that all of this persons last 500 edits (except this one as far as I can see) have been of articles about makes and models of motorcars!

Personally I would suggest that we remove the banner from this article as a matter of urgency. I note that it was been viewed nearly 10,000 times in the past week. I would hate for 10,000 visitors in the next week to believe that there were serious issues with the article. -- PeterEastern (talk) 20:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Wikipedia does not require reliable sources to be "objective", though most of them in the article meet this mark. Binksternet (talk) 20:17, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Jonathan Kwitny (1981). "The Great Transportation Conspiracy: A juggernaut named desire". Harper's: 14.
- Span, Guy (2003). "Paving the Way for Buses—The Great GM Streetcar Conspiracy". Bay Crossings.
- The Automobile Age. p. 365. ISBN 978-0-262-56055-9.
- Van Wilkins (Summer 1995). "The Conspiracy Revisited". The New Electric Railway Journal. ISSN 1048-3845.
- Louis Guilbault. "The Conspiracy Revisited Rebutted".
- "General Motors' Destruction of California Transit Systems".
- Suburbanizing the masses: public transport and urban development in historical perspective. Ashgate Publishing Ltd. p. 192. ISBN 978-0-7546-0775-5.
- Lipson, David (1987). General Motors, National City Lines and the motor bus: the motor bus' role in the decline of mass transit in the United States. Harvard University.
- Post, Robert C. (2007). Urban Mass Transit: The Life Story of a Technology. Greenwood Publishing Group. p. 156. ISBN 978-0-313-33916-5.
- Susan Hanson, Genevieve Giuliano (2004). The Geography of Urban Transportation. Guilford Press, 3rd ed. p. 315. ISBN 1-59385-055-7.
Keep. Needs some ce work but should be kept. As for the cites, overall they meet the RS standard, as Binksternet states. Kierzek (talk) 20:23, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Unquestionably this is both a historical and still viable current article. The damage caused by this conspiracy, the absence of public transportation in the big cities of the United States, the pollution, traffic and the very function of our society are dealing with the residual of the conspiracy. I sit today just feet from an abandoned easement left by the destruction of these public transit lines. Mr. Snell's 1974 summation is very true today. This is a well sourced article, showing not only the numerous documented statements, but the courts decision that this was General Motors own doing. Numerous editors have bargained for each point in the text, opposing views have been thoroughly sorted over years of consensus editing. Wikipedia's only fault from that consensus is the recent renaming of the article to single out General Motors in the title, while leaving its co-conspirators in an unnamed mention deeper in the prose of the article. Trackinfo (talk) 21:17, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:18, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:18, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per above, WP:SNOW, and possible bad-faith nom. Ansh666 21:27, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Courcelles 23:09, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nasir Raza

[edit]

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

Does not appear notable Uberaccount (talk) 19:19, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In English at least, cannot find notable mentions.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 16:13, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:19, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:19, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:19, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and I expect this to be so uncontroversial that it probably could have been prodded. MezzoMezzo (talk) 11:11, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Courcelles 23:09, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

European geopolitical regions

[edit]

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

Pointless original research which puts "Caucasus" and "Visegrad Group" into one basket Staszek Lem (talk) 18:18, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree, this is OR. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:17, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:20, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, original research. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 21:02, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Transcendence (talk) 22:08, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Despite the voluminous defence of the article by one editor, they were the only person calling for keeping it. Coverage in reliable sources is the fundamental requirement of a Wikipedia article, and the consensus here is that such coverage does not exist. A redirect to The Rocket Record Company after deletion was suggested and I see this as a good idea and so I'll create it. Thryduulf (talk) 11:43, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rocket Records

[edit]

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

WP:Notability - I am not sure if this is a scam article or not. WP:Sources - As has been clearly identified by another editor. Sources don't support statements. Some are unreliable.

Puffery and furtherance of potentially untrue statements. They state they have numerous satellite offices on their website and that is then reiterated in this article. There are no sources to back this up and a simple Google search finds no data to support: 1. That these addresses/locations are real 2. They occupy space there. PeterWesco (talk) 17:34, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:20, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:21, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This AFD request is completely unwarranted. The legitimate article for Rocket Records is in no way a scam article/puffery piece, and the record label is a completely legitimate American company as can be easily found with a simple web search, in direct opposition to the unfounded and untrue statements posted directly above. This article meets all WP:MUSIC, BLP, and Notability guidelines for its continued inclusion in Wikipedia. As an honest editor and well-respected community member of WikiProject Record Labels, I find this particular AFD request to be completely unfounded, and the statements above about the article being a "scam article" and the company not being a legitimate company (which is patently false) both reckless and unproductive. These are the exact types of unwarranted AFD requests that WikiProject Record Labels has painstakingly set out to deal with over the past few months. While there are indeed numerous articles that should be removed from Wikipedia (especially when it comes to music), this is definitely not one of them. I am calling for the immediate closure of this unwarranted AFD discussion. My statements are NOT meant as a personal attack on you PeterWesco, but I do honestly wish that you would choose your words more carefully from now on and not make reckless statements which state your personal opinions as untrue facts. Numerous well-respected and longtime editors/administrators have contributed positively to this legitimate article over time, and in no way is this article a candidate for deletion. The article is being continually improved by both the community and WikiProject Record Labels team, and this AFD request for an article about a legitimate American record label is simply unproductive and unwarranted. Zachtron (talk) 22:01, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zero hits for the "legitimate American company" on Google. Zero evidence of "well-respected and longtime editors/administrators" contributing to this article. The long time editors have gone through it and questioned most every statement. Zero evidence of this "legitimate American record label" being in business longer than one year: Florida Articles of Incorporation - Business mailing address is a townhouse in Boca Raton Administratively dissolved by the Secretary of State prior to that: at what appears to be a residential address. Not registered (ever) to do business in NY: No Match PeterWesco (talk) 22:23, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Completely untrue statement, the Rocket Records you listed which was registered "to a townhouse" (unverified) is totally outdated. It looks as if that particular corporation was dissolved by the State of Florida some years ago. Also, if a corporation is registered out of state, they can have "satellite offices" (as you put it) in any state without being registered as a corporation there. It is offices, many companies do that, it is a common business practice within the United States.

Here are some key factors to note as it directly pertains to the record label, and indirectly the article:

1. Rocket Records is currently registered as an active corporation in the State of Florida and certified as such by the Secretary of State there. The label's executive office address officially registered with the State of Florida fully matches the address publicly listed by the label itself.

2. On the label's front page of their official website, they are distributing Backstreet Boys member Howie Dorough's most recent solo album. The label would be sued and barred from doing so under U.S. Federal law if this was not the case. Also, Dorough himself is pictured numerous times recently on the label's official website with various executives of the label.

3. The label is officially certified under the RIAA, as well as its publishing catalogs with ASCAP and BMI. A "spam company" would never be allowed these distinctions.

4. A moderate web search on Google, Yahoo, Bing, and other common search engines brings up various hits, articles, etc. about the label. I suggest doing more of a thorough search before incorrectly stating the label does not show up on Google at all. As a matter of fact the label's official website comes up as the top hit on Google, so your statement about the label not appearing in Google at all is completely inaccurate.

5. The article's history does indeed show that various editors have made helpful contributions to the article, and recent comments by administrators suggesting that new reliable sources be added to it were constructive edits aimed at bettering the article for the community, not in any way at all for its deletion as you have proposed.

This article is not a warranted candidate for deletion in any way, but like all legitimate Wikipedia articles, should be continually improved upon for the betterment of the entire Wikipedia community, especially as a part of WikiProject Record Labels. Also, the article does meet WP:MUSIC, WP:Notability,, and WP:Sources guidelines, although as correctly pointed out by an experienced administrator very recently, some references should be improved upon and a few more reliable sources added/changed in order to make this completely legitimate article better for the community.

Zachtron (talk) 00:30, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the argument about existence or not is a bit of a side-track because whether it exists or not, or is registered or not, is irrelevant to AFD anyway. What matters here is whether or not the company is notable or not, with reference to WP:CORPDEPTH. I will happily accept that the company exists, but it doesn't necessarily WP:INHERIT notability from the people it represents (which would need to be verified anyway) and I can't see a depth of significant coverage in reliable sources that would suggest it is notable. I suggest we move away from arguments as to whether it is registered or not and consider whether the subject is notable, as is the point of AFD. More than happy to consider conjecture in that regard or to look at any reliable sources that confer notability. Stalwart111 00:37, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I completely agree with your first point about not getting side-tracked Stalwart. However, the record label itself does meet WP:Notability with reference to WP:CORPDEPTH as it pertains to newer WP:MUSIC category specific guidelines for inclusion. By distributing Dorough's album(s) as well as other notable music acts, the label itself is the notable entity, and does not inherit notability from celebrity musicians such as Dorough. Remember, as a record label, the "people" that the label represents (especially its executives/artists) have a meaningful and unique connection to the label, but do not "pass long" notability to it because of this fact. The label's own merits are notable enough. Also, some of the source references which are about the label's executives and mention the label are not passing along notability, but are merely strengthening the label's own independent notability (which it does have). You seem like a very rational contributor Stalwart, so hopefully you will understand what I am stating here because WP:MUSIC guidelines are different from most, and record labels are a very unique category which I am sure you know. WikiProject Record Labels, which I am an active member of, has done a lot of work recently on articles for this record label and others like it, which are notable enough under new WP:MUSIC category specific guidelines for record labels, but which should of course be continually improved upon for the betterment of Wikipedia. It is essential for the entire project to better these articles and properly categorize them, not delete them as I am sure you can rationally understand.

Zachtron (talk) 00:57, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To be perfectly honest, I'm not really sure what you mean by, "WP:MUSIC category specific guidelines for inclusion". I can't see any discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (music) about new inclusion criteria for record labels. Do you mean you are going to propose some or that you just don't think WP:MUSIC should apply in this instance? Distributing the music of notable musicians does not make the company inherently notable and suggesting as much is an argument that's not likely to gain much traction here. You need to have a read of WP:RS and then provide links here to some sources that meet that guideline that give significant coverage to the subject. "The label's own merits are notable enough" is not likely to be considered a strong argument. Stalwart111 01:08, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, general WP:MUSIC guidelines should not apply here, but rather category specific guidelines for music producers, composers, songwriters, and executives, which were all recently updated by the community and continue to evolve (which mostly define record labels). I fully understand WP:RS, all I am saying is that record labels are very unique in themselves, and the individuals associated with them (executives, producers, composers, songwriters, artists, etc.) have a tremendous amount to do with the all the different labels' own notability, but not passing along notability for the labels themselves to inherit. In the music industry, 99% of articles, references, etc., are usually about artists, executives, producers, contributors, etc., which include coverage of labels within them. If excessive and super stringent WP:RS and WP:Notability applied to record labels, we would not have articles for any notable record label, even the largest major labels in existence today. I of course propose continually improving this article (as well as all record label articles) with as many new reliable references as possible, but to keep in mind the tremendous uniqueness of record labels in relation to WP:RS and WP:Notability for them. Zachtron (talk) 01:38, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I understand what you mean about WP:MUSIC now. I suppose the problem here is that while there are now specific criteria for producers, composers, songwriters, and executives there are no such specific criteria for record labels because we already have WP:CORPDEPTH. Where a subject might be covered by a specific criteria but doesn't quite fit, the answer is to fall back to a relevant criteria or one of the primary criteria. In this case (given we're talking about a company) that would be WP:CORPDEPTH or (falling further back) WP:GNG. If record labels are unique enough (within their own industry and within the context of industry in general) to warrant their own inclusion criteria then that needs to be proposed and you are free to do so. Until then, arguing for a shift in policy to suit one article will likely not be a productive use of your time. Until then, CORPDEPTH is the relevant standard and I don't think it's "excessive" or particularly "stringent" to insist that a corporation pass CORPDEPTH to be included on WP. Stalwart111 03:42, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand what you are saying about WP:CORPDEPTH, although I think that within WP:CORPDEPTH record labels fall under the Alternate criteria for specific types of organizations classification for being as unique as record labels indeed are. WikiProject Record Labels is trying to enhance legitimate record label articles so that they are simply not undesirable "Stubs" that leave readers unsatisfied, which unfortunately there are a lot of out there these days. The article currently does meet WP:MUSIC (including Notability) project tag scale guidelines for C level record labels (which is only slightly above Stub level), but as mentioned recently by a few other editors, some new reliable references should be added (which I am working on along with other members of WikiProject Record Labels and WikiProject Music) to enhance the article. I do not feel that just deleting the article would be productive in any way at all since the label does meet certain WP:MUSIC (including Notability) project tag scale standards for C level record labels, but adding some more reliable references to better satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH is indeed the proper thing to do, especially because as both of us have productively established, record labels are kind of "stuck in between" WP:MUSIC and WP:CORPDEPTH due to their overall uniqueness. I'm sure more reliable references can be added which will better establish WP:CORPDEPTH notability, even under WP:CORPDEPTH's Alternate criteria for specific types of organizations distinction. Zachtron (talk) 05:04, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd hate for you to misunderstand where I'm coming from - I don't think they are stuck in the middle. They are companies and so should (in my view) meet WP:CORPDEPTH or be deleted. The section of CORPDEPTH that you reference is prefaced with the note, No organization is considered notable except to the extent that independent sources demonstrate that it has been noticed by people outside of the organization and is followed by a series of sub-headings, none of which I believe this subject is likely to fit into anyway. Attempts to add sources are commendable but I would strongly suggest you start a list the talk page for this AFD so people can consider them against WP:RS and WP:GNG. As an aside, user-added assessments of articles are (basically) never considered with respect to notability. Good and Featured Articles can be deleted if they are about non-notable subjects. Stalwart111 05:24, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand now where you are coming from with regards to your thoughts on WP:CORPDEPTH as it relates to record labels. I also know that user-added assessments do indeed mean very little to nothing at all with respect to notability. My whole point is adding reliable sources which clearly demonstrate the notability of the label itself, and not inherited notability from the major celebrity music acts such as Dorough and other key individuals that the label is notable for. If your opinion is to classify the label as a general company that must meet WP:CORPDEPTH (to which I partially agree with), than reliable sources demonstrating the notability of the label itself will be needed in order to meet the WP:CORPDEPTH guidelines with regards to WP:GNG as you have stated. However, I respectfully disagree with your sentiment that record labels are "ordinary" companies which should fall directly under WP:CORPDEPTH. I personally feel that they should meet WP:MUSIC GNG guidelines first and foremost, but also meet a certain level of WP:CORPDEPTH guidelines as well. You raised a very good point earlier about proposing new guidelines all together for record labels under WP:MUSIC GNG guidelines since there seems to be little attention paid to that area. It is a proposal that I may indeed make and use this article (as well as a few other record labels like it) as the "test case". In fact, that is why community members started WikiProject Record Labels some time back, although they failed to really follow up on new GNG guidelines for record labels under WP:MUSIC. In the meantime we can keep this discussion open, or perhaps close it when/if reliable sources which meet WP:CORPDEPTH GNG guidelines are added/approved. I agree about WP:CORPDEPTH GNG guidelines having a large factor at present time, but I also think that existing (and hopefully new) WP:MUSIC GNG guidelines as it directly pertains to record labels should carry the most weight since record labels is the main subject matter at hand. I'm a little bit surprised that new GNG guidelines for record labels were never really addressed when all of the recent WP:MUSIC category guidelines were made by the community at-large, but then again as I stated before, record labels are quite often last on the "music pecking order" behind artists, producers, composers, songwriters, executives, etc., especially when it comes to overall coverage, so maybe that should not be too surprising at all. We can keep the discussion going, but your suggestion earlier about possibly proposing specific GNG guidelines for record labels under WP:MUSIC may indeed be a good idea, and also very productive for Wikipedia all together. Zachtron (talk) 07:01, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I think record labels are specifically not addressed at WP:MUSIC because that guideline is about people or groups of people. A record label isn't a "group of people" like a band and categorising it as such (I think) is disingenuous because it relies on inherited notability. A group of musicians in a band must be notable for what they have done as a band for the band to be included on WP. What they have done previously is inconsequential - it doesn't make their "latest project" notable. Likewise, what a music executive has done previously might make him notable, but it doesn't make his "latest project" (company, band, family, product, etc) notable. For the company to be notable it needs to pass WP:CORPDEPTH - there are simply no WP:MUSIC guidelines for it to meet because it is not a person and cannot be given credit for the creative things its employees do/have done. At this point I'd caution you against bludgeoning the process by responding to every delete opinion. The best way to convince people is to provide a list of reliable sources that give the subject "significant coverage" to demonstrate it meets WP:GNG. Do that and arguments about other criteria will be a moot point. Stalwart111 23:03, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy~~ Delete and redirect Per nomination and PeterWesco. Most importantly, an article was previously created by a bunch of socks (see Talk:The Rocket Record Company collapsed section). They were all blocked and about a month later the Zachtron account was created and their only purpose appears to be to recreate this non-notable, self-promotional article.--I am One of Many (talk) 07:17, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We have a productive discussion going on here, and I don't know what your issue is IAOOM, but you have no right to lump me in with a bunch of sock puppet individuals that were blocked from Wikipedia in the past. I do not know where you get "self-promotion" accusations from, because the article is totally neutral with multiple sources (although some do need to be improved). Also, look at all of my article edit contributions (many that have zero to do with Rocket Records), because I have contributed in good faith to many different articles even though I have spent a lot of time recently trying to improve this particular article. I have never done anything to contribute to Wikipedia in an unproductive manner, and your comments lumping me in with strangers are not productive. If you don't like this article that is fine, but do not jump into the middle of a productive discussion and start throwing reckless accusations around at me in order to support your "buddy" (I'm guessing by the timing of it). For the record, I even supported the deletion of articles that I contributed (Ryan Prescott and Diverse) after the general consensus was that they failed Notability. I always respect the community's opinions even when I do not agree with them. Zachtron (talk) 07:38, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article that used to be Rocket Records was moved to The Rocket Record Company. It is not clear what Elton John's original company was called but here [4] is a reliable source that calls it Rocket Records. At the very least, Rocket Records should redirect to The Rocket Record Company.--I am One of Many (talk) 18:33, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is a good idea. Given that many articles, images, etc., that link to Rocket Records refer to the Elton John label, this would serve as a legitimate redirect and would save some time, in that it makes more sense than going through and relinking all of those articles to the new location. --Kinu ^t/_c
That is no way factually correct^[1]^[2]^[3] (though the Elton John label was mistakenly referred to as "RR" by some), and every single internal Wikipedia link (articles, images, artist articles, album articles, producer articles, songwriter articles, etc.) which had any association and linked to Elton John's old label was properly re-linked directly to The Rocket Record Company article, ensuring full link integrity. That process took over 3 full weeks to complete (it was not easy either), but was done to properly satisfy the exact concern you just raised Kinu. If you feel this article for the American record label should be deleted, and that is the consensus then fine, but the existing Rocket Records is a legitimate record label officially registered with the RIAA and not some "spam company". That is indeed actual fact. Zachtron (talk) 21:38, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
a.k.a Rocket Records [5]--I am One of Many (talk) 21:58, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Like I stated, that was an indeed an incorrect name mistakenly used at times (it drove Elton John crazy too). This is the actual name [1] for Elton's old label, both officially and in the published media. The Rocket Record Company and Rocket Records are both commercially registered and officially licensed record labels under the RIAA, though Elton's old label is now defunct and the American label is a currently existing entity. It would simply be very productive and great for reader experience to improve all record label articles and properly categorize them. That is the main directive of WikiProject Record Labels as initiated by the Wikipedia community at-large, in particular WikiProject Music's sub project (which includes WikiProject Record Labels) contributors. Zachtron (talk) 22:31, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"a.k.a." means "also know as." The Rocket Record Company is also known as Rocket Records and that is the only thing notable about Rocket Records and why, after deletion, Rocket Records should be redirected to The Rocket Record Company.--I am One of Many (talk) 22:52, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If a move of The Rocket Record Company back to Rocket Records is being considered, I'd like to discourage that. Elton John's company was occasionally referred to by its official name in reliable sources, as shown by Google Books hits: [6]. WP:COMMONNAME says "Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources." Rocket Records is ambiguous because it may refer to the newer company that is the current subject of Rocket Records. If this article is deleted, I see no problem with the redirect requested by User:I am One of Many; a move to Rocket Record Company would be fine too. —rybec 22:47, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rybec is absolutely correct, although fortunately I do not think that IAOOM or anybody else here is suggesting moving anything, which would be totally incorrect. I still disagree with IAOOM saying that "Rocket Records" is notable only for Elton's old label, but obviously a re-direct would be the only secondary option which would make some sense if this article about the existing American record label is fully deleted. I rationally suggest "Stubbing" this record label article for a short period of time and allowing the community to improve upon it with newer reliable references rather than a total delete, which I honestly do not believe serves a productive purpose for readers. If Notability is the main issue, Stub the American label's article temporarily and get better reliable sources which meet WP:GNG (for WP:MUSIC) and WP:CORP guidelines. If those guidelines cannot be met after a short period of time, re-direct "Rocket Records" to The Rocket Record Company until such point in time that WP:GNG (for music) and WP:CORP can be better established for the existing American label Rocket Records. I am starting an official proposal over at WP:MUSIC for the community at-large to better establish and decide upon inclusion guidelines for record labels, a category which was not covered in the recent WP:MUSIC GNG updates made by the general community. This is all that I am simply suggesting. Zachtron (talk) 23:58, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs run for seven days. That is more than enough time to find sources, if they exist. Also, looking at Special:WhatLinksHere/Rocket_Records, your claim that "every single internal Wikipedia link" was changed isn't quite accurate. A redirect (because, quite frankly, I see no hope of this article being saved; the references just don't exist) would make changing those links unnecessary. --Kinu ^t/_c 00:04, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of whether or not this article about the American record label is saved, I will go about the productive task of changing (it should not take me more than a week) all of the remaining Elton-related links directly to The Rocket Record Company. I did already do my best to directly link all of Elton's albums as well as many of his old label's artists to the page for The Rocket Record Company. This should be done regardless, because even if the article about the existing American record label Rocket Records is ultimately deleted, a future new one (or perhaps something different all-together) may possibly be created once WP:GNG and WP:CORP have been better established for the American label through new reliable references and media coverage. Zachtron (talk) 00:45, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this spam. Rocket Records lack coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:25, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Many of the sources provided in this article do not meet WP:RS; those that are reliable sources do not discuss this company the depth necessary to show WP:GNG or WP:CORP is met. Indeed, some of the sources don't even mention the company at all, so why they are included as references is incomprehensible. If all the uncited and irrelevant content were to be removed, there would be nothing left here that isn't just an attempt at notability by association. This article appears to be part of a walled garden in that the creator has edited little to nothing outside of the scope of this and related coatrack articles that are similarly poorly-sourced puff pieces. (Addendum: after deletion, recreate as a redirect to The Rocket Record Company.) --Kinu ^t/_c 13:01, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I just contributed a moderate edit to this article, deleting mostly the poorly sourced and non-relevant information found in the article as correctly noted by various editors/administrators. This shortened the article by a good deal as well. I also classified the article as a Record Label Stub, so that it can be productively expanded upon by the community at-large. I suggest keeping the newly edited article as a Record Label Stub under WikiProject Record Labels and WikiProject Music as opposed to a full deletion, which would not serve a fully productive purpose for community readers in my honest estimation. New WP:MUSIC guidelines (including WP:GNG and WP:CORP specific to record labels) will hopefully be quickly established via official proposal of such to the entire community at-large. The community at-large recently made changes to WP:MUSIC article inclusion guidelines for all articles about music producers, composers, and songwriters, and article inclusion guidelines for record labels will most likely be classified somewhat similarly, though exactly how so is still yet to be determined by the Wikipedia community at-large. Zachtron (talk) 18:03, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Considering there are zero reliable sources that discuss the company provided in an article that is supposed to be about the company, I would guess your proposal will have zero traction. WP:V is a policy. There has been plenty of time to find sources. If they don't exist, no article. Sorry. To use your words, keeping an article that does not even come close to meeting Wikipedia's editorial standards "would not serve a fully productive purpose for community readers." --Kinu ^t/_c 18:11, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an article from The New York Times about Rocket Records. The New York Times is certainly a reliable source and strong enough to use as a verifiable reference for keeping the article about Rocket Records as a Record Label Stub article rather than a full delete. This source certainly addresses WP:GNG, WP:V WP:CORP, and WP:MUSIC. I would think everybody would at least agree that fairly significant coverage in The New York Times certainly helps legitimize the label's notability in a pretty solid capacity. Zachtron (talk) 00:11, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How come this site was apparently just created today? [7]. Why does every link take me back to the legitimate New York Times site? Why can't I find this article on the real New York Times archive site?--I am One of Many (talk) 00:47, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are really grasping at straws now in my opinion IAOOM. I'm not a believer in conspiracies, and domains get updated every single day I would imagine. I wonder why all of the links would directly go back and connect to the real New York Times website as you just pointed out. Maybe because it a part of the real site? Everything checks out on the link you just provided, the site is a section of the official Times website, and is even registered to the Times company in New York. I suggest perhaps just admitting that you were a bit incorrect rather than grasping at empty straws and conspiracies? I am not a media expert by any means, but The New York Times would never have run that story or officially own a domain registered directly to them. I'm sorry, but now I think you are either really over-reaching to prove an incorrect point or perhaps have a personal agenda regarding this particular article. I honestly have no idea what it is, but it seems really out there with all due respect IAOOM.

By the way, isn't GoDaddy a major domain name company (sorry, I'm not that personally familiar with how domain names work)? They would definitely get sued by The New York Times if there is a conspiracy as you are suggesting in my opinion. I just scrolled the entire website article links and it is definitely part on the New York Times website. I'm not the smartest guy in the world when it comes to web stuff but even I can see that. Zachtron (talk) 01:07, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the whois for the nytimes [8]. The site you posted looks like a spam site to me. It appears to only have this one article on it... hmmm... If you search the archives on the real nytimes site, you can't find this "article". If you find it on the real site, then I'll consider it as a possible independent source.--I am One of Many (talk) 01:15, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is an archived article from March 2012, and the Times probably has thousands of those. The domain name link that you provided is registered to The New York Times Company. Obviously it is a part of their official website and/or company network of sites. How much more "independent" of a source do you need? You actually just provided a very helpful link to prove that the website is not a spam website. It is owned by the New York Times itself as per the link that you just provided. Either GoDaddy would get sued by The New York Times or the Times would definitely get sued by the label Rocket Records for libel if your conspiracy held any weight at all in my personal opinion. It is a New York Times article from last year about the label on a New York Times owned website from the information you provided and is found in The New York Times archives where the article is located. Zachtron (talk) 01:19, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the record says the details of the registrant were provided by the registrant, "as is" with no control as to what details are provided and no oversight from GoDaddy. Given the highly detailed entry for the obviously legitimate NYTimes site, it does seem strange that an archives site would be created yesterday, with one article, registered with a domain provider that is different to that used by NYT for every other URL they own and without the same manager details (the names of individuals are provided by the NYT for other URLs). I'm not one for conspiracy theories either, but to use a WP analogy, WP:QUACK. Stalwart111 01:26, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And here's what the New York Times site has to say about New York Times archives - NYT archive. No mention of an external site. This should actually be very easy to resolve. Given every other NYT-associated URL is registered to an individual (in addition to the company) and this URL isn't, an email to that individual asking her to confirm whether it is one of hers should do the trick. Stalwart111 01:35, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I don't know much about domain names and web stuff as I stated. In fact, I know very little to nothing about them. The article came up in a Bing and Google search far down the pages when searching for "Rocket Records record label". I honestly do not believe in far out there conspiracies that would be this elaborate by hoaxers/hackers, but perhaps there are aliens in the universe and life on other planets that I don't know about either. The administrator Kinu said that the current sources are not sufficient enough, and The New York Times does meet Wikipedia reference guidelines. I don't know what else to say other than I'm about to give up on productively saving this article for WikiProject Music simply because it has gotten beyond "chaotic" and controversial with some of you editors for some inexplicable reason. I really do not know what else to honestly say or think at this point, but there are many other record label articles which need work, so we will see how this goes and if more references can be found by the WikiProject Music team members. Zachtron (talk) 01:55, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem is that is was created yesterday. Even searching whole quotes in quotation marks doesn't bring the article up in Google results. Searching for the author and subject brings up 4 results - none of them relating to this "article". It's hard to see how the Google "bots" could possible have found this, "crawled" it in less than 24 hours and produce it as a result for a general search, when a specific search produces nothing. If it's not available in google now, how were you able to find it hours earlier and only hours after it was created? Add to that the obviously questionable domain and it starts to look like someone created the site and the article yesterday right at the point where the primary subject is being considered for deletion here and not long after article proponents were told that an article in the NYT (for example) would change the outcome. WP:AGF and all that, but you have to concede it is very strange, the timing even more so. It's certainly a lot of effort for someone to go to for the sake of keeping an article but it's nothing we haven't see here before when conflicts of interest are involved. Stalwart111 02:29, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I usually assume good faith with contributors, and in this case I just can't see these various entities all being legally liable for this. The domain name registrant company GoDaddy, The New York Times, Rocket Records, etc.. I just think this is reaching at a conspiracy that simply does not exist based on the link provided by IAOOM, but we'll see. I would think lawsuits in court would be a real possibility between all of these different companies if this is a fake hoax, and the record label Rocket Records is officially registered with the RIAA which is not possible unless legitimate commercial music releases have been put out by them. Also, wouldn't the celebrity music acts like that Backstreet Boys member sue the record label or New York Times if this was a hoax? I'm sure the Backstreet Boy must have a lot of money in the coffer based on his career earnings. Maybe the WikiProject Music team will find other sources as well to either confirm/disprove this one, but it just seems like a drawing at straws conspiracy to me by editors that simply do not like this article. I understand some of what you are saying Stalwart, and I know very little to nothing about web stuff as I said, but there just appears to be too much real and tangible information out there for such a conspiracy hoax to exist. Hey, maybe there is life on Mars too, who knows. Zachtron (talk) 02:41, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stalwart, you are correct, they never found it in searches on google or bing, it is not indexed yet on either. So, I guess we are suppose to believe that the New York Times created a new website yesterday just for this article and they sent a link to it to Zachtron just to save this article on rocket records?--I am One of Many (talk) 02:42, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IAOOM, chill with the attack accusations please. You will definitely find it on Bing scrolling a ways down the pages with search term. If you have a problem with the source than check it out, but don't get on me personally with unwarranted accusations again. Whether the Rocket Records article gets saved or not will happen one way or another, but please no more negative comment attacks on me personally. We are trying to catalog all of these RIAA certified record labels as best as possible under WikiProject Music, and your rude public comments at me are not appreciated. Not an attack on you, just saying it's not needed is all. I know you don't like this article and I get your point. Just please show me a tiny bit of respect even if you do not like my editing contributions. I have a lot of other work to do for other music articles, so we'll see what happens with this one. Thank you and regards. Zachtron (talk) 02:56, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This website is a joke and is clearly garbage. Created today, not registered to someone with a @nytimes.com e-mail address, non-functional internal links (the "print" link at the bottom is particularly telling), no evidence of any other archival material on the site, no evidence of a Jeff Trager writing any such article for the NYT? Seriously, find another hobby. Note: I am blocking this editor because, at this point, WP:AGF is out the window. --Kinu ^t/_c 03:14, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete It pains me to say this, as I thought I was getting some help at Record Labels, even if by a self-appointed "respected leader", but I'm not sure the whole thing isn't a hoax at this point. There is an article about the founder, but as in this article, all references are irrelevant or unreliable. Perhaps it also needs AFD. Every important claim is unverified. I have searched all Billboard archives, and I can not find anything about Tim Coons, or Atlantic Hill Music, which seems odd given the claims of working with such major artists, both here in this article and on the Atlantic Hill website. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 04:21, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I thought we were dealing with socks spamming a non-notable record label, but looking into it more carefully, it does all appear to be an internet hoax, including the Wikipedia article Christopher Pasquin. If so, Zachtron has created substantial damage that will have to be corrected (i.e., redirects, some link changes, and text in articles).--I am One of Many (talk) 06:35, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure it's a hoax - there are all sorts of photos of various people, some with celebrities, details of a whole bunch of non-notable up-and-coming artists that do seem to exist and photos of people with instruments, recording equipment and various other things. Those photos are limited to the websites of the companies in question but it strikes me as something that would take far more effort to fake than it would to simply start a non-notable recording company (which even I could do). So I don't think we're dealing with a hoax, just a non-notable company and associated non-notable people. Stalwart111 10:19, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move to close - only one person thought this should be kept and he has now been indef'd for disruptive editing. No need to prolong the pain, surely? Stalwart111 10:19, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]

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.

The result was delete. Courcelles 23:10, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

William Lennon

[edit]

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

Article is about a business person that does not have significant coverage in independent reliable sources to meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. The sourcing in the article consists of a local profile on a Lokring distributor. Lennon is simply named in the caption of the accompanying image. This falls well short of what would be needed to qualify as a significant coverage. Lennon is mentioned in an article from the university paper which is not a good source for establishing notability and the coverage again falls well short of significant. Whpq (talk) 17:15, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I previously nominated this for PROD on grounds of "No evidence that the subject meets the notability criteria" It was deleted in October 2012 but restored yesterday on the request of someone from the subject's company. I have found nothing to confirm that either the company (nominated elsewhere for deletion) or the subject meets the respective ntability criteria. AllyD (talk) 20:40, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Could find no special mention in business press, BW profile being just a one-line entry (dump from Hoover's?).Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 16:20, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:21, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:21, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Courcelles 23:10, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Latina women and the body

[edit]

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

Original research on a very broad and vague topic Staszek Lem (talk) 17:04, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:21, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:22, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete some kid's homework. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, original research. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 21:03, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, OR indeed.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 16:22, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) TBrandley (T • C • B) 02:15, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anne-Marie Baiynd

[edit]

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

While her book seems notable (most references discuss that), no significant coverage about her. Some interviews or mentions as a financial expert on sites, which is part of her job. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I made the article about her and not her book alone because she was named in a recent book about traders as "World's Most Successful Traders" (Currently ref one). There are not many traders with a name that is easily recognized even though there are many traders in the world. She has also been one of the few recurring speakers for the Market Technicians Association (main organization in the field) does make her notable for that field. --Gene Hobbs (talk) 17:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:22, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:22, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I can see non-trivial coverage of Baiynd herself, rather than her book, in multiple sources, for example: Forbes, MoneyShow.com, Traders.com - check the article references for more. The Forbes coverage is not much, but it's there, and most of the other sources may be marginal for "reliability" - i.e. "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", but there are quite a few sources on the web (Google for "Anne-Marie Baiynd" -wikipedia gives 107,000 ghits) including many seemingly serious online publications devoted to trading. This isn't conclusive evidence that WP:BIO is met, but there seems enough to me to suggest that she's notable for more than just the book (being notable for her job is still notability, of course). --RexxS (talk) 22:25, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable in her field; if she was an academic she'd pass the WP:ACADEMIC notability criteria (which makes me think we should expand WP:ACADEMIC to any professional in their field, but that's a discussion for elsewhere). ~Amatulić (talk) 02:08, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sufficient media exposure. Some will doubt the very basis of technical trade, but that's another issue.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 16:29, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all of the above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:52, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Thryduulf (talk) 11:32, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wedlock (band)

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:Promo/WP:SPAM/WP:PAID(?) - Article is continuously edited by a long list of blocked and banned spammers, sockpuppets, etc.

WP:GNG - Not notable

Failed Good Article with a closing comment of "I'm not convinced they are even notable." here

Was deleted in an AfD back in 2007. Only to be resurrected and then heavily edited by aforementioned gangs of spammers. PeterWesco (talk) 16:52, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete""". Articles like this should be zapped. Peter Wesco and I are trying to do just that, right Pete? You best know I AM a sockpuppet of ALL such sock puppets.I don't care who knows it now, either. So let's get to the deletion portion of the process, shall we? I've already weighed in as to why it should be gone, and Pete knows it. So use your good sense and do what's been asked of you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dennisbrowner (talk • contribs) 20:24, 8 May 2013 (UTC) [reply]
Delete. Advert constructed by a bunch of sockpuppets. Allmusic is the only independent source used and that just has a short cursory mention. The Village Idiot (RS?) is just the band talking about themselves. Bearded Magazine (RS?) is just the band talking about themselves. Previous GA status was from a bunch of socks talking to themselves. duffbeerforme (talk) 17:20, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You might like to rethink that last comment or at least back it up. I gave the article its GA status and am no mans sock. AIRcorn (talk) 01:01, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay some digging found an ANI discussion and a sockpuppet investigation. It is possible that many of the commentators at the reassessment were socks and was something I did not check for. I didn't pass the article based on numbers, but if this is kept and someone wants to put it through another reassessment then that is probably for the best. AIRcorn (talk) 01:45, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not everyone involoved in the disussion was a sockpuppet. Some were innocent parties doing the right thing. Aircorn is not on the list of possible sockpuppets. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:22, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, because the band may be notable. It doesn't seem to meet any of the WP:BAND criteria, however.
I'll add that several related articles to this one would likely be deleted as a consequence of this one being deleted:
Paul Allgood
Exogamy (album)
Continuity (album)
Witnesses EP
I agree that while the sourcing disqualified the article from being speedy deletion, the sourcing is poor. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:20, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:22, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Some of the history here is a bit confused. The article was failed by JayJay (talk · contribs) here following this review Talk:Wedlock (band)/GA1. It was then brought to WP:GAR where I became involved with it. Jayjay actually asked me at my talk page [9], but I am pretty active at WP:GAR so would have likely done so anyway. The reassessment can be found here. I passed the article after about a month of reassessment [10]. Anyway that is all rather irrelevant to the AFD as notability is not a criteria articles are judged on so the GA status of this article should have no bearing on the result. AIRcorn (talk) 01:14, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have to agree with Duff that the best source is Allmusic and it is probably not enough for the article to stand on its own. AIRcorn (talk) 01:25, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. I've looked for sources for both Wedlock and 105 Deckowls (which is what this band is also known as) and found nothing reliable bar the 3 sources from Allmusic [11][12][13]. If they had received coverage elsewhere in reliable sources then I'd lean more towards keep, but as it is I think they fail WP:BAND. — sparklism ^hey! 10:53, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't pass our band guidelines and is apparently being used for promotion. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:00, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I know my review was kinda sloppy and could have been expanded but I really didn't think it was GA quality at the time. I don't think the article should have been promoted but the re-assesment dragged on too long and I was tired of dealing with it. As for the sockpuppets, they didn't even cross my mind (although I was suspicious about the SlowFatKid). Regardless of all this they aren't notable so it should be deleted JayJay^{What did I do?} 18:05, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 21:04, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article, but delete the rest of the articles nominated for deletion in the walled garden. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:03, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What and for what reason should this be kept? JayJay^{What did I do?} 16:10, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SNOW PeterWesco (talk) 21:24, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 18:15, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Get Fuzzy characters

[edit]

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

In-universe fancruft, no sourcing beyond the strips themselves. Most of these characters were only around for one story arc and are not relevant to the comic. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:00, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. czar · · 02:01, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. czar · · 02:02, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. czar · · 02:04, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support deletion: As the nominator suggests, this is nothing more than an unreferenced, original-research fan page. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:05, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not qualify for its own article, lots of WP:PUFF and WP:OR everywhere, relies on a single source. Perhaps some of the more notable secondary characters would go into Get Fuzzy, but otherwise, delete. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 02:14, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — detailed listing is too long for main article but is still very useful. Short-term recurring characters are not covered in excessive detail. Editors have put a significant amount of work into it over a period of two years. Also, where are you going to find a much reference material about any comic strip, except for major classics like Superman? –radiojon (talk) 20:46, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a valid argument. And think about it — if there are no sources, then there's no notability, and it shouldn't have an article. We don't cut slack for anything even if it's something you think it'd be hard to find sources for. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:52, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. By its own terms, ITSUSEFUL is a valid argument in assessing whether to keep a spinout article when the parent topic is clearly notable. This is a pure content dispute, and doesn't belong at AFD. Whether this article needs substantial pruning, or whether it should be summarized and reinserted into the parent, is a routine content decision. What the nominator proposes -- removing all discussion of the characters in a fictional work -- is plainly inappropriate and obviously inconsistent with consensus practice. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 12:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I said "most" of the characters are not relevant. Summarizing just the three main ones in the main article is all you really need. I would be okay if the content on just the main three were merged. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:43, 30 April 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 · · 16:16, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete With no secondary sources this is really the opinions of people who read the strip. If merged cut out 90% or more of the material. No need to retell the jokes. Kitfoxxe (talk) 16:40, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. If you want to "find reference material" on a comic strip go to your local bookstore or Amazon.com and BUY a collection of the strips. Kitfoxxe (talk) 16:43, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm usually a supporter of character list articles, but this one is WAY too larded with trivial plot detail. It's also entirely sourced to one primary source. Even on character lists, reliable secondary sources are not optional. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:37, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per reasons given by Kitfoxxe. This is the definition of fancruft. — Scott • talk 10:21, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, as appropriate, with Get Fuzzy (after a lot of pruning). Miniapolis 13:30, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. In this case, no consensus between Keep and Merge, which is an editorial issue. Black Kite (talk) 18:16, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Holistic Management International

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This was deleted at AFD1 but taken to DRV at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2013_April_12. The outcome of the DRV is to relist the discussion to evaluate the sources that were added to the article later on and not commented on. As DRV close I am neutral. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:48, 20 April 2013 (UTC) Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:48, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I previously 'voted' delete. However, my understanding of WP:NONPROFIT is that charitable organisations of national or international scope need their activities to be verifiable in independent sources. There are several independent sources (for example Source 1) which give a reasonable overview of HMI and its activities and could be used to build a useful Wikipedia article. HMI is clearly or international scope. However, many of the sources are worthless, listings on Start2Farm.gov and primary sources written by Allan Savory or linked directly to HMI. These need to be replaced. There's been a bit of desparate addition of these sort of sources to try and prove HMI is more notable than it really is. But I believe this is now a clean-up issue, rather than reason for deletion. Sionk (talk) 10:23, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - My opinion hasn't changed from before. It is only just notable, but I think the GNG is met. SmartSE (talk) 10:46, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~Weak keep~~ - I said my piece at the DRV and have agreed to help the original author fix the article. Stalwart111 11:41, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Having now had a chance to do some clean-up and have a proper look through some of the sources, I've found quite a few that cover the organisation's work in some detail - books, magazines, etc. I'm fairly convinced the subject passes WP:GNG, even though the independent sources are hard to find among the non-independent ones published by those linked to the subject. So changed my note. Stalwart111 03:48, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep/merge Over its 28 year history under three different names it has amassed a large number of news articles mentioning it. On the whole these articles are as much about the technique Holistic Management as the organisation. I be happy with a merge into Holistic Management.--Salix (talk): 17:13, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge — HMI has lots of passing mentions and less in-depth coverage than I'd expect from such a longstanding company. Most of what it's done and gotten coverage for can be presented in the Allan Savory article. There's a serious problem with relating the term "holistic management" to this subject, or even to holistic management, as many, many sources use it in an unrelated way (see talk). Though the relationship with Savory has apparently ended, I've found no substantial coverage of HMI alone since that rift (especially by a totally unrelated party, having neither to do with Savory and his wife Jody Butterfield nor purse strings and PR). The tendency to WP:BOMBARD and sometimes outright WP:FAKE it can't make up for the fact that as far as 28-year-old international nonprofits go, this one isn't very notable at all. Parsing and aggregating mentions of corporate reincarnations is likewise unhelpful. The original deletion was proper. JFHJr (㊟) 17:37, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
merge to Savory,, not to Holistic management. Holistic management is a very general term--most of the available references refer to it in different senses than this--some fairly closely related, others not. It's a vogue word meaning trying to take the natural or human environment into account, & I think almost meaningless. That Savory chooses to use it for his theories is reasonable enough, but doesn't give him a trademark on it--it is undue emphasis to make it appear as if he coined the phrase in general. A possible redirect would be Holistic management in agriculture--which again could mean other things that Savory's methods, but at present seems to be used mainly for them. DGG ( talk ) 06:20, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. czar · · 03:55, 29 April 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 · · 16:13, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Allan Savory, per JFHJr. Miniapolis 19:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:NONPROFIT. International in scope and numerous RS here: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Holistic+Management+International%22#q=%22Holistic+Management+International%22&safe=off&tbm=nws&source=lnt&tbs=ar:1&sa=X&ei=d6yKUcGtHcLJigKLroF4&ved=0CB4QpwUoBQ&fp=1&biw=1835&bih=1062&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&cad=b&sei=hKyKUbTaMce5igKdtICwBw

Cleanup is needed here, not deletion.Transcendence (talk) 19:52, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:21, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anime Matsuri

[edit]

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

Lack of reliable sources. Existing sources are photo essays or cover the subject minimally. Esw01407 (talk) 03:33, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it does claim notability in having fairly high attendence, but this claim is entirely self-sourced. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:14, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:26, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:26, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as coverage in reliable third-party sources exist to push this across the verifiability and notability thresholds, including here, here, here, here, and here. - Dravecky (talk) 10:18, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dravecky and WP:BEFORE, reliable sources have been found solving the AfD issue. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:11, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I must respectfully disagree, if you look into whats been posted already in the article and the new sources, you have about.com which is a questionable source, several Houston Press photo gallery's which only give blurbs about the conventions, an Houston Press article that talks more about the guest then the event, and finally the KHOU calendar, which reads like a press release and includes the statement "We do our best to ensure all information is accurate. However, it's a good idea to visit the website listed or contact the organization or venue to verify event details." I don't want to appear argumentative, and I'd love to see this article survive as it's a growing convention, but I'd rather not have another article like Anime Festival Wichita survive an AFD, and never have anything to update in years except for animecons.com guest lists. Esw01407 (talk) 22:57, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - This is a tough one, given that I had been aware of this con's existence for quite some time. The most promising coverage would be the Houston Press coverage; unfortunately, it's all short blurbs and thus not significant coverage. I believe that About.com is reliable under certain conditions, but its page is merely a profile. And KHOU is a press release; not independent coverage. If there was any reliable, significant and independent coverage on a site like Anime News Network, then I would have surely !voted keep, but alas ANN only has press releases. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 16:38, 18 April 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:30, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep It received coverage by Houston Press and Crunchyroll, as well as having notable attendees listed in the article.--Razionale (talk) 13:27, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just one more clarification, since I talked about the Houston Press coverage earlier. How reliable is Crunchyroll as a reliable source? It's not at WP:ANIME's list of sources. I'll have a look. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 17:21, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Checking the Crunchyroll stuff, I can confirm that they aren't really significant coverage. They only show a video of the event made by another website. And the Houston Press coverage, specifically the article, is mainly about the guests. The photo gallery doesn't count as significant coverage. Apparently AnimeCons.com is reliable, but it can't be used to establish notability (otherwise we'd have an article for every single anime convention in North America). Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 17:24, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is part of the nature of the subject that normal sources don't much care. For example, the 69th World Science Fiction Convention is clearly notable by normal sources but has in reality only fewer than 2500 likes on Facebook [14]. Anime Matsuri has about 7 times as many likes [15]. I know, popularity isn't notability and all that. However, I think it would be a shame to delete the article. I hope it can be merged into a broader article somehow as an alternative to deletion. Do you know into which one it could be merged?--Razionale (talk) 18:10, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of anime conventions? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 18:25, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a major anime convention. It deserves an article as much as Sakura-Con and Anime Expo do.WIERDGREENMAN, Thane of Cawdor THE CAKE IS A LIE (talk) 19:22, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:05, 30 April 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 · · 16:09, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(sigh) Weak keep as creator; the sourcing is admittedly borderline for notability, but even the minor and photo-essay coverage in third-party sources is (just about) sufficient to base a minimal article on. Sandstein 16:40, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) Dea db eef 23:35, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mikuru Asahina

[edit]

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

I don't see how this character is notable, the only references are to the fictional work itself. Markus Shedletsky (talk) 19:49, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --十八 20:57, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into List of Haruhi Suzumiya characters, along with Kyon, Haruhi Suzumiya (character), Yuki Nagato and Itsuki Koizumi, which is long overdue.--十八 20:45, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yuki Nagato and Haruhi Suzumiya seem a little more notable than the others, more so Haruhi Suzumiya. Markus Shedletsky (talk) 15:29, 18 April 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 April 17. Snotbot t • c » 20:57, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep have Japanese sources been looked for? I feel that there would be more sources in Japan regarding this popular series. As for more Merges Haruhi and Yuki have third party sources and more potential so I don't know if they would be good to merge. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:05, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Right now, the only sources for Mikuru is the show itself. However, given her popularity, especially in Japan, I think she's quite notable. In fact, she could probably be considered one of the catalysts of the current moe craze. The only problem is the lack of sources, but there's probably at least some out there (in Japanese). As for the other Haruhi characters, for me, the least notable would be Koizumi, but Nagato, Kyon and Suzumiya are obviously notable (although their articles need improvement.) Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 16:31, 18 April 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) 01:46, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge to List of Haruhi Suzumiya characters: articles should not be kept merely on the presumed existence of secondary sources, but on actual proof of secondary coverage being brought up in the discussion. After a week, the article still hasn't been updated with the coverage other users are convinced must exist...Which means the article still doesn't meet WP:GNG and should be deleted. The article can always be restored later if sufficient coverage is found.Folken de Fanel (talk) 11:24, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I believe that Itsuki Koizumi suffers from much of the same problem as Asahina's article, as such, I'm bundling it with this AfD. As for Nagato, Suzumiya and Kyon, I think they're notable enough, so if anyone else wants them to be merged, a separate discussion should be started. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 19:50, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Merge/Delete due to current lack of sources; presuming that they exist isn't really good enough. Article can always be restored at a later date when reliable sources are found to exist. Satellizer el Bridget ^ツ 07:21, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Redirecting to List of Haruhi Suzumiya characters 雛鳥 (talk) 12:31, 30 April 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 · · 16:02, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - for some of the same reasons given by other people above. (I don't think merge is right for this)Sophiahounslow (talk) 10:03, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Clicking the Google Scholar link from this discussion surprisingly had some hits. One of them, [16], seems to be an article published in a journal that briefly talks about the character in the context of gender roles in anime. Another, [17], seems to be an article about people wanting to marry cartoon characters . . . it mentions Mikuru repeatedly, but I'm not sure of the exact content of the article. There also is some reliable source coverage of figurines of the character, such as [18]. I'm not sure if any of those sources could be useful in expanding the article, but they are at least sources from outside the franchise itself. Calathan (talk) 04:21, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It would be great if someone who understands Japanese would go through sources here, I know that the series is popular and ongoing in Japan. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:18, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I noticed that Itsuki Koizumi was inserted in this AFD after the first relist but the article itself was never tagged. Should it be tagged now or is it too late now since its been over a week since the attempt to add?--174.95.111.89 (talk) 03:07, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think it was inappropriate to insert Itsuki Koizumi in this AFD after it had been running for a while, so it shouldn't be considered nominated for deletion at all. It can be nominated in a separate discussion, but it was too late to add it to this one. The fact that it was never tagged as being up for deletion is further reason why it shouldn't be considered part of this nomination. I personally didn't even notice it was added since it was added in the middle of the discussion. Calathan (talk) 03:23, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is turning out into a huge mess >.<. I see no consensus for deletion here other than the OP that being said it looks like either Keep or Merge maybe a merge discussion would be better suited here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knowledgekid87 (talk • contribs) 04:13, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete and redirect to The Echoing Green (band). Redirects are cheap. Black Kite (talk) 18:17, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In Scarlet and Vile

[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet notability for a recording Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:05, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 17 April 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) 01:47, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not satisfy WP:NALBUMS Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 01:55, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The Echoing Green (band). Contains verifiable information that would be usefully included in the band article. --Michig (talk) 06:27, 24 April 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 · · 16:01, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NALBUMS Transcendence (talk) 19:54, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 18:18, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Poly chain GT carbon belt drive system

[edit]

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

Unnecessary promotional article for a product that could adequately covered at either (or both of) Gilmer belt or Belt (mechanical). Biker Biker (talk) 11:47, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, then! Makes you think twice about improving articles, if they just get nominated for deletion as a result ... Djembayz (talk) 11:57, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete Timing belts are notable, particular maker's brands are not, unless there's some other good reason. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:07, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. czar · · 15:25, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. czar · · 15:25, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into either Timing belt (camshaft) or Belt (mechanical), Although possibly promotional it's informative. -

→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 15:36, 24 April 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 · · 15:36, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Merging is inappropriate, as this is just some random product, not a notable one by any stretch of the imagination. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:07, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) czar · · 17:17, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of commemorative months

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article adds nothing to Wikipedia that the Category:Commemorative months doesn't, since the inclusion criteria on top of the page and in the hidden text states that months listed should have an article. I've spent some time on this and related articles and they are magnets for hoaxes and jokes that don't improve the encyclopedia. Sjö (talk) 14:08, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:CLN, we don't delete lists because there is a category too. Categories are currently getting some heat and their future seems uncertain as Wikidata may replace them. Warden (talk) 14:27, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is actually a classic example of a "good" list: encyclopedic content, useful to WP users for navigational purposes, sourced, limited in scope, with definite and understandable inclusion parameters... Carrite (talk) 15:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I will also add to the nominator, that the fact that a piece is an article for vandalism and smartassery isn't a valid rationale for deletion. Otherwise, Wikipedia would never have articles on George W. Bush or Barrack Obama, for example. AfD is not a substitute for article protection mechanisms... Carrite (talk) 15:14, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Warden and Carrite; both arguments in nomination fail, first as contra WP:CLN and second as nothing more than WP:SUSCEPTIBLE. It's one thing to acknowledge that you're arguing against the application of a guideline in a particular instance; it's quite another to not even acknowledge that the guideline exists when it directly contradicts or precludes your deletion rationale. postdlf (talk) 18:33, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, no valid reason for deletion provided by nominator, previously kept at AfD a year ago after a similarly non-policy-based nom. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:08, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The result was merge to Hair analysis (alternative medicine). (non-admin closure) czar · · 17:26, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

HTMA Nutritional Balancing

[edit]

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

The original intention of this page was to help people understand hTMA as applied to biochemistry guided nutritional therapy. We are not interested in continually battling individuals intent on discrediting this emerging science, which seems to be what it has devolved to. Some of these individuals may be well intentioned in there efforts to enforce Wiki protocol mechanics. Perhaps a day will come when intelligence can also be applied to mechanistic rules and regulations? One can hope. Bmartinsen (talk) 13:23, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy keep~~ Merge, per Agricolae below, as this is clearly a bad-faith and WP:POINTy nomination. Bmartinsen recently made huge edits to this article which violated numerous policies, most notably WP:OR and WP:NPOV. A discussion on the fringe theories noticeboard saw him trying to undo others' edits by mislabelling them as vandalism and ultimately blanking said discussion in what I suspect was an act of censorship. I can only imagine that Bmartinsen is throwing the proverbial toys out of the proverbial pram by starting this AfD, where he has given no valid criteria for deletion. — Richard BB 13:51, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep under criterion 2d: "nominations that are clearly an attempt to end an editing dispute through deletion, where dispute resolution is a more appropriate course". I should note that Bmartinsen (talk · contribs) is the original creator of the article, not just an editor who "made huge edits". I have no prejudice against any editor in good standing renominating this article for deletion under any valid criteria. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:20, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have withdrawn the above !vote in light of the comments below, particularly that by Agricolae (talk · contribs). —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:15, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kuyabribri - How about "Significant coverage" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline (Sorry for confusion or any hurt feelings. Wiki has so many rules and regulations it is difficult for a noob like me to understand the intricacies and regulatory complexities of the wiki process) Bmartinsen (talk) 15:53, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of "significant coverage" is a valid rationale for deletion as long as community consensus agrees that this is the case. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:53, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see the speedy-keep rationale at all; as best I can tell, Bmartinsen made a strong effort to improve the article, which was mostly poorly sourced promotional material before his edits. The best approach to avoid deletion is actually to provide independent reliable sources demonstrating notability, rather than attacking Bmartinsen. Lacking such sources, the article should be deleted. As a second choice, it might be appropriate to redirect to hair analysis (alternative medicine). MastCell ^Talk 17:26, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I want to point out that there was no article before Bmartinsen's edits; as I said above he was the article creator ([19] [20]). This is what the article looked like before any other editor touched it (save for one minor correction to a file link while it was still in the sandbox). In light of the above referenced WP:FTN discussion the deletion rationale essentially amounts to "if the article doesn't say what I want it to say then it should be deleted". As I said before I have no prejudice against this article getting deleted on valid grounds such as lack of notability. If you still wish to take that position I will withdraw my speedy keep !vote. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:53, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I totally misread the article history. I appreciate your careful explanation. Let me strike my !vote while I re-consider. I apologize for being over-hasty. MastCell ^Talk 18:11, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to hair analysis (alternative medicine). Having reviewed the article and its history in more detail (thank you KuyaBriBri for correcting me) I think that this topic is not independently notable, but might be discussed briefly in the parent article on this alternative medical practice. MastCell ^Talk 17:51, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree that the motivations behind the AfD are questionable, but why not solve the issue now anyhow? Merge to Hair analysis (alternative medicine), which already discusses the technique and is nowhere near long enough to require this subtopic to be spun off. It would even benefit from the addition of the Quackwatch reference currently on this page. Agricolae (talk) 08:25, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An excellent point — I have amended my !vote above to be a merge. In hindsight, this really is just a sub-topic that could be included as a paragraph in the parent Hair analysis (alternative medicine) article. — Richard BB 08:31, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

merge -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:15, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Hair analysis (alternative medicine) per Agricolae. It's apparent that everything that needs to be said about this technique ought to be subsumed into the larger article. Mangoe (talk) 13:46, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete even after reading Agricolae's notes. Yes the original AFD nomination was in bad faith but after looking for independent reliable secondary sources covering the thing named in the title of the article, "HTMA Nutritional Balancing", there are no sources to be found to support passing WP:GNG. It appears that the general topic of Hair analysis (alternative medicine) is a thing worth its own article, and Quackwatch covers the general topic of Commercial Hair Analysis, but not the particular "HTMA Nutritional Balancing". That particular thing appears to be a name-brand service offered by Analytical Research Laboratories, associated with the now deceased Dr. Paul Eck. All the alternative medicine sites that I found that offer "HTMA Nutritional Balancing" are resellers of that company's product. There are no independent reliable secondary sources that cover that specific product. Result should be delete per WP:42. Zad68 18:25, 7 May 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. Courcelles 23:13, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

National Tropospherics Commission
[edit]

National Tropospherics Commission (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable group with non-notable (fringe) notions. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 12:29, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. czar · · 15:13, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. czar · · 15:13, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. czar · · 15:13, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Looks to me like a club of WP:FRINGE cranks, with a very grandiose name. If it was not that issue 1 of their badly produced journal was on the web, and linked from the article, I might have thought the whole thing was a hoax. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:44, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yes, odd one this — have some artists misunderstood what "performing at the Fringe" means? Seems part art project, part hand-wavy pseudoscience (and I can't think what their meaning of troposphere might be). Anyway, I've been Googling National Tropospherics Commission for a bit and I can't find anything more substantial than the briefest of passing mentions. Hence non-notable.--A bit iffy (talk) 16:13, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: rather obviously. (Question: do members of the "Commission" have any idea what they do? Reading their literature, I'm not so sure.) הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 01:10, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 21:06, 3 May 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 (and redirect to List of Middle-earth Elves#Argon). Redirects are cheap. Black Kite (talk) 18:19, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Argon (Middle-earth)
[edit]

Argon (Middle-earth) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Very, very minor character (indeed just a name), one reference (his name) appears in The Peoples of Middle-earth. GimliDotNet^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 11:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:NOTPAPER we have space aplenty for minor topics. The worst case is that we'd merge with some larger topic such as House of Finwë. See this biography which shows what can be made of the topic. Warden (talk) 13:15, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTPAPER cannot trump WP:RS and WP:NOTABLE GimliDotNet^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 14:58, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The reliability of the sourcing is not in question here so your point is a non-sequitur. If you want more policies which support retention, please see WP:PRESERVE, WP:ATD and WP:BURO. My !vote stands. Warden (talk) 15:54, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:RS comment was aimed at the silmarillion writers guild link above. GimliDotNet^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 17:34, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That seems to be a reliable source, being provided with good citations and being peer-reviewed. The content mostly seems to be based upon the researches of Christopher Tolkien who is a reliable source upon his father's work. There's nothing here but the usual hatred of fiction and that reminds me of yet another policy — WP:CENSOR. Warden (talk) 17:52, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Christopher in this case would be a WP:PRIMARY source. I also don't appreciate your insinuation that this is a case of WP:IDONTLIKE, a simple perusal of my edit history would show the exact contrary, I would appreciate if you could withdraw that. GimliDotNet^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 18:17, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That article is mostly about (1) how he died (necessitating a whole new battle to be inserted) (2) how his insertion impacts the story (not really about him anyway, it's more about the adding of the Battle of the Lammoth) and (3) a rather disproportionately long analysis of a not-even-one-line description of him "[he] was the tallest of the brothers [the sons of Fingolfin] and the most impetuous", which kind of shows how he himself is not really important in the story (he dies too soon). But he would probably have to get mentioned when discussing the part of the story his insertion necessitated changing of, so it would not be a great idea to delete his article completely. Also keeping it as a redirect renders it consistent with all the other non-notable Elves who make appearances on List of Middle-earth Elves. Double sharp (talk) 14:53, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Imagine that the fictional character Argon was instead named "Hubert McMurray Bumphrey" and that this were a family tree for the real life Bumphrey clan, given the same level of sourcing. Would this have taken longer than 5 minutes to speedily delete on the grounds that there is no assertion of importance and that Wikipedia is not a genealogy repository? Calling this a "very, very minor character" of the Tolkien opus is probably shorting him about two verys... Utter failure of GNG and no matter how low the special notability bar is placed for fictional characters, this isn't gonna get over that either... Carrite (talk) 15:21, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a directory of every name mentioned briefly in every notable fictional work. Fails WP:N. Merger to an article about the work or the author is inappropriate, since that would give undue weight. Edison (talk) 15:43, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I love Tolkien's stories, but this is not them -- or a directory to them. Kitfoxxe (talk) 16:26, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above, and might I add WP:CRUFT? Ansh666 21:31, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speak up, Argon, in thine own defense! Shame not thy noble family; tell us of thy fell deeds and secure thyself an honoured seat in the Halls of Mandos. What? No reaction? Alas, twas ever so; it is in his nature. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:36, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
'Cries' that was amzaing. Ansh666 01:40, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:18, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Groan.
I have been beginning to pronounce the noble gas' name with the full (not reduced) "o" vowel sound as if I were referring to this guy; is this bad? :-) Double sharp (talk) 14:42, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, come to think of it, we should have a Fingon and Turgon on the periodic table, now that you've given the discoverers of element 118 the excuse to abuse IUPAC naming conventions like this. (Provided they are hardcore Tolkien fans, that is.) Double sharp (talk) 15:00, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Nothing wrong with the title; he'll fit fine as a redirect to House of Finwë. However, I solidly agree that this guy doesn't deserve a separate article anywhere except at something specialising in the Matter of Arda. Nyttend (talk) 03:00, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Golly. There's major characters. There's secondary characters. There's minor characters. There's really minor characters. And then, somewhere far off in the distance, there's this guy. Tolkien's work is obviously extremely notable, but that doesn't mean we can or should have a seperate article for every single capitalised word in said work. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:22, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Selective merge to List of Middle-earth Elves. This article has one (primary) reference, the entry there gives much of the information here but currently has no references at all. And, while a character who appeared in just a couple of late Tolkien fragments certainly doesn't justify a standalone article, they are still likely to get enough passing mentions elsewhere that a redirect to somewhere on Wikipedia where they are mentioned is probably a good idea. PWilkinson (talk) 15:21, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I added the only source here to that article already. Double sharp (talk) 14:46, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Middle-earth Elves#Argon, per all the other non-notable Elves with short entries there. Everything in this article is already there. Why do we need an article on this particular Finwëan anyway? All he ever did was heroically (and amazingly early – although I guess Amras holds the record) get himself killed. Double sharp (talk) 14:42, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My choice of redirect and not delete is because while he didn't do anything, his insertion did necessitate some changes in the story, which are much more notable (and in fact already are in Dagor-nuin-Giliath), and would definitely reference him. Double sharp (talk) 14:53, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by User:Peridon under criterion A7. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Ryan Vandegrift
[edit]

Matthew Ryan Vandegrift (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

With respect, subject doesn't appear to meet the WP:GNG and Wikipedia is not a memorial. I similarly lost a family member in Afghanistan, and I respect his service and sacrifice saving members of his team, but I wouldn't consider him notable enough for an article. Regards, Syrthiss (talk) 11:39, 1 May 2013 (UTC) Syrthiss (talk) 11:39, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Would not be averse to adding a brief mention to the article on the high school, if he's not already included there. Syrthiss (talk) 11:41, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect - Seems more appropriate to place this in an article on the high school. Intothat darkness 15:14, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Rarely have I seen such a eulogising article. This is an encyclopaedia, not a tribute board. Junior officer notable only for being killed. Sad but true. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:32, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Redirect. Does not meet WP:GNG, Wikipedia is not a memorial. I added appropriate info, with refs, at Vandegrift High School. EricSerge (talk) 18:08, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Vandegrift High School per WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nowhere near notable. No redirect — the high school is not an appropriate place for coverage of the guy (beyond saying "It was named for Matthew Vandegrift, a US Marine from Austin who was killed in action in Iraq") because other than its name it's completely unrelated to him. We shouldn't encourage people to think that they're related by redirecting him to it. Nyttend (talk) 03:03, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the High School, with condolences to his family and friends. Per WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Carrite (talk) 07:30, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and oppose merge. Everythingthat needs to be said about him already exists at the article on the high school. -- Whpq (talk) 14:51, 2 May 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. Black Kite (talk) 18:21, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nakshatra (filmmaker)
[edit]

Nakshatra (filmmaker) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable creator of YouTube shorts. While excessively referenced, none of the referenced items are notable enough to help subject meet notability guidelines. Article was previously listed at AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nakshatra(Filmmaker) in a malformed AFD, and was closed with no concensus. | Uncle Milty | talk | 10:56, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am surprised by this remark of Uncle Milty. Referenced items especially e-newspapers are highly notable. All other sources are independent reliable sources and not self published one. Short films which are not just limited to YouTube but screened worldwide at 'notable' places.Amytrish (talk) 12:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your intervention Uncle Milty I was considering using Twinkle or rollback here. Glad you intervened. Putting it through a discussion again at articles of deletion would be the just way forward. - Casper(talk)

Please Note Amytrish (talk) As mentioned in Uncle Milty's talk page, the relevant guidelines are located at WP:NOTABILITY and WP:FILMMAKER - Casper(talk) 14:51, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also it should be noted that the said page speaks about GLBT activism and categorises the user as a GLBT activist. Co wikipedia admins had added the page to the LGBT activist category many times despite being deleted. The said page has personal information to the said living person, which are self pompous. As noted by one of the user's in the page history "despite the mandatory notice that this article is on discussion under the wikipedia debate resolution policy regarding deletion, it was removed". Pure vandalism and breach of Wikipedia Policies - Casper(talk) 15:16, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, If that's the policy of notability then I stand on my citations of this article. I am confident about this article and it's sources. Over to WIki community. And the point or issue of category type of LGBT activism which Casperis putting here is acceptable. The sources which I have given to this article, do NOT prove the subject an activist. If sources are not saying he is an activist then he is not. Being the creator I'd never put that category here until I have a source which can justify him as an activist. So I welcome this point. Thank you. Amytrish (talk) 16:07, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Significant amount of secondary source coverage. Recipient of Awards, Honors, and Recognition of multiple forms. — Cirt (talk) 04:59, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The personality in question, Bagwe, Nakshatra had attended the flash mob. I found out that there were many people in it. ^[1] The sources in the reference to validate the acceptance of this wiki entry, except the publication are privately owned blogs which are now called Online Magazines. To reach an amicable resolution, I would rather request Amytrish (talk) to set up a wikipedia page for the film Logging Out because the film is the real hero that has won the award and it truly deserves a wikipedia page. All the other achievements presented as GLBT activism is something many people in India are associated with and it would be seen as trolling if all of them had a wikipedia page.

Summing it up, my suggestion would be to delete this page and request the user to set one up for LOGGING OUT Smarojitbiz (talk) 06:24, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also there are some factual changes. For example, a Times Of India Article intending to tell us that Mr. Bagwe had impressed a bollywood actor Anupam Kher to donate 50,000 rupees is noting but misinterpretation. The article reads "Later, I learned that one filmmaker here had made a film called "Logging Out" on a budget of just `3,000. And that made me think. The initial prize money for Best Film was `10,000. I raised that to `50,000 and also, my company plans to sponsor this amount and award every year." ^[2]. The statement "....THAT MADE ME THINK" has been misinterpreted to state on the Nakshatra (filmmaker) "Impressed with Logging Out actor, Anupam Kher declared a sponsorship of Rs 50,000/- for the following year of KASHISH ." I visited the wikipage KASHISH – Mumbai International Queer Film Festival you could figure that it is a very respectable platform by itself. While yes, the inference one draws is that Logging Out did manage to create an impact and impress the actor, the film festival by itself was of a high stature.

I also wish to draw your attention to other award winners as mentioned in the page KASHISH . I referenced Onir and find the page Nakshatra (filmmaker) less notable in comparison. I also compared the page Nakshatra (filmmaker) with other film makers who have made GLBT themed films in India Rituparno Ghosh , Tarun Mansukhani, Deepa Mehta, Mira Nair and think that this is indeed not notable enough to have a wikipedia page. I request people in this discussion to click on each of these pages and sub pages and make your own judgement. Smarojitbiz (talk) 07:24, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As the nom mentioned, the given sources are reliable but they don't establish notability of the subject of this article due to brief, passing mentions, and not in all of them. The subject fails WP:Notability (people) in addition to the article appearing to be some sort of a fan page. There's also been a suspicious amount of socks both involved with the article and here on this discussion, including those defending this article the hardest - reads like a new editor who created a fan page, didn't review the relevant guidelines and is just looking for a way to keep the page alive. MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:10, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per MezzoMezzo. Salih (talk) 15:57, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References
[edit]

^ LEACH, ANNA. "Flashmob celebrates Mumbai Pride". GayStarNews. Retrieved 3 May 2013.

^ Prabhakar, Jyoti (1 June 2012). "Anupam Kher sponsors gay film prize". The Times Of India. Retrieved 3 May 2013.

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. Courcelles 23:13, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Polisseni
[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Greg Polisseni

Articles for deletion/Greg Polisseni (2nd nomination)

Greg Polisseni (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

spam from Voidz. non notable person, lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Most of the mass of sources in the article are not reliable sources. The few independent reliable sources that are used only mention Polisseni in passing, no depth of coverage anbout him. His film "work" is just a few executive producer amongst multiple others. duffbeerforme (talk) 09:51, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This, like many of the articles created by the same professional spammer via numerous sockpuppets, is an article with a very concerted effort to give a spurious impression of notability by Wikipedia:Bombardment with large numbers of references. However, on closer examination, it turns out that every one of the references suffers from one or more of the following defects: (1) not a reliable source; (2) not an independent source; (3) barely mentions Polisseni; and even, in some cases, (4) does not mention Polisseni at all. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:02, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article was nuked a few months back and also had gone to AfD before that. WP:PAID sock was involved last time and the article rises from the ashes with another group of paid spammers. For clerical purposes: WP:GNG - Fails WP:RS - Fails PeterWesco (talk) 16:29, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More Details The last time this article was nuked was in January 2013. Old article name: Greg_Polisseni_(producer) the last banned spammer to create the article was: Amuletandtalisman PeterWesco (talk) 16:35, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I did find some local coverage like this, but not enough to say notability is met. -- Whpq (talk) 15:08, 2 May 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. Courcelles 23:14, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Martin (Politician)
[edit]

Kate Martin (Politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Candidate in a primary election to be a candidate in a Mayoral election. The subject doesn't appear to have attracted any coverage in reliable sources other than brief mentions of their election campaigns in local media. Therefore this fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG. Often in cases like this, we'd redirect, but I've looked and there doesn't appear to be a suitable redirect target. Valenciano (talk) 09:33, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do not Delete - She is a member of the Greenwood community council, an elected position. If that is insufficient reasoning, change the parenthesis in the title to 'Activist; I did not list her as a Washington state politician in the categories section. Jey5636 (talk) 13:26, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unelected candidate for office, fails GNG and Special Guideline for Politicians. Carrite (talk) 18:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom and above. Grammarxxx ^{(What'd I do this time?)} 19:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fails WP:GNG. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 21:07, 3 May 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 Deleted. INeverCry 17:38, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksei Mendeleevskiy
[edit]

Aleksei Mendeleevskiy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

A message was left on my talk page by Mafia godfather (talk · contribs) saying that this article is a hoax. When I did a Google search I didn't find anywhere near the level of coverage I'd expect from someone in the NBA, and I don't think the 3 sources are actually sources or reliable. However, given that the article has been around for a bit I think I'd be better to take to it to AFD (even if it's a speedy delete) just to get some more opinions. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:25, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. czar · · 06:48, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. czar · · 06:48, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. czar · · 06:48, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. This is a hoax. No hits for someone who claims to be/have been in the NBA. Prior versions of the article show a wide discrepancy in the infobox/article data. Also a YouTube user by the Russian name (DMRose89) is very similar to article creator (DMR89), so possible COI there. The creator also tried to blank/redirect the article a few times. I also noticed this similar IP vandalism. I'll take a look at the other contribs later. czar · · 07:26, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as hoax. He's not in the official Knicks 2012–13 roster at [21] and he doesn't appear in either the 2010–11 or 2011–12 rosters here [22], [23]. He's not mentioned in the 2008 NBA Draft, in which it's claimed he participated. Dricherby (talk) 11:07, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete please. Some high school kid with too much time on his hands created a fake article for giggles. Jrcla2 (talk) 15:16, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as hoax. "Center/Shooting Guard," indeed... Carrite (talk) 15:39, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - HOAX HOAX HOAX HOAX, ANY ADMINISTRATOR FEEL FREE TO SPEEDILY DELETE THE HOAX HOAX HOAX HOAX. Carrite (talk) 17:24, 1 May 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. Black Kite (talk) 18:22, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Duscher
[edit]

Ben Duscher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:Athlete. Doesn't play in the AFL, nor has he been drafted by an AFL club. Jevansen (talk) 05:27, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. czar · · 06:52, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. czar · · 06:52, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. czar · · 06:52, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't seem to meet any of the WP:ATHLETE notability criteria for Aussie Rules players. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:53, 1 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Delete as fails WP:ATHLETE. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 21:08, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fails WP:ATHLETE for Aussie Rules.Doctorhawkes (talk) 03:01, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep point 3 of the Aussie rules section of the oft-quoted WP:ATHLETE says "is known, and has received significant coverage in reliable sources, for major individual achievements in a state football league." Being named club captain and winning his club's best and fairest award is about the minimum requirement for that. And whilst most of the sources are from Bendigo local papers, there are some from major papers, so GNG is met too. The-Pope (talk) 04:06, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clear keep as fulfilling point 3 of WP:ATHLETE"is known, and has received significant coverage in reliable sources, for major individual achievements in a state football league:" Significant coverage in reliable sources-documented. Captain of Bendigo VFL and Essendon VFL. Selected in VFL combined team. Article listing him amongst top players in VFL. Asked to train with Western Bulldogs and Essendon at end of 2012 season. AFL Draft combineNimbusWeb (talk) 10:16, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clear delete being asked to train with a club is not the same as actually playing with the top professional league. needs to have actually played a game of AFL not VFL. LibStar (talk) 02:37, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

no, not true. point 3 of the Australian rules football notability criteria allows for some lower level players to be included. The-Pope (talk) 04:09, 8 May 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. I'm withdrawing the afd--we have an adequate start. DGG ( talk ) 15:37, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shannon Bennett
[edit]

Shannon Bennett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

He may possibly be notable, but this article is too promotional to stand. In the hope that someone might be willing to do the almost total rewrite that would be necessary, I list it here, instead of just listing it for speedy G11. Obviously, it should never have been accepted from AfC in this state. DGG ( talk ) 05:22, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. czar · · 06:53, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar · · 06:53, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. czar · · 06:53, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow - I think if he'd actually paid a marketing company to write his biography for him it would be less promotional than that! Given the username that created the article is the same as the name he gave his restaurant, I don't think we'll need Sherlock Holmes any time soon! Obviously just a horrible mish-mash of Facebook, LinkedIn and company promotional material from someone who doesn't quite get WP. No harm, no foul. That part can be easily fixed and I've made a start - removing the puffery, bare links, non-RS blog sources and just generally pegging it back about 435%.

The bigger issue is whether he is notable. I can tell you (being Australian) that he's been on all sorts of cooking shows and they are personal appearances (as in, he is well-known in his own right, not just for having a nice restaurant). He's probably been in a whole bunch of related magazines (eg. MasterChef Australia has its own magazine) and then a few other magazines because he's married to a fairly well-known actress (like Woman's Day and whatnot). Then there's the question of whether his many books (most of which would have been reviewed by various newspapers and the like upon release) make him a notable WP:AUTHOR. Maybe? I'm probably 50/50 on whether it should be kept, probably leaning weak keep. Stalwart111 07:11, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, wow. He probably is notable, judging by the way some contestants on a national tv cooking show were fawning over him. Given that it looks like this was created for promotion it may be best to delete this and let someone independent start over. duffbeerforme (talk) 09:33, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question, is appearing in trashy gossip magazines like Woman's Day good enough to satisfy WP:GNG? I'm thinking probably not, and there doesn't seem to be any coverage in what I would consider to be reliable sources of this person. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:50, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Answer - probably not, but I used Woman's Day instead of That's Life! or New Idea for that reason; it's perhaps the least trashy of the trashy Australian weeklies. I suppose the secondary question to that would be whether appearing on multiple cooking and other television shows constitutes significant coverage? Stalwart111 10:23, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It needs a bunch of TNT to it. The self promotion really needs to be pruned... but Canberra Times has 60 references to him. I think he passes notability. So yeah, some bold pruning the hell out of it to make it not promotional. --LauraHale (talk) 12:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I just blocked the creator (someone working for the restaurant, it seems) for their username, so they probably won't be participating in this discussion. But I agree that despite the fluff there's someone we should have an article on. Daniel Case (talk) 16:52, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article's been pruned, what remains doesn't seem bad enough that it needs to be trashed, and he seems to be notable. Nyttend (talk) 03:06, 2 May 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) 06:27, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Astra (event)
[edit]

Astra (event) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I'm not finding significant coverage of this event, beyond WP:ROUTINE fight announcements and results, to suggest why this event is notable. TreyGeek (talk) 05:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. TreyGeek (talk) 05:04, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. czar · · 05:14, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. czar · · 05:14, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:SPORTSEVENT and WP:GNG. LlamaAl (talk) 01:33, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails the GNG. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:12, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 21:09, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG. NodachiFury (talk) 21:21, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails both WP:SPORTSEVENT and WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 16:52, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In addition to the comment above, it appears most of the coverage is WP:ROUTINE. Mkdw ^talk 01:22, 7 May 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) 06:24, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Barrier Reef Orchestra
[edit]

Barrier Reef Orchestra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

clearly fails WP:BAND. this is an amateur local band. gnews reveals almost solely local coverage. hardly any mention by ABC news australia [24]. this band has received no major awards nor produced charted albums. LibStar (talk) 02:35, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. czar · · 03:14, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. czar · · 03:14, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Local orchestra with only local coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 16:07, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 21:10, 3 May 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) 06:20, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ernie Chi-Fung Lo
[edit]

Ernie Chi-Fung Lo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Delete: as there is no indication of sufficient, if any, notability, failing WP:GNG at the very least.~~so as to merit his own Wikipedia article.~~ Quis separabit? 21:11, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:40, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:40, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 25 April 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) 02:22, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - sources fail WP:RS, no demonstration of basic notability. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 02:58, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 21:11, 3 May 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) 07:11, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Headwall Photonics
[edit]

Headwall Photonics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Corporate article that does not seem to meet WP:CORP. Most of the sources provided go in depth into the photonic industry instead of the company itself. It does mention a few industry awards for some of their products but, given the number of recipients for each, I wouldn't consider them to be that notable. Funny ^Pika! 23:31, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. czar · · 01:00, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. czar · · 01:07, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 01:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete: One would suspect that a company spun off from Aligent is likely able to meet CORP, but that is not so obvious in this case. Certainly Photonics and R&D meets that requirement, but most of the other CITEs don't mention Headwall even in passing. My Google-fu turns up little other than re-printed press releases. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:59, 2 May 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. Courcelles 23:15, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bija Bennett
[edit]

Bija Bennett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

article appears to not establish notability Stephane34 (talk) 17:29, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:02, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:02, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:03, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 01:45, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BIO. and WP:AUTHOR. LibStar (talk) 02:36, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 21:13, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Couldn't find significant coverage. Transcendence (talk) 19:56, 8 May 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 · · 01:44, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Judith Hanson Lasater
[edit]

Judith Hanson Lasater (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

article appears to not establish notability Stephane34 (talk) 17:02, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. czar · · 17:36, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar · · 17:36, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. czar · · 17:37, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Founder and past president of California Yoga Teachers' Association and the subject of extensive coverage in American Yoga: The Paths And Practices of America's Greatest Yoga Masters, by Carrie Schneider (2003). Cited as an expert in Yoga Journal. Fairly clearly a leader in the field of endeavor, regardless of one's feelings about that field. Carrite (talk) 18:27, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 01:43, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep she gets some media mentions as an expert in her field. LibStar (talk) 06:03, 6 May 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. Black Kite (talk) 18:22, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deliberative
[edit]

Deliberative (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I originally considered this as a good candidate for a redirect over to rhetoric (as this article is actually about deliberative rhetoric) but upon review, it doesn't seem like this would be an obvious redirect. The article itself doesn't discuss too much that wouldn't be covered under rhetoric and seems more like original research than an article. Sasquatch t|c 01:09, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. czar · · 01:41, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. czar · · 01:42, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge per our editing policy. There are multiple pages covering this ground including rhetoric (Aristotle), deliberation and deliberative assembly. Warden (talk) 17:21, 23 April 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) 01:16, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/merge there must be a way to compile any useful information into a more encompassing article.--DrumstickJuggler (talk) 01:37, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak delete~~. Although there may be call for an article on deliberative rhetoric, I'm not convinced that this article moves in that direction. Perhaps some parts of it are worth merging elsewhere. The first sentence of the lead defines deliberative rhetoric, but most of the rest of the article is about sections of Aristotle's Rhetoric and later philosophical commentary on that book. It might be useful to merge bits of the article to Rhetoric (Aristotle) and perhaps a few sentences to Deliberation, notwithstanding the pains taken to argue that the article is not about deliberation per se. I think, contra Colonel Warden, that the existence of multiple article on distinct concepts that partially overlap ideas described in this article is a reason to delete, not to keep the article. It is an essay synthesizing ideas from philosophy, politics, and rhetoric to explore ideas. This is a worthwhile thing to do, but not an aim of Wikipedia. Cnilep (talk) 02:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the best way to handle this would be to split it apart, with the commentary on Arisotle's Rhetoric merged to that page, and the parts on deliberative rhetoric kept and moved to that title, as suggested by Ansh666 and Nyttend, below. Cnilep (talk) 04:40, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If consensus is to keep, maybe move to Deliberative rhetoric to avoid confusion. Ansh666 03:10, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move per Ansh, or disambiguate. If we find it acceptable, keep it. If not, there are several places to which the title could reasonably redirected, and that's precisely the reason we have disambiguation pages. Nyttend (talk) 03:09, 2 May 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 (non-admin closure) Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 02:32, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BSA Troop 267
[edit]

BSA Troop 267 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No other articles on specific BSA troops, let alone one as apparently un-notable as this Revolution1221 ^{(talk · email · contributions)} 01:04, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. czar · · 01:26, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. czar · · 01:26, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A7: organization that doesn't assert notability. No significant coverage or hits for this specific BSA troop, either. czar · · 01:28, 1 May 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 Snowbal Keep. Non-admin closure. SYSS Mouse (talk) 16:13, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Theera Wongsamut
[edit]

Theera Wongsamut (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Almost no context, few sources avaliable Revolution1221 ^{(talk · email · contributions)} 00:58, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy delete per A1 and A7~~ Dea db eef 01:02, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:POLITICIAN (1). I didn't realize that the subject actually held a national office. My mistake Dea db eef 01:31, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Cabinet ministers are automatically notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:23, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:23, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:23, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As both a cabinet-level official in Thailand and the head of a political party. Passes the Special Guideline for Politicians. Carrite (talk) 05:32, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per WP:POLITICIAN. Elected officials are inherently notable. Enos733 (talk) 06:09, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep Cabinet minister. Ray^Talk 12:56, 1 May 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. Wizardman 15:52, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor Stanton
[edit]

Taylor Stanton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable minor league baseball player. Prod removed with the note "Remove PROD designation. Signed with AA Redhawks who issued press release today". This is not a valid reason for us not to delete this article. The Fargo-Moorhead Redhawks are an independent team and Stanton does not have sufficient reliable sources to establish notability. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:26, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Stanton has played several years in the Mariners system. The American Association of Independent Professional Baseball is a viable component of entertainment in non-MLB cities such as Fargo, and the League continues to send pitchers notably, to the majors. Stanton had more than 100 innings pitched in each of the past 3 seasons.^[1] Were he out of baseball, deletion would be in order. His signing makes that premature unless we class Independent Leagues as lacking notability. The inclusion of the American Association as a page would seem to infer otherwise. --Wineshark (talk) 01:56, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:27, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:27, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:BASE/N and WP:GNG. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:08, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Despite what Wineshark says above, players in the independent leagues are not notable even though the league itself is. Spanneraol (talk) 19:45, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indented line

Appreciate the comments. This is my first time even trying to use Wikipedia for something other than research. I'm a writer, blogger, researcher, speaker, and an economist by trade. So call me an educated user but one lacking the nuances of this community. I just know if I ran this platform, I would delete pages with dated information or useless information - neither of which would be brand positive for Wikipedia. Data sanitation is a needed element in any database and if this is judged as useless information, then I understand. In this case however, if someone (like me) were going to keep the page current, I'd suggest that's precisely what Wiki is looking for; people to engage and provide potentially useful content. An example of how the content can be useful is the article in the RedHawks team site ^[2]. The picture, if not some of the facts in the article was taken from Wiki and the background photoshopped. In this next season as fans look for information on the player, they will find no location on the web where they can find everything that's included here.
Before you ask, I am not related. I'm not paid for this either but I do know Taylor well. I'm just trying to help get his digital profile enhanced a little so people can find information when they want it.
The Mariners have one of, if not the deepest minor league staff in baseball. Getting released in the final cut is a blow but not crippling. He was encouraged by Mariners management to stick with it when he was released. Other teams have shown interest in signing him since, but the time to make a decision was last Friday. If I had to guess based on what I know, his contract will be purchased mid-season by a MLB team. None of that is relevelt for debate because there is no source to cite in any of it. I'm offering it only as background and would ask you to please leave the page up for the year and let Taylor's situation play out. Its a small favor to ask. Thanks. // --Wineshark (talk) 21:16, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of people play in the minor leagues, doing so by itself does not satisfy the baseball notability requirements of WP:BASE/N. In order to show he satisfies the requirements of WP:GNG you need to show more substantial coverage of him from reliable sources. The current sources in the article are team sites and stat sites... which arent enough.. he needs substantial profiles in credible media. Also, you seem to have a WP:COI problem. You are not supposed to write articles about people you personally know and your desire to " help get his digital profile enhanced" is a perfect example of what wikipedia is not supposed to be used for. Spanneraol (talk) 22:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again forgive my ignorance as a newbie, but as I read ^[3], the writing is to be in a neutral point of view versus a prohibition against writing on something or someone for which you have knowledge. The counter to your point if true, means only people ignorant of a subject or person can contribute. The reality is somewhere in the middle in that we all have bias, but hopefully write about that in which we are interested and have understanding. I don't believe any of my edits have been in anything but a neutral voice. I can't speak to a community view of notoriety or relevance as that's a gauge that is understood over time in the community and opinions will vary.--Wineshark (talk) 01:17, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The writing appears neutral to me, so that's not the problem. People with a COI aren't forbidden from working on that article, but they are discouraged from it. The COI in this case isn't manifesting itself with POV, but with the existence of this article against notability guidelines. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:25, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can live with a judgement that this article isn't notable. That standard isn't something I am capable of defending being new to this part of Wiki. But if this isn't notable, I would suggest that there are numerous minor league players in a similar situation that are occupying similar digital space, with the only difference being they are on a farm team for a MLB team. Example: San Diego Padres minor league players There are obviously many more examples but they all share the same characteristic of lacking substantial coverage from reliable sources and or only including references from team and stat sites. So perhaps the situation isn't player specific at all, but the idea that the only players of note are in the farm systems of affilliated ML clubs? That seems to have been the defining moment at which time this player was nominated for deletion.

Would it help if the independent league rosters were added to the team sites in the American Association of Independent Professional Baseball pages, to mirror those found in San Diego Padres minor league players to use a specific example? Would merging this player on to a team page resolve the seeming discrepancy?--Wineshark (talk) 19:50, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any discrepancy.. The consensus has been that players on MLB farm teams have more notability than those on independent league teams as such players are usually players that have washed out of affiliated leagues or weren't good enough in the first place. The players on those minor league player pages aren't notable enough to have their own pages, but as top prospects in the MLB team's system they are notable as a group. No reason to create list pages for AA teams as those rosters turn over faster than affiliated teams.Spanneraol (talk) 22:05, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discrepancy exists. The original reason for deletion was a lack of "sufficient reliable sources to establish notability." I pointed out players in ML farm teams who have the same lack of sufficient reliable sources to establish notability - but aren't slated for deletion. It's OK with me if the community has as a rule that no independent player can qualify for a page, and only MLB minor leagues receive a pass on the guideline requiring sufficient reliable sources to establish notability, but I don't see that mentioned? Perhaps deleting players who drop off a MLB farm team is a common practice, but it doesn't appear as a guideline as far as I can tell. In view of the grey area - I'd respectfully ask to leave this player up for another year. Its not a large ask.--Wineshark (talk) 17:20, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Players on ML farm teams also need sufficient sources to establish notability for their own individual pages, thus no discrepancy. You were referring to the minor league list pages earlier and AA teams arent sufficiently notable to have such a list page while Major League teams are. The standards for inclusion as part of a list is different than for a stand alone article. Spanneraol (talk) 17:42, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Thank you. That is my point. While not posted anywhere as a guideline as far as I can tell, the community or at least those responding to this discussion, seem to have adopted the belief that Indy teams "arent sufficiently notable to have such a list page while Major League teams are." I had suggested above a willingness to merge this player into a team list matching those of ML farm teams as a solution and another way in which to make this work, consistent with the Deletion Policy; specifically the section on alternatives to deletions.--Wineshark (talk) 21:37, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable minor league baseball player. Alex (talk) 22:52, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It appears the debate has taken its course and so ready for a Mod to make a final call. Thank you for listening.--Wineshark (talk) 23:31, 6 May 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 G3 as a blatant hoax. Giant Snowman 10:43, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Callethi
[edit]

Steve Callethi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I believe that this article is part of a multi-platform hoax across Wikipedia, Youtube and Twitter. Steve Callethi is (apparently) an Ivorian footballer who has played for AS Indenie Abengourou and, in the original version of the article, for Tom Tomsk in Russia. Since being listed his birthplace and birthdate have been altered, with a number of clear jokes and spoofs (When a letter arrived informing the family that a Nigerian prince, a distant cousin, had died and left them millions in inheritance, they spent the large majority of their money travelling south, only to find that a group of amateur con men had deceived them) added to the biography.
However, I think that this goes beyond people vandalizing a legitimate article - I am not convinced that this person exists:

A video purporting to be him on Youtube seems to be a compilation of multiple players: this goal, is actually one scored by Yaya Toure in the 2012 Africa Cup of Nations (see here).

I don't believe that a player could have obtained 4 Ivory Coast caps without garnering any attention in any English language media (or for that matter, appearing on player lists at FIFA's website), never mind the 7 caps that he apparently had in 2010 when the article was first created!

None of the external links or references actually refer to him.

There's even a Twitter account that seems bogus, connected as it is to a fake account for Manchester United F.C.

There is no evidence of this player at the Tom Tomsk website, though I'd be keen if a Russian speaker could confirm this?

Overall, then, I think it seems clear that this is a hoax across multiple platforms, which has survived for a remarkably long time! Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:29, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:33, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any official or reliable sources that mention this player. We had a similar incident recently with a footballer named "Azeem Azam", which also involved a twitter account and claims that the player had played for several MLS clubs. Number 5 7 09:07, 1 May 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.

^ http://www.milb.com/milb/stats/stats.jsp?sid=milb&t=p_pbp&pid=543813

^ http://www.fmredhawks.com/pressbox/news/index.html?article_id=683

^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view