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. LFaraone 00:05, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Idiom dictionary[edit]

Idiom dictionary (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)

"Idiom dictionary" is a redundant concept and needs no explanation. While Cambridge for instance publishes a dictionary of idioms, there is little reason to devote an article to stating that an idiom dictionary is a dictionary containing idioms. Note that most of the article concerns itself with explaining what idiom is. Actually, note that most of the article consists of 'See also' links. Drmies (talk) 23:35, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete lack of references and per above.--TV Man 13 23:46, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• This !vote has been struck as coming from a sockpuppet account. See this SPI. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:21, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments. Do note this 2007 revision posted in the previous AfD, which has superior wording, far less SeeAlso, and lists 1 actual example. The previous AfD also mentions the abundance of GoogleBooks references, which, at a very quick glance, seem to indicate that the topic of "Idiom dictionaries" might actually be important in fields related to cognitive linguistics. eg.1, eg.2. Hope that helps. –Quiddity (talk) 00:05, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At best, I still think this could be merged into a more encompassing article.--TV Man 13 00:15, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep per the 2012 AfD, which found the concept notable, and per WP:NOTDIC. In particular, "One perennial source of confusion is that a stub encyclopedia article looks very much like a stub dictionary entry, and stubs are often poorly written." The article is a stub. I have no strong objection to merging it somewhere, except that it would seem a somewhat uneasy fit at Idiom. Dictionary#Types might be OK. Cnilep (talk) 01:51, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Waste not, want not. Warden (talk) 13:34, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In what way does that address whether or not this article should be kept? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:22, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • See gnome. Warden (talk) 13:17, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • "A nod is as good as a wink"? Cnilep (talk) 20:34, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Update The article has been expanded and improved. It is now "on deck" at DYK where it will be reviewed. Further discussion here seems redundant. Warden (talk) 13:17, 21 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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:02, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chalkidiki Greek[edit]

Chalkidiki Greek (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)

DePRODed to bring here. This came up at ANI after a CSD was rejected, but there seems to be some dispute over whether it is actually a dialect, thus notable enough for an inclusion. Much of the content is dubious, according to those much smarter than I am, but I feel that taking a week to discuss and review is best, and if the topic is not notable as I suspect, then deletion would be the right course of action. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 23:34, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete you are right, some of the information is very questionable.--TV Man 13 23:52, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Sigh. Why did you de-prod it, when you don't actually want to keep it? Why do we have to "take a week to discuss" when nobody has so far indicated any interest in keeping it in the first place? This is a waste of my time; now I have to quite unnecessarily restate the whole thing all over again. So, once more: The article as it stood was not just full of amateurishly imprecise descriptions and obvious errors; there is also no sign the topic is a viable, linguistically significant dialectological unit to begin with. It makes sense to have a separate article on "dialect of X" only if X is linguistically separated from neighbouring dialects in a significant way, i.e. if there is a noteworthy linguistic boundary that coincides with the geographical boundaries of X. There is no indication at all that Xalkidiki is a unit in this sense. The only linguistic feature that the article tries to describe in some detail, the vowel reductions, is not characteristic of Xalkidiki as such, but is shared with almost the entirety of the northern and central Greek mainland, and as such it is appropriately treated in Varieties of Modern Greek. Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:57, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete t there seems to be some dispute over whether it is actually a dialect Really? Where is this dispute? Me, Taivo and FutPerf have all said it's not noteworthy. Nobody else expressed an opinion. — Lfdder (talk) 01:15, 16 Ma 2013 (UTC)
• Delete: non-notable pbp 01:30, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. "Dispute"? What are you talking about? That's a load of horse manure since not a single person was saying it was a dialect. There's no "dispute" whatsoever. All the actual linguists in the discussion were in perfect agreement--get rid of this turkey. --Taivo (talk) 02:58, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the expert opinions of several respected editors. There is nothing wrong with debating such matters here at AfD, and it is unfortunate when matters get so heated, when simple adherence to our normal procedures almost always yields the same result. I encourage both sides in this dispute to "chillax" as the kids say, laugh a bit, and move on to productive work improving the encyclopedia. It's a pretty damned good encyclopedia, after all. Let's make it better. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:54, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Amateurishness in the writing or organization of the article should not in itself be relevant to deletion, if I understand the spirit of the policies, but there is no indication in the article (or, apparently, anywhere else) that the subject is notably distinguishable from the larger regional dialect, per PFS. Varieties of Modern Greek seems reasonably thorough, and doesn’t mention the peninsula at all. (I guess the local dialect would be included under Macedonian or Thracian, but IANAL.)—Odysseus1479 (talk) 05:50, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - the "dispute" is actually very simple - the person who created the article asserted that it was a dialect. Others (including language experts) dispute that. Entirely appropriate that it be raised at ANI, then de-prodded and raised here. The comprehensive consensus so far should ensure it never comes back. Everyone needs to calm down and some need to realise they are fighting an invisible enemy here. Beyond that, those expert opinions are obviously in agreement and that agreement seems to be that this should be deleted. So be it. Stalwart111 06:34, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Now that the proper procedures have been followed, this article can, legitimately, go. That ANI thread went completely beserk, but the general consensus there was for deletion anyway. Also, people really need to get off the nominator's back, who should be commended for actually following the sensible route of doing what Lfdder should've done at the very beginning. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:12, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, and PROD wasn't "proper"? We've got one admin on a power trip, another one swearing at anyone who dares disagree with him, and another one who might very well be suffering from tunnel vision; and they're all friends. It only makes sense that they don't wanna look like complete asses about the whole thing, and so we've got this AfD. Give me a break. — Lfdder (talk) 09:38, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, because PROD is for non-controversial deletions. Given the furore around this whole event, this is not a non-controversial issue. Also, for all your complaining, this is likely to be closed as a snow delete, which would occur sooner than a PROD-based deletion. Someone needs to drop the stick, and stop abusing everyone who disagrees with you (or doesn't fully agree with you). The ANI thread was a farce; but remember who started it. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:49, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The controversy wasn't about actually deleting the article; nobody said that it shouldn't be deleted. Stop being dishonest. Right, so I'm to blame for how other people acted 'cos "I started it"? How do you even come up with this rubbish? — Lfdder (talk) 10:42, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  I strongly suggest that you start assuming good faith and stop calling people dishonest. Nobody is going to die if the article stays there one more day. It stayed several years, and nobody died yet.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:25, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure lots of people died in that time. — Lfdder (talk) 11:36, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stop asserting that there was any controversy over whether or not this article should have been quickly deleted. There was not a single, solitary peep and this was, indeed, a non-controversial deletion. The only controversy was over how Lfdder initially tried to delete it, not over whether or not it should be deleted. The admins trying to justify why they changed the deletion process are trying to make this sound like something more than just them trying to prove to the rest of us "mere mortals" that they have the power to push Wikipedia around. Instead of being honest and saying, "We just want to have a full-blown deletion process because we want to prove to Lfdder that we are in charge", they keep jury rigging excuses such as "there is controversy over whether this is or is not a dialect" (there is none); "the original author thinks it's a dialect" (the original author posted this in 2008 and hasn't edited it since 2010); "there was furor about the deletion" (the only furor had nothing whatsoever to do with whether this should be deleted, but only how). I'm getting sick and tired of of the admins confusing content with process here. Their only argument is over process (and no non-admin cared about how Lfdder deleted the article originally) not over content (absolutely everyone agrees that this article should go). Be honest. The admins want a full-blown, time-consuming process just because they want to flex their muscle. It has zero to do with content or desire to delete the article. Indeed, even with the non-controversial process, there is a straightforward way to object--delete the deletion tag. If someone actually had a content beef, they could have done that. For Dennis Brown to move the deletion process here without any editor whatsoever expressing an objection to the deletion is obviously not a content issue. If you are an uninvolved admin reading this, I apologize for lumping you into the broad group I have an issue with here. But you must understand the frustration that many editors have with admins when something like this occurs. The article was improperly blanked and then speedy removal was requested. I get that. Then a non-controversial deletion tag was placed on the article. That was appropriate. But then when Dennis Brown removed that tag and placed it here because of some trumped-up, invented, nonexistent "content controversy", that was beyond the pale of power trips. And then I read other admins trying to support "their boy" by inventing further content-based comments.... My patience with these two or three power-mad policy-pushers is at the breaking point. --Taivo (talk) 15:40, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just went through the policies to see whether I can SNOW close the nomination. Apparently, I can not. There is no criterion for speedy deletion applicable for this article (A7 is not applicable). This means PROD and AfD are the only two options (and they take the same time). Indeed, PROD does not create drama, but if we stop accusing each other in God knows what, AfD would not create drama either, and the article would quietly disappear after a week. I guess we all have more interesting things to do.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:16, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Accusing admins of being "power-mad policy-pushers", simply for following the policies we all set out, is absurd. The PROD could easily have been removed by some random IP half-way through the process, and then this AfD would've been started anyway. This AfD is almost generating as much drama as ANI... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:11, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It could have been removed, but since not a single solitary editor has posted "keep" here, we won't know will we? Instead the quick "dramaless" fix was short-circuited for no reason whatsoever by Dennis Brown. The vast majority of admins are capable, serious, and judicious, but there are a couple of admins here who seem to be pushing an agenda to make a point that has nothing whatsoever to do with content or controversy. It is no longer about following Wikipedia policy, which could have been followed just as fastidiously with a PROD. Dennis Brown wanted drama and to make his point by removing the PROD for no content reason whatsoever. He got his wish. --Taivo (talk) 19:49, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I've never heard such bullshit in all my life, especially about Dennis Brown, whom happens to be one of our better admins. Like I said, the fact it's here means deletion is guaranteed now in a week; anyone could've wandered in and de-prodded with no reason, and the process would've taken longer. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:11, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So Dennis Brown brought it here just in case ya? Never mind he lied there was dispute. You're some piece of work. — Lfdder (talk) 09:05, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, guys, it's not worth getting upset about. It was certainly done in good faith, but still it's a fact that Dennis' deprodding was, if not a mis-use, at least a poor use of process. You don't de-prod an article on the mere assumption that somebody else perhaps might object to a deletion. You de-prod it if and when you object to a deletion. It's exactly the basic principle of the prod process that the proposal is left to stand until somebody actually wishes to challenge it. This kind of "just-in-case" de-prodding undermines the very principle of the process; it wastes everybody's time and as such is harmful. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:11, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's all good, their clique are back to issuing "warnings". In good faith my arse. He's brought it here 'cos his friend said to take it to AfD originally, everybody else be damned. And his excuse is a lie. So take me to ANI, Ymblanter. Bunch of muppets they are. — Lfdder (talk) 10:32, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't get upset about it not being speedy deleted. Keep the circus going tho, you're doing good. — Lfdder (talk) 11:43, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - WP:IAR and snow close delete already. This is causing too much drama when the outcome is inevitable and agreed upon. WTucker (talk) 13:41, 17 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. AfD withdrawn by nominator; only delete !vote came from a sockpuppet account that has been blocked. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:24, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And the Violins Stopped Playing[edit]

And the Violins Stopped Playing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Seems to fail WP:GNG and WP:MOVIE. I cannot find any sources on this movie. If anyone can find some good sources, I'll gladly withdraw the nomination. Transcendence (talk) 23:31, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator since notability has been established per below. I would close this, but there has been a delete vote. Transcendence (talk) 08:01, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete only source given is Imdb, which can't count.--TV Man 13 23:54, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• This !vote has been struck as coming from a sockpuppet account. See this SPI. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:23, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

• KEEP per WP:NRVE. While I can appreciate the nominator being concerned with (then) current state or sourcing, there are plenty of English language sources available... and more, this film also has a great deal of Polish language coverage under its original title. The article could benefit from editorial attention, but deleting notable topics for lacking a little actual attention does not improve the project. WP:PRESERVE, WP:SOFIXIT. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:05, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Notability was not established nor was it obvious. In response to "The article could benefit from editorial attention, but deleting notable topics for lacking a little actual attention does not improve the project.", 'as I stated already, I looked for sources and was unable to find any.

With regards to the sources you added, all of your English sources except for the first one are not reliable sources or are about the book and not the movie.

• Source #2 "And the Violins Stopped Playing: A Story of the Gypsy Holocaust" This is the book itself. This is not about the movie, furthermore, it's not independent of the subject matter here since the movie is based on the book.
• Source #3 "Holocaust books tell horrors of concentration camps". The Advocate. This is also about the book, not the movie.
• Source #4 "And the Violins Stopped Playing details". The New York Times. I believe this falls under the following from WP:MOVIE, "Examples of coverage insufficient to fully establish notability include newspaper listings of screening times and venues, "capsule reviews", plot summaries without critical commentary, or listings in comprehensive film guides such as Leonard Maltin's Movie Guide, Time Out Film Guide, or the Internet Movie Database"
• Source #5 "About the film, DVD". Allrovi. Same as source #4.
• However all of this is moot since the Polish sources establish notability per WP:MOVIE, "The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release." With that, I'll be withdrawing my nomination. Transcendence (talk) 07:59, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• You do understand that any information in an article must be verifiable in a reliable sources (such as The New York Times or The Advocate) and that such verifibility need not itself be significant coverage? The terms are related but not interchangeable. Thankfully, the Polish language sources offer more than do the English language ones and I very much wish to thank you for the withdrawal. And no... I am not at all through with work on the article. Hint: Look at the English and Polish "Find sources" search results under "Google books" and "Google scholar". As I said below... more to do. Thank you for bringing to AFD... resulting it it finally getting some attention. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:03, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing. You're talking about verifiability (which I don't know what that has to do with the notability of the article which is the focus of the AfD), whereas I'm talking about notability. Verifiable sources do not establish notability. As noted in WP:MOVIE, synopsis sources don't confer notability. Significant coverage in reliable sources do. Transcendence (talk) 18:36, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• In any case, I sense some sort of hostility or annoyance coming from you so, we should just leave it at that. Transcendence (talk) 18:42, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Update: Though AFD is not meant to force improvement, such improvement is undergoing anyways. As it is always better to support opinion with action, HERE is the unsourced version as nominated and HERE is the article as of 06:04, 16 May 2013 (UTC). More to do... but do-able... and not a reason to delete. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:18, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - and close/withdraw the nom please. At this point the notability is clearly established.Volunteer Marek 12:35, 16 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. LFaraone 00:05, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Dares[edit]

The Dares (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 group that has apparently not gotten their first CD released yet. No references. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:44, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no sources apart from the one in the infobox, which isn't good enough.--TV Man 13 23:01, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• This !vote has been struck as coming from a sockpuppet account. See this SPI. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:28, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. I've reverted the main body text to an older version from the article history as it was copied from their web site. -- Whpq (talk) 16:57, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 19:06, 17 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. LFaraone 00:05, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Sierra[edit]

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

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

Not only can't I find any third-party sources to confirm notability, but even IMDb isn't showing anything for him. Wizardman 22:34, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not measuring up to WP:ENTERTAINER.--TelevisionMan13 (talk) 22:42, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• This !vote has been struck as coming from a sockpuppet account. See this SPI. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:29, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No coverage at all. Wit the understanding that TV.com is not a reliable source, the entry for Sierra indicates that his role in Ghostwriter was only for 4 episodes. -- Whpq (talk) 17:15, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 19:07, 17 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. LFaraone 00:05, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bandung Derby[edit]

Bandung Derby (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)

Some context has been added since CSD nomination, and that was declined, but no notability is asserted nor verified. Nor is the sport clear. Fiddle Faddle 21:23, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NRIVALRY. Sports rivalries are not notable unless they pass the WP:GNG. Mentoz86 (talk) 07:55, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: one match between two teams in the same area does not make a... well, technically it is a local derby, but as just Mentoz86 points out, not a notable one. At least not yet. --Shirt58 (talk) 09:20, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to List of association football rivalries, not independently notable. GiantSnowman 19:04, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Perfectly acceptable. If I'd known what it was when I nominated it I'd have done that myself. Fiddle Faddle 22:37, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Only one game played so no real evidence of any real rivalry, so not sure merging to List of association football rivalries is appropriate at this stage. Fenix down (talk) 17:47, 19 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. LFaraone 00:05, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander's Choice[edit]

Alexander's Choice (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)

Apparently not notable. I have been unable to find any reliable sources for this notability outside of the one (gossip-ish) Daily Mail article. Author is otherwise unpublished (possibly a pseudonym). Publisher is the non-notable "CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform" (apparently vanity press). SummerPhD (talk) 21:22, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete If we could find more than Daily Mail, then maybe, but we'd need a bit more to establish this as notable.--TelevisionMan13 (talk) 22:37, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• This !vote has been struck as coming from a sockpuppet account. See this SPI. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:30, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. From what I can find, the only place that has actually reported on this book is the Daily Mail, which is far from a reliable source as far as Wikipedia goes. Their tabloid nature on other things makes it unusable even for the other things such as book commentary. I don't particularly have anything against it being userfied, but the article slightly smacks of WP:PUFFERY when you consider that portions of it were/are written like it was WP:OR by the original editor and there is a faint promotional/sensationalistic tone to it. I removed the "themes" section outright because it read more like OR or an opinion piece than a real theme section and lacked sources to back up the claims of the themes. The thing about theme sections is that you have to have something to back it up and verify that these are actual themes and not just something that you personally read into it. It's not the worst I've read, but it's bad enough to where I'd recommend that if this is userfied, it would be a very good idea to have it looked over by another editor. Fair note for any coming in: I might end up cleaning the article up to remove the worst of the prose or I might leave the rest "as is", as I don't really think this has a snowball's chance of surviving unless the book gains a lot of coverage before the AfD's end.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:43, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Insufficient coverage. 1292simon (talk) 12:09, 20 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. LFaraone 00:05, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Horton Gallery[edit]

Horton Gallery (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 business, only reference is in a non WP:RS blog. Wikipedia is not a place to make a reputation it is a place that records reputations already made. Notability is not inherited from a list of artists. CSD was declined, hence AfD now. Fiddle Faddle 21:02, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete we have New York Times references, but it's just not enough.--TelevisionMan13 (talk) 22:45, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• This !vote has been struck as coming from a sockpuppet account. See this SPI. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:28, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that references have increased in number, but are. at present, insufficient in quality. the NY Times one is a passing mention only, and the others fail WP:RS. That something exists is fine, but that does not of itself, make it notable. Some sort of notability must be asserted and verified. 11:11, 16 May 2013 (UTC)Fiddle Faddle
• Delete as promotional. There are tons of galleries in New York. No reason to have an article on all of them. Ignatzmice•talk 13:35, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Insufficient coverage to establish notability. 1292simon (talk) 12:11, 20 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. LFaraone 00:06, 23 May 2013 (UTC) The result was no consensus. LFaraone 02:36, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Frankstown Township Shooting[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:N and NOTNEWS. News event without enduring coverage. MASEM (t) 20:21, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete covered by multiple sources, but not many people were killed.--Beachsand2004 (talk) 20:26, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• This !vote has been struck as coming from a sockpuppet account. See this SPI. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:15, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Of definite historical interest Jewishprincess (talk) 20:31, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There has been no apparent coverage of this since the event broke. That doesn't suggest "definite historical interest". --MASEM (t) 20:34, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• (edit conflict) Delete - The "coverage" was all on the day of the shooting or the day after. According to WP:PERSISTENCE, "a burst or spike of news reports does not automatically make an incident notable. Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article." Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 20:37, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this will unlikely be significant history by the beginning of next year.--TV Man 13 23:11, 15 May 2013 (UTC) Banned sock[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The article was !voted to be kept in a previous Afd a mere 5 months ago, but is renominated here to make a point, a violation, in my view, of WP:POINT per this exchange from the heated debate at the N.O. Mother's Day Parade shooting article deletion discussion and I consider the nomination disruptive, to say the least. Jusdafax 01:03, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The results of the first AFD (done 8 days after the event) have no relevance on this one as plenty of time for enduring coverage to have arisen has elapsed. And it's certainly not pointy to nominate other articles based on a current AFD when they fail established policy and guidelines. --MASEM (t) 01:15, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, according to you, you can just keep nominating articles for deletion over and over until you get the result you want? Jusdafax 01:21, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Er, no? I've never seen this article before today, and it clearly fails notability guidelines, and there's no sources to justify it as an enduring topic months out from it. Ergo it's not appropriate for Wikipedia. --MASEM (t) 01:24, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I see any pointy behaviour. I think it's perfectly acceptable to nominate articles for deletion 5 months after a previous one closed. However, if the nominator does it only to prove a point, yes that is disruptive, but I do not think that the nominator has done anything wrong, and this discussion is for the good of the encyclopedia. Sadly, there are some pages that are nominated every 6 months, like Template:Cleanup. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 20:12, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the main reason it was nominated was to prove a point, along with 2 other articles. The conversation started here. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 Mother's Day Parade shooting USchick (talk) 19:35, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bringing up other examples of articles as a reason to keep, under the idea of OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, means those examples will face scrutiny too. --MASEM (t) 20:06, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I see how the nomination might be considered pointy. I am unmoved, however, from my opinion on this subject. I think that the other AfD that you mentioned is irrelevant to this one; individual articles must stand up to meet notability criteria, consensuses, and precedents independently. You can set precedents, but you can't refer to another AfD as an argument for another one. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 00:02, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, notability has been established by press coverage. Everyking (talk) 22:18, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of which has not extended beyond a day or two of the day the shooting occurred. Notable events usually receive coverage beyond a relatively short news cycle. (WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 00:42, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Export to wikinews - Lucy346 (talk) 17:32, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:NOTNEWS. 1292simon (talk) 12:16, 20 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. LFaraone 00:06, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Seattle cafe shooting spree[edit]

2012 Seattle cafe shooting spree (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 NOTNEWS and WP:N. News event without enduring coverage. MASEM (t) 20:21, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep Of historical interest. This incident is also currently part of the gun-control debate. Moreover, it is cited by both sides in this very charged issue. Jewishprincess (talk) 20:38, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing beyond the time of the shooting, and a gnews spot check is not showing it coming up in mention. We do not need to document every crime committed. --MASEM (t) 20:48, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just this week the Seattle Times did a huge front page retrospective. Not saying that this makes it a national event but clearly a comprehensive news search wasn't made. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk)
      • This article doesn't come up in a google search yet. But a local paper covering a local event a year later is not a big surprise, nor a sign of enduring coverage. --MASEM (t) 22:15, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:ITSUSEFUL, then? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:25, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - This nomination is an example, in my view, of WP:POINT per this exchange from the heated debate at the N.O. Mother's Day Parade shooting article deletion discussion and I consider it disruptive, to say the least. Jusdafax 23:18, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Question will this article be of historical significance? This does seem like an article that could be developed but only six people died and I'm not sure if this event will have a lasting impact.--TV Man 13 23:27, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, notability seems clear from press coverage. Everyking (talk) 22:11, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Press coverage is not equal to significant coverage by secondary sources required for notability. --MASEM (t) 22:14, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Export to wikinews. Lucy346 (talk) 17:35, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I recall it getting onto AP and other national news at the time (just short of a year ago), and the metro newspaper in the Seattle area had the recent linked article looking back. I think that's enough, given that the ongoing gun control debate keeps bringing up this incident and other attacks. Bearian (talk) 17:46, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • A burst of national/international coverage at the time of the event is not considered enduring coverage, simply good third-party primary source to build up an article if the event merits one. A recall of the event a year later in a local paper (and nowhere else) is not a sign of significant coverage outside of the local area. --MASEM (t) 18:01, 20 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. Numerically speaking this discussion is about as even as possible but the keep arguments based on the sources provided in this discussion are convincing that this subject is more than standard news coverage. J04n(talk page) 14:13, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2011 IHOP shooting[edit]

2011 IHOP shooting (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)

News event with no enduring coverage, failing WP:N and NOTNEWS MASEM (t) 19:45, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I have to agree that WP:NOTNEWS applies here. Notability isn't about how hard a crime tugs our heartstrings or how many people die, it is about the lasting effect after the event. Sadly, people get shot and die every day in America and Wikipedia doesn't exist to catalog them all, only those that have notability via a lasting impact, which this lacks. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 20:15, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not likely to be significant in twenty, ten, or even five years time.--Beachsand2004 (talk) 21:16, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, this is a unique sort of CRYSTALBALL argument, is it not? The question is this: was the subject of the article covered substantially by multiple independently-published so-called "reliable" sources? Which this was, in spades. Carrite (talk) 00:29, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• This !vote has been struck as coming from a sockpuppet account. See this SPI. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:14, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete people die everyday and news reports about it every day.--TV Man 13 00:06, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of badgering, I note that this is an OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST argument. Care to talk about the available sourcing? Carrite (talk) 00:40, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• This !vote has been struck as coming from a sockpuppet account. See this SPI. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:22, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I totally agree with Prime Minister Brown that "notability isn't about how hard a crime tugs at our heartstrings." It is all about sources. When a shooting makes ABC World News Tonight, chances are it is an event of lasting significance rather than an isolated shooting incident in the abattoir of gun-crazy America. Days after the event, the Christian Science Monitor was still looking for meaning from the affair. Ditto CNN. One year later, the Reno Gazette-Journal was still covering the event as "85 seconds that changed Carson City" — that would seem to be "lasting impact," would it not? Multiple fatalities, this can't be dismissed as a typical "one-and-done" blasting by a looney tune... Oh, yeah, USA Today picked up the story as well. This was, in short, a national event, not a local crime, extensively covered in by fairly vast number of tip-top, first tier sources of the mainstream press. Notability is not temporary — this was notable then and it remains so now. Carrite (talk) 00:26, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • These aren't secondary sources, though, specifically enduring coverage. This, save for the retrospective, was all at the time of the event. And the retrospective was from a local (not unreliable) source, again suggesting the event had no enduring coverage for a global encyclopedia. This is the type of story that should be in Wikinews, not Wikipedia. --MASEM (t) 00:35, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Need a couple more sources: how about MSNBC? Huffington Post? New York Times??? New York Daily News??? Carrite (talk) 00:37, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which would be: national internet news, national cable news, national "newspaper of record," mass circulation tabloid on the other side of the country from the incident. This was a HUGE national story. And it was the subject of coverage for at least a year. Carrite (talk) 00:39, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No question of national and international coverage on the day + some of the event, but no tail. I'm sure I could spend time and find several stories locally to Carson City a week or a month out from the event, but on an initial check of news sources it doesn't appear to have long-term coverage at a national level or better. This is exactly what NOTNEWS, WP:NEVENT and WP:N caution against. This is, for all purposes, a routine crime, and not appropriate for WP. --MASEM (t) 00:47, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Had there been legislation due to this event, that would be an example of enduring effect. Had some societal change in attitude that was documentable occurred, keeping would be obvious. Had he been in a watchtower screaming "Allah Akbar", and the government decided to classify it as a work place incident, you can rest assured the media would have ensured the story had a lasting impact. What we have is a shooting, people died, this happens with alarming frequency in the United States. Sadly, "only" killing a few people without having a political motivation has become routine for our purposes. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 01:03, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, notability is clearly established by press coverage. Everyking (talk) 22:15, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I hate to sound like an asshole, but I really don't get how this is notable. Some guy went into an IHOP, shot some people, shot himself, they all died, the end. So what? What makes that so special in comparison to the hundreds of shootings that happen every day? --69.84.112.132 (talk) 22:08, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shootings happen every day, yes, mass shootings by lone gunmen, on the other hand, not so much. And just because something happens frequently doesn't automatically mean it is not notable. (Thusz (talk) 16:06, 18 May 2013 (UTC))[reply]

• Keep - There was considerable news coverage about the shooting worldwide at the time it occurred, some of it was pretty in-depth, and contrary to what User:Masem says there have been reports on a national and international level about the shooting several months later, see e.g. here, here, here, here, here, and it is also mentioned here and here, so I do not see how WP:NOTNEWS, or WP:N apply here. Furthermore, looking at the List of rampage killers it seems it was the worst mass shooting by a lone gunman regarding the total number of victims in Nevada in the last 100 years. About the lack of secondary sources, well the shooting happened not even two years ago, which is not a lot of time for writing books and scientific articles about it, but it was mentioned in The Effect of Social and Physical Detachment on Information Need. (Thusz (talk) 15:57, 18 May 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Those all are primary sources, not discussing the impact of the event on the world at large. Mere reporting is not sufficient for WP:N/WP:NEVENT/NOTNEWS. I can't read the ACM article but based on the abstract, the event similar appears to be an example, not a significant discussion of it, and thus again, fails secondary sourcing. --MASEM (t) 16:42, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First, since when does an event have to have an impact on the entire world to warrant an article? If that were the case, we shouldn't have an article about the Los Angeles Times bombing and many many other things, because they had little to no impact outside the United States, or whatever country they occurred in. Second, the articles given are not primary sources according to WP:PRIMARY, because they are "one step removed from an event" thanks to the journalists who wrote them. So we do have significant coverage by reliable and independent sources for a considerable time and therefore the event meets WP:N, which furthermore states:

"Notability is not temporary: once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage."

(Thusz (talk) 12:52, 19 May 2013 (UTC))[reply]

"World at large" doesn't mean global impact but has to be more than local. WP defines secondary sources as transformative meaning that they have had original thought applied to the topic using other sources to build on. In this case, nearly every newspaper article that is just recapping events, while "one step away", is considered primary. See WP:PRIMARYNEWS. And no, not for a considerable time - we're looking more than just a few days from numerous sources, not just local (where an event like this will ring true for some time). Significant coverage is defined by a period of enduring notability. --MASEM (t) 14:34, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I guess I have to admit that I misinterpreted the term „world at large“ in this context, but I suppose it doesn’t really matter, since WP:EFFECT isn’t that specific in what constitutes a „lasting effect“, so it is probably debatable, if the discussion about mentally ill people having easy access to firearms and the introduction of Senate Bill 221 can be considered an impact on the world at large, or not.

Regarding the lack of secondary sources, I honestly don’t see a problem here, because, as I said, not even two years have passed since the shooting, and that is not that much time to write books and scientific articles about it. But even if you can’t find secondary sources, it does not mean there aren’t any. A quick Google search is certainly not enough to verify what and how much has been published on the subject.

Furthermore I find your interpretation of WP:PRIMARYNEWS questionable at best. By declaring all of these newspaper articles to be merely primary sources, and that without secondary sources notability is not established, you are basically stating that hundreds of thousands of Wikipedia articles on unquestionably notable events should be deleted, because they rely solely on newspaper articles published in their immediate aftermath. This is insofar highly problematic, since these newspaper articles are often the only available sources for historic events, or events occurring in countries nobody in the western world actually cares about. So, following this argumentation would drastically increase western bias and cut a giant hole into Wikipedias coverage of important events of the past.

Also you state that "one step away", is considered primary, but then I have to ask myself, why WP:SECONDARY states that [a] secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. (Let's conveniently ignore the fact that in the context of a newspaper "an author's own thinking based on primary sources" would basically be an editorial, which WP:NEWSORG then declares to be a "reliable primary source for statements attributed to that editor or author". Doesn't make a lot of sense to me, especially since any source where an author mixes facts with opinion would automatically be a primary source for all of the opinion parts.)

Finally, what is your definition of "a considerable time"? You youself stated that:

I'm sure I could spend time and find several stories locally to Carson City a week or a month out from the event

This tells me you didn't search at all, because a ten second internet search gives you not only several, but a pretty great lot of articles published by the Reno Gazette-Journal and the Las Vegas Sun many months later. Also the articles I have linked to were published months after the shooting, so your statement that we're looking more than just a few days from numerous sources, not just local is moot, because I have already proven that coverage of the shooting spread over more than "just a few days". Therefore I suppose you must agree that there is some notability to the shooting, if newspapers all over the United States and a couple of other countries bothered to report about it after all that time. Furthermore, the shooting is still mentioned in the media every now and then. If that is not a considerable time, I don’t know.

Is the shooting notable? Harry Reid seems to be of that opinion, but anyway, WP:N/CA tells us that [a]rticles about criminal acts, particularly those that fall within the category of "breaking news", are frequently the subject of deletion discussions.

Ok, here we are, discussing. It further states:

As with other events, media coverage can confer notability on a high-profile criminal act, provided such coverage meets the above guidelines and those regarding reliable sources.

I assume you don’t doubt that we have numerous reliable sources about the event, so let’s go straight to the coverage guidelines on that page. The first one says that [a]n event must receive significant or in-depth coverage to be notable. As I see it there has been a significant amount of coverage, and quite a bit of it I would regard as pretty in-depth. This article e.g. puts the shooting into a wider context and is even a secondary source.

Number two states that [n]otable events usually receive coverage beyond a relatively short news cycle. A short news cycle for me would be one or two days, maybe a week, before the event is forgotten, never to resurface again. This is obviously not the case here, since there has been additional coverage, also by national and international media, even months later.

The third one says that [s]ignificant national or international coverage is usually expected for an event to be notable. No doubt, there was significant coverage in the United States, while on an international scale you have The Guardian, The Daily Mail, El Mundo, Terra Networks, O Estado de S. Paulo, Süddeutsche Zeitung, Hamburger Abendblatt, Le Fiagro, El Mañana, and there are probably many more, so I would say this is also covered.

So I come to the conclusion that the shooting meets all criteria of WP:N/CA, and also WP:GNG, with the possible exception of the "Sources" part, but for the reasons stated above I find the classification of newspaper articles, similar to the ones presented here, as primary sources unsatisfactory and even highly disruptive regarding the creation of articles on Wikipedia. Even the respective Wikipedia article says that (...) the distinction between primary and secondary sources is subjective and contextual, so that precise definitions are difficult to make.

So, I'd be glad to know how you came to the conclusion the article fails WP:N, WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:NEVENT, because merely stating and repeating it isn't that helpful. (Thusz (talk) 14:28, 20 May 2013 (UTC))[reply]

First, I never said "all" newspaper articles are primary. PRIMARYNEWS says the bulk of routine news reporting is primary as they are simply recapping the events as told down from officials and other sources but without interpretation. All the international sources and extensive reporting on this event within the week of the event is pretty much of this ilk, thus we have - as typical of world media - an event that is sensational and momentarily covered in detail, but once you're outside that week or so, the coverage is gone, outside of local sources. That is the typical pattern of an event that does not have permanence for coverage in an encyclopedia. So while these are fine sources to use for describing the event, ultimately they count for naught towards notability.

What thus is left are secondary sources that describe the impact of the event but mostly at a local scale (the gun law changes). (And to note, when I said "given some time to search", I was talking a detailed extensive search. I saw a few local sources on the first few gnews hits, but I was looking for the time and global scale well past the event date) It certainly was that this case might have catalyzed the SB221 bill, but obviously that bill didn't go anywhere. What this basically is saying is that there is a notable discussion on gun laws and the mentally ill, of which this event is a sentence or two in that discussion, but in the case of this event, it doesn't make the event notable. Or, better put, without putting into the larger context of gun control and the mentally ill, it is basically a local crime and does not make for an encyclopedia.

As for time, events 99% of the time are either assuredly notable within a week of happening or not. Rarely, there may be an event that seems non-notable but turns out to be critical many years later, but that's rare. Thus, for notability, it makes no sense to let event articles remain if nothing's happened a week out from the event. If we have to recreate it later, that's fine, but given the rarity this is the case, it's not a concern from the standpoint of data retention. This is why we have Wikinews. Current events that are well-covered but of dubious notability should be filtered there instead of being created on WP. If they turn out to be notable, we can transwiki them into en.wiki. If not, we still have an interwiki link to use in some article about a larger context that the event would fit into. --MASEM (t) 14:50, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, and I never said that you said all newspaper articles are a primary source. To quote myself:

"By declaring all of these newspaper articles to be merely primary sources..."

With "all of these" I did not mean all newspaper articles per se, but those presented during this discussion. To challenge notability of an event on the ground of a lack of secondary sources, even though there are newspaper reports by the dozen from all over the world, and over an extended period of time, is a very questionable interpretation of WP:GNG and WP:N in my eyes, because as I said, there are in all probability hundreds of throusands of Wikipedia articles on events that are certainly notable, based entirely on media reports that are no different than the ones that have been linked here. To cast doubt on that notability, simply because nobody bothered to give a more detailed account and in-depth interpretation seems very wrong to me.

Also the only example given at WP:PRIMARYNEWS that might apply to the reports posted here is the third one, "Reports on events", but on a second look even that is not clear, because at least to me the impression is given that it may apply only to reports based on a single source who was present at the site of the event, which may be the journalist himself. It certainly is debatable, if a synthesis of various accounts of an event can be considered an interpretation, as the journalist, by weighing his sources, decides what kind of impression of the event to present to his audience.

Furthermore you repeat again that „once you're outside that week or so, the coverage is gone, outside of local sources“ and again I have to set it straight that the event did not vanish from the news after a week, or even a month. How many links to media reports outside that time frame do I have to present to you, before you accept this as a fact? Need a few more? Here you go:

• Sheriff: Gun in IHOP shooting illegally altered, New York Post (October 5, 2013)
• Nevada IHOP, scene of shooting rampage, to reopen, Businessweek (October 13, 2011)
• Brother of IHOP killer jailed in South Lake Tahoe battery, Tahoe Daily Tribune (October 24, 2011)
• Nev. IHOP shooter feared demons were after him , Fox News (November 2, 2011)
• Carson City IHOP gunman said he saw demons, authorities say, Los Angeles Times (November 2, 2011)
• IHOP Shooting Video Released, KSEE (November 3, 2011)
• Eduardo Sencion, IHOP Shooter, Was Convinced Demons Were After Him, Huffington Post (November 3, 2011)
• Cámaras de vigilancia captan tiroteo en restaurante de Nevada Terra Networks (November 5, 2011)
• Terror at Nev. IHOP shooting: Motive sought for killing of 4, The Oakland Press (November 5, 2011)
• Guardsman returns to work after Nev. IHOP shooting, Fox News (November 7, 2011)
• Nevada National Guardsman returns to work after deadly IHOP shooting, CBS News (November 8, 2011)
• Carson City IHOP reopens after deadly rampage, New York Post (December 15, 2011)
• IHOP shooting one year later: 85 seconds that changed Carson City, Shreveport Times (September 4, 2012)
• Nev. guardsman recalls scene of IHOP shooting, Army Times (March 27, 2013)

I don’t know how you see this, but at least in my opinion a discussion at a state senate is way beyond „local scale“ and that the bill went nowhere doesn’t bother me at all, because the fact alone that the shooting incited a serious political discussion for stricter gun laws is enough for me to establish that it had a longer lasting impact. Also it apparently wasn’t just a side note in this regard, but was used as the featured example to support it. Maybe I’m mistaken, but I doubt that local crimes with no historical significance get a mention at the senate very often and spark debates about law reforms.

If you have performed a "detailed extensive search" on the subject and came up with merely "a few local sources" I have to say that your search apparently was not very efficient, because there are not only a few local sources, but a lot, (Reno Gazette-Journal, Las Vegas Sun, Kolo TV, Nevada Appeal) and for reports beyond the local level, well, look above. (Thusz (talk) 14:45, 22 May 2013 (UTC))[reply]

It is long established that newspaper sources that are simply reiterating details are primary sources even if it is published halfway across the world. This is akin to the concept that just because something exists doesn't make it notable - here we're talking about an event that clearly happened and is well documented, but its impact on the world at large is highly questionable. This is why we generally have to look beyond just how many news articles and when they were published, and look at what they are publishing, and of those sources, there's only a small fraction of them that go into more than just basic facts and attempt analysis of the event. Of several gnews papers I've seen, all of these are only published at the local level, because for all practical purposes, that was the extent of the "aftermath" of the event (eg the retrospective a year later). Laws didn't get changed, etc, despite there being initial efforts. That PDF from the nv.gov is literally a name-drop, and again can't be considered a secondary source. The ones you list above that are beyond local coverage are simply news tidbits and again are primary sources. So again, while there is some secondary coverage, it is highly local in nature, and that makes its inclusion in a global encyclopedia inappropriate. This is exactly why Wikinews exists because it can take these articles with no question, and with the potential to migrate them into en.wiki when the event actually is shown to be notable. You say that there probably thousands of event articles out there relying on primary sources - I actually don't doubt this (I've seen many happen like this because people want to rush to create an ITN story), but this is because editors do not remember NOTNEWS and it is impossible to patrol these all. Just because OTHERSTUFFEXISTS doesn't mean that it is by consensus. --MASEM (t) 15:04, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Export to wikinews. Lucy346 (talk) 17:37, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Routine American shooting. WP:NOTNEWS, no evidence of lasting historical interest. Resolute 15:22, 23 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. LFaraone 00:06, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Barefoot and Buckwild[edit]

Barefoot and Buckwild (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)

Won't allow me to move the article to Lauren Alaina so delete per WP:NSONG as unlikely ever to grow beyond stub and should be merged to articles about an artist or album. Mo ainm~Talk 19:43, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge would be better, it did debut on American Idol and is by a notable artist but agreed, it's unlikely to grow as an article.--Beachsand2004 (talk) 20:10, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• This !vote has been struck as coming from a sockpuppet account. See this SPI. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:16, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge It is by a famous/notable artist, though I don't see the chance of it turning into a proper article as there is not too much to say about it. Knight of Gloucestershire (talk) 20:42, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Song debuted in the top 40 of the Billboard Hot Country Songs chart this week and has been the subject of multiple articles and reviews. Eric444 (talk) 16:35, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The song has charted on a national chart thereby passing WP:NSONGS and has numerous sourced information including reviews thereby passings WP:GNG. Aspects (talk) 04:13, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article is properly padded with sources and it has already charted on a Billboard genre chart, and will chart on others in the near future as it has only just been released. I see no reason why it should be deleted. CloversMallRat (talk) 07:20, 20 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. Consensus here is to delete but as noted there is some verifiable notable information on the page. Sean.hoyland's suggestion to move to a new title and merge with other pages to form a more complete and neutral article could be a solution. If someone wants to begin such a neutral page I would userfy this page to them. J04n(talk page) 11:16, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Violations of the Ceasefire of 21 November, 2012[edit]

List of Violations of the Ceasefire of 21 November, 2012 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The essence of the article is to promote the claim that certain actions violated a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas. This claim is usually not made even in the dubious sources cited. Thus the article is a classic violation of WP:NOT#OR and WP:NOTSOAPBOX. One also finds additional serious problems of the kind that would be expected in an article such as this: bad sourcing (consisting almost entirely of newspaper articles from dictatorial countries lacking freedom of the press), POV-ish selection of information and wording, and a very low quality of writing (e.g., what ceasefire in which part of the world does the title refer to?) Jalapenos do exist (talk) 19:01, 15 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 15. Snotbot  t • c »  19:11, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My views are the same as for Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Israeli_Violations_of_the_Ceasefire_of_21_November,_2013. If people want to properly document actions carried out by either belligerent in the same article so that Wikipedia content is balanced and complies with all policies, they can. If they only want to document actions carried out by one of the belligerents, they clearly don't belong here. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:28, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• My views are the same as for Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Israeli_Violations_of_the_Ceasefire_of_21_November,_2013. Essentially I believe it is a good example of WP:SYSTEMIC BIAS in the topic area that editors such as the proposing editor who are active in creating a List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2012, but they would also like to remove any similar list form the encyclopedia that would cover Israeli attacks on Gaza or cover attacks of both sides against each other. Dlv999 (talk) 19:44, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I concur with the above editors. There is a consistent failure by editors to observe WP:NPOV. Active in writing about Palestinian violence, they scour the pages to eliminate any similar pages documenting Israeli violence. That this comes so quickly after the failure to cancel the other page looks distinctly odd. Never give up? Keep pushing? Never take note of the problem? Hand-the-delete-baton-to-the-next-guy if the first fumbles?Nishidani (talk) 20:01, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response: Obviously, violent actions both against Israel and by Israel (and any other country) should be catalogued on Wikipedia, but this should be done in accordance with Wikipedia policies and common sense. An example of a good article cataloguing violent actions by Israel is Israeli targeted killings. An example of a good article cataloguing violent actions against Israel is List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2012. The article we are now discussing happens to be extremely bad, and the previous comments are all parade examples of WP:OTHERSTUFF, appeal to motive, and projection. Pretty depressing. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 20:35, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the page just needs improvement, formatting, further detail. The article is not 'bad' except in a 'moral sense'. The word you are looking for is 'underdeveloped'. I think these pages are necessary and should perhaps be merged. But deleting one side of an a survey of incidents while retaining the other violates WP:NPOV. The main editor should in any case, look at formatting on similar pages, give the author's name, title, news source and date, and if possible add contextual detail. That is useful advice. Moving to just scrap it is not.Nishidani (talk) 06:52, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is a difference between articles on topics like Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel and Israeli targeted killings on the one hand and lists of incidents in a given time period such as List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2012 and List of Violations of the Ceasefire of 21 November, 2012. The question here, in my view, is why we should be documenting a list of infractions by one side, but deleting lists that cover infractions by the other party, or both parties. Dlv999 (talk) 21:53, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. We need a consistent policy and not this constant battling, which, depending on who shows up, could lead to something as absurd/silly as this article being deleted while List of Israeli Violations of the Ceasefire of 21 November, 2013 survived. Anyway to get a relevant WP:ARBPIA arbitration on systematic bias. (Of course, first we need a mention of it in the Wikipedia:Systemic bias article and/or Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias.) CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 04:19, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and my views are similar to those I expressed at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Israeli_Violations_of_the_Ceasefire_of_21_November,_2013, but I do see now I was a bit confused about the relationship between the two articles. Now it does occur to me maybe it would be better to merge both into this article that's up for deletion since it would be nice to be able to compare who's been "naughtier." Maybe do it in two column form. but since I didn't bring it up last time...shhhhh.... CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 00:28, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This article is entirely based on unreliable sources. For example, Al-Qassam Brigades (Hamas), several unknown pro-Palestinian sites and PressTV (Iranian regime's propaganda), among others. There is not a single source from a relevant newspaper to support alleged "violations of the ceasefire".--IranitGreenberg (talk) 11:53, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

entirely based on unreliable sources. That statement is entirely based on not doing elementary arithmetic on the source base. There are 29 sources, of which Press TV figures once, Al Qassam twice, Middle Eastern Monitor once,and the Palestinian Press Agency once. The remaining 24 sources, New York Times, Maan News Agency, NBC News, Daily Star, Reuters, Ynet, Jerusalem Post, International Middle East Media Center, are RS for these facts. Thus 18% of the article is composed of challengeable sources. Conclusion? You understand the word ‘entirely’ to refer to 18% of an article, and not to the 82% remainder. The four non-RS are easily replaced since the sparse data they provide can be cross-checked against better sources like this, namely the PCHR lists, or other mainstream outlets, once the data registered are, item for item, googled by date and event for wider press coverage. Please don't misrepresent facts in order to make an argument or a falsifiable generalization. This assumes Wikipedians don't check. Most of them do.Nishidani (talk) 14:38, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Very encyclopedic. All of these events got coverage. I see the first reference is to the New York Times explaining what happened with one event, the second is from NBC News titled "Israeli forces kill Gaza man despite cease-fire". If there is a problem with any of the sources discuss it on the talk page. These events get coverage world wide. Dream Focus 13:07, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need to mention every single time an Israeli kills an Arab, or vice versa. Please read WP:NOTNEWS pbp 22:51, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You shouldn't link to something without actually reading it first. WP:NOTNEWS is not relevant here. We are listing how many violations of the ceasefire there are, and the details about it. It is quite encyclopedic to have this data here. People studying this in the future will be able to look over the history, and better understand the situation. Dream Focus 22:56, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The details themselves are irrelevant. The only salvageable content from this article is about one sentence that says "There were some number of violations of this treaty". Almost all the violations themselves are non-notable. Imagine what would happen if we reported every casualty of larger conflicts in the same way we reported this. Wikipedia would be an utter mess of long casualty lists and where they fell. Also consider WP:NOT, the part about long lists pbp 23:03, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I always shake my head with disbelief when people say publicly that stuff like violating a truce or treaty are 'not news'. It's like saying the Gulf of Tonkin incident wasn't news. It's the whole basis of numerous wars. But then this war is WP:NOTNEWS, I guess (for those who don't like to read tis kind of news).Nishidani (talk) 06:08, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Imagine if Wikipedia described every single missile fired by Palestinian militants or the IDF. Editors scrupulously do the former but not the latter. Strange but true (see 2001, 2002–2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013). Try nominating those articles for deletion using the WP:NOTNEWS, WP:LAUNDRYLIST criteria and watch what happens. If Wikipedia is going to include details like this, and there is currently no way to prevent it, it should be done properly in a balanced way that complies with mandatory policy. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:50, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it goes a little deeper than simply saying "Editors scrupulously do the former but not the latter." If you look at the editors that have been active in creating the "Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel" lists, it's the editors who are actively trying to get the lists that document attacks by Israel on Gaza deleted.

• Delete: per WP:NOTNEWS, WP:LAUNDRYLIST, etc. pbp 22:51, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - along with the other mentioned timeline article (which maybe should be merged in), it's a good balance to List_of_Palestinian_rocket_attacks_on_Israel,_2012 and List_of_Palestinian_rocket_attacks_on_Israel,_2013 to avoid WP:SYSTEMIC BIAS. I agree with nom that this doesn't really meet article standards, though; all of these articles need to be cleaned up. Ansh666 00:20, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and more importantly many of the websites used as references do no appear to be reliable sources. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 05:04, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - It's a balance to Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, there are plenty of articles of attacks on Israel, but not much on attacks on Palestine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DoctorHell (talk • contribs) 14:33, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per WP:NOTESAL- "Violations of the Ceasefire of 21 November, 2012" is not a group or set discussed as such by independent reliable sources. Plus this is largely original research, the sources mostly do not say "violation of the ceasefire" . Marokwitz (talk) 17:36, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I presume therefore that you would be willing to delete 2001, 2002–2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2013 which is supported by no 'independent reliable sources' and therefore, is largely, in your view, 'original research'? Could I remind deletes that per policy we are obliged to apply our interpretation of policy neutrally, not for POV advantage. That is what editing here is about.Nishidani (talk) 18:15, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, topics such as "Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel", and "Israeli airstrikes in the Gaza Strip", are widely discussed as a set by independent reliable sources. So far I did not see any independent reliable source attempting to document the "Violations of the Ceasefire of 21 November, 2012" as a set. Do you? Notice that "Truce Violations" is a critical term, in contrast to the neutral "attacks" - independent reliable sources do not tend to catalog events that way. Marokwitz (talk) 18:30, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you evidently haven't troubled to read List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2013 which is not documented by any 'independent reliable source'. So, where's the principle of neutrality you believe you adhere to, in calling for the deletion of a Israeli attack article that has the same type of sourcing as the other article on Palestinian attacks which you apparently would not delete? By the way, the last article should not use the word 'Palestinians' (collective guilt) but identify the group (like the IDF in this article) that is thought responsible.Nishidani (talk) 19:55, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I just checked what comes up if you google 'violations+ceasefire+Israel+Palestine+November+2012'. What you say is wholly misleading. It is very easy to thicken out this article with details from UPI, Xinhua, The Times of Israel etc. which mention the violations, provide details of victims names (Anwar Abdulhadi Qudaih, 21, not 20 as here, and 20 farmers are reported injured not 10, in some sources), give background to be used for a lead, interviews with Riyad Mansour, and Ziyad al-Thatha etc. We shouldn't be choking off an article before it has had a chance to mature.Nishidani (talk) 20:52, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happy to see where are the mainstream reliable sources (such as NYTimes) which talk about "violations of the ceasefire" as a concise and well defined set. Reliable sources talk about "attacks" or "incidents" but do not state as a fact that a specific incident is or is not a "ceasefire violation". At most, those sources say things such as "Palestinians Claim Israel has Violated Gaza Ceasefire", or "Riad al-Malki, the Palestinian foreign minister, described Friday’s shooting as a clear violation of the agreement that was signed". Marokwitz (talk) 13:22, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I.e. If a ceasefire was agreed to, it means what that word means. If following a ceasefire, either side shoots, it is a violation of the ceasefire. You may argue that it is WP:OR to say the ceasefire was 'violated', of course. In that case, rather than remove the information, whose content is not challenged as false, you, like the rest, should be respecting the numerous Israel-victim lists examples, by simply asking that either that each reference contain a mention of the ceasure, or that this be retitled as 'Israeli assaults on The Gaza Strip/PT and Palestinian attacks on Israel following the November 2012 ceasefire'/'Israeli/Palestinian incidents of violence following the November 2012 ceasefire', or something like that. Moves to erase the data are, given the numerous Israeli-victim lists, nothing but manoeuvers to tilt wiki towards a unilateral perspective. That stands out like dogs' balls.Nishidani (talk) 15:48, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"If following a ceasefire, either side shoots, it is a violation of the ceasefire." - that is the source of your mistake. A "ceasefire agreement" does not necessarily equate to ending all hostilities. There are always terms and conditions in such agreements. It depends on the interpretation and wording of the agreement and in no way are we capable or allowed to judge which party violated the agreement based on international law. This causes the scope of the current article to be poorly defined. Yes, a new article could be written about hostile incidents in the Gaza strip since 21 November, 2012. I would not object to such article being created, given that it is balanced and well sourced. Marokwitz (talk) 05:33, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Other editors have pointed out that most of the sources provided in the article do not refer to these incidents as "violations" and that their inclusion constitutes WP:NOT#OR. As a side note, I don't consider this article comparable to the lists of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, as they are all supported by reliable sources that describe the incidents as what they are - rocket attacks. --1ST7 (talk) 03:32, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. You are all refusing to answer the noted contradiction. This is sourced exactly as the Israeli-victim pages, and therefore the objections are spurious, examples simply of WP:IDONTLIKEIT.Nishidani (talk) 08:17, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete seems poorly sourced, and so what if 'other stuff exists'? Soosim (talk) 08:58, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Move and merge - The article(s) can be re-titled to address concerns about the "Violations of the Ceasefire" aspect. It can be retitled as "List of <whatever is an appropriate description> since the ceasefire of 21 November" so that it becomes a timeline that records all pertinent events in the cycle of violence no matter which belligerent's "armed forces" carried them out. Rocket attacks since the ceasefire can be merged in and editors can very easily start building neutral articles that comply with policy right now rather than selectively focusing on one aspect of the cycle of violence/"ceasefire violation". Sean.hoyland - talk 19:02, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unsalvageable. I've reviewed the sources and content. Some references could be reused in other pages, but current list format is a recipe to create another virtual plaza for POV pushers' entertainment. Why do we want to provide an opportunity for them to say in neutral Wikipedia voice what is actually reported as an opinion by reliable sources? To the point of policy, the subject of this list fails notability, see WP:NOTESAL per Marokwitz explanation above. We might have an encyclopedic tree of knowledge describing "after 21 november" topic but it is definitely not going to grow from this seed. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:30, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTSOAPBOX; the only RS seem to be the New York Times and NBC News, which is insufficient for an article of this type. Miniapolis 15:34, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(a)WP:SOAPBOX should never have been cited by the proposer in the first place. It does not apply to a list, in neutral language of events, shorn of Advocacy, Propaganda, Recruitment, Opinion pieces, Scandal mongering, Self-promotion. (b) You are labouring under the impression that WP:RS refers to American news sources. It does not. Maan News Agency, for one, has long been regarded as RS for the I/P articles.Nishidani (talk) 16:04, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Move and merge -Per SeanHoyland. Dlv999 (talk) 16:11, 24 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 redirect to Nestlé Waters. (non-admin closure) TBrandley (T • C • B) 00:23, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alaçam water[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:GNG Darkness Shines (talk) 19:03, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no references, one external link = not enough.--TV Man 13 23:08, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• This !vote has been struck as coming from a sockpuppet account. See this SPI. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:26, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Nestlé Waters, the parent company, as a logical search term (of course, it should be mentioned there as well, but that can be easily done). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:27, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. As per The Bushranger. 1292simon (talk) 12:17, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as suggested. Obvious solution. DGG ( talk ) 17:12, 20 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. LFaraone 00:07, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Vespas[edit]

The Vespas (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)

Properly completing malformed nomination; rationale is as follows:

In agreement with the original nominator Martijn Hoekstra talk, two years hence I see very little reasons to keep this article alive. Not only has the band split up in the intervening period but what people have not registered is the blatant bias of the article. Two thirds of the live references are from the local newspaper Airdrie & Coatbridge Advertiser.

Anyone who reads regional tabloid newspapers will know that they often support local artists extensively, this does not unequivocally render them notable on Wiki. There is no coverage from mainstream media such as The Guardian, The Times, NME etc. Even more striking is the absence of any coverage from Scottish media publications such as The Skinny or The List which could have probably got them out of jail. Furthermore a Google news archive search yeilds precious little substance, except another Airdrie & Coatbridge Advertiser link, see here. The band were never signed to a record label nor did they ever release any charted albums or singles on the mainstream UK charts; and they were only active for three years. The article looks more like an advert or means of promotion, exhibiting poor manual of style, puffery and some OR throughout. Moreover 4 of the 10 references are dead links, therefore we have an article with 6 live citations, 4 of which are from the same local newspaper.

Here's some perspective, i recently nominated an article for a speedy deletion for this erstwhile band - The Ronelles. They were deleted shortly thereafter, however even they had recorded output on Amazon.com here. If one searches Amazon for The Vespas, there is sadly no evidence of any recorded output. Therefore I think that this, and every aforementioned supporting argument embodies a reasonable case to give it another try. Bluidsports (talk) 18:57, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For my part I am neutral. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:03, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing the article, I thought it was their second nomination and not the third.Bluidsports (talk) 19:05, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. Coverage exists but is primarily from a local paper, with little beyond that. --Michig (talk) 06:51, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Only coverage is from Airdrie & Coatbridge advertiser. Also the previous afd did not really reach broad consensus as User:Craigster92 whose edits were mostly on this article, was highly involved in the discussion; therefore not really impartial.212.219.249.5 (talk) 15:03, 22 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. LFaraone 00:08, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

30th parallel (phenomenon)[edit]

30th parallel (phenomenon) (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)

Fringe theory / original research. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:58, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - WP:FRINGE and WP:POV, no objectivity in the discussion of the theory. Sources are of questionable or poor reliability (Facebook for example). Mostly the article is just a list of places, with a few mentions of dolphins thrown in for good measure. Bazonka (talk) 19:06, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• This page should not be deleted because:
• it describes the real phenomenon of the 30th Parallel - please, check all the geo-coordinates of the unique manmade landmarks and natural sites, located on this latitude

+to RHaworth: "Fringe theory" - 1. but so far nobody has offered the best, although the phenomenon is obvious even to a child : ) 2. like all the theories it has to be examine, so, an expedition doing it, among others

• it describes the real, perfectly known places, which are really located inside the belt of the 30th parallel N (Pyramyds, mount. Kailash, Lhasa, Shanghai, Jerusalem, Houston, etc.)

• it also describes non-profit, non-govermental, humanitarian expedition, going by this "belt", including the program of this expedition - without any promotion of smth. (I just put the link to the documentary, which is filming during the expedition, to show how serious it is and to refer to the reliable and proven source (Cinando.com).

• provided information is backed up by independent sources, including articles in the independent magazines and monographs in English

+ to Bazonka:

• 1. "no objectivity in the discussion of the theory" - it's not the discussion of the theory - Wiki is not the blog, aren't it?, it's the describing of the theory. What do you see as the lack of objectivity in the description of this theory?
• 2. "Sources are of questionable or poor reliability (Facebook for example)" - untruth: all the sources are independent, objective and reliable (including books with all the ISBN details). I put the link to facebook, because there you can find a translated version of the articles. The original versions are here: a) [1] b) [2]
• 3. "Mostly the article is just a list of places..." - visually it's so, because of the spaces between locations (for better readability), but mosty this article consist of the explaining and describing text.
• 4. "...with a few mentions of dolphins thrown in for good measure"" - untruth: the 30th parallel belt is going through all the major habitats of dolphins and whales - please, take your time to check it.

let's count together:

a) Canary islands (pilot whales, finvales and others as residents) and Bahamas (spotted dolphins, bottlenose, etc. as residents) - ""one and two"

b) Hawaii (humpback whales, etc. as residents) -"three"

с) Gulf of Mexico and the Gulf of Califorina (half of all cetaceans of the planet) - "four and five"

d) Japanese islands (have you seen "the Cave" documentary?) - "six"

e) Karnali river in Nepal (unique river! dolphins) - "seven"

f) gulf of Suez, Eilat (red sea) and the gulf of Sidra (bottlenoses, spotted, etc.) - "eight, nine and ten"

It's not enough?! It's nearly all the main aquatoriums! and ("what a coincedence") - and all these places are swarm with dolphins (and, sometimes, - whales) Sorry, I didn't find dolphins in China or Jordan, but it's impossible, as you perfectly understand.

--Soderjanie Pustoti (talk) 20:15, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This article is quite an embarrassment. I'm sorry the dolphins have got snarled up in it (there are a lot near where I live at 57°N[3]). I've tried hard looking and the best keyword seems to be "30th parallel project" but the press aren't writing about it and it is too soon for books. It is WP:OR. Congratulations on the expedition, by the way. Best to keep clear of the Bermuda Triangle. Thincat (talk) 20:36, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• to Thincat:

"there are a lot near where I live at 57°N" - I like your irony, actually dolphins and whales are spreading in the whole world ocean )) But here we are talking about unique "coincedencies": for example, the Pacific Ocean is great, but once a year thousands of humpback whales are meeting at the north of Hawaii (30th parallel : ) and so on.

"I've tried hard looking and the best keyword seems to be "30th parallel project" - as I understand, one of the main reasons for deleting is too much information about Project, so ok, i will reduce it to the minimum

"but the press aren't writing about it" - because it's non-commercial project! I guess, you perfectly know the rates for the articles in the modern glossy magazines. I collect all the links, which the project have for now; actually, there are some short documentary but, unfortunately, Wiki is blocking youtube... Here the important one (collect it, throwing out @ and spaces): http:// y @ ou @ tu. @ be/9qR7tz3C_04 (A word to the World by EmbassyDolphin)

"Congratulations on the expedition, by the way. Best to keep clear of the Bermuda Triangle". - Thanks a lot! Join us via facebook )))

• an appeal to all: Also, the project's humanitarian mission is supported by the eminent scientists, artists and public figures, such as: Jean Houston, Amit Goswami, Ashok Khosla, Slava Polunin, Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, Graeme Kelleher, Stanislav Grof and Djivan Gasparyan - should I mention it for the better understanding of it's importance and non-profitable format?

Soderjanie Pustoti (talk) 21:28, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - whether it's commercial or non-commercial, profitable or not, is irrelevant. What you need are reliable and neutral sources to back up your claims. Also, address the issues of WP:FRINGE by showing an objective view, i.e. the fact that the phenomenon is not accepted by everyone. Bazonka (talk) 21:39, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• to Bazonka:

"address the issues of WP:FRINGE by showing an objective view, i.e. the fact that the phenomenon is not accepted by everyone" - thank you for this advice, but the phenomenon was discovered recently and I didn't find reviews for this account in the scientific literature yet. The expedition is also sharing the information about the phenomena and collecting the opinions on this matter.

"What you need are reliable and neutral sources to back up your claims" - I did my best in source-finding, but it's all, what I have for now ))

Soderjanie Pustoti (talk) 22:18, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I think people might be surprised at my scepticism, but might I suggest perhaps that the reason the 30th parallel phenomenon hasn't apparently been featured in publications might possibly be because no such real phenomenon exists? Controversial, but this sounds a bit like ley lines. Could it be that things line up by accident, when you have a lot of things, and a lot of possible lines to thread through space? Also, dolphins are intelligent animals. Might it be that sometimes some humans aren't so clever? Barney the barney barney (talk) 22:35, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment to Comment of Barney the barney barney:

you can be 200% skeptic, but you can't deny the obvious facts - please, take your time and check once more the list of the "key objects" - they are all with the geo-coordinates, found in the GoogleEarth.

"Could it be that things line up by accident, when you have a lot of things, and a lot of possible lines to thread through space?" - surely it could be, but the number of artifacts is too large for regular coincidence, that's the topic!

"Also, dolphins are intelligent animals. Might it be that sometimes some humans aren't so clever?" - in the top ten! : )

Soderjanie Pustoti (talk) 23:14, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wow, I realise the controversy over what I'm suggesting: some scientists and historians are beginning to question what other people assertions. I mean, they say things like "correlation does not imply causation", and expect people to actually believe this?!?!?! Whoa, these radicals!!!! I mean, a pretty elementary understanding of probability and statistics might prove not only that "200% scepticism" is an impossible position, but could also point out that coincidences occur with strong probability, whether dolphins are involved or not. The intelligence of some humans is clearly lacking. Barney the barney barney (talk) 17:02, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• delete First two parts are Original research, third, apparently unconnected part is not notable. DGG ( talk ) 00:00, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• to everyone Just transform "The expedition" section into the last paragraph in the "Hypothesis" section and deleted the link to the expedition's web.

Soderjanie Pustoti (talk) 00:31, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• to DGG: Thanks, now it's totally clear! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soderjanie Pustoti (talk • contribs) 07:35, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Soderjanie Pustoti (talk) 08:34, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not verifiable. WP:FRINGE requires fringe science topics to have coverage in reliable secondary sources to allow Wikipedia to cover them in a neutral and in-depth way. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:05, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• to Colapeninsula

"Not verifiable." - are you joking?! Take the world map and check all the locations (coordinates are in the article) - the number of artifacts is too large for regular coincidence.

"[WP:FRINGE]] requires fringe science topics to have coverage in reliable secondary sources to allow Wikipedia to cover them in a neutral and in-depth way." - you are right, but the phenomenon was discovered recently and it's a young hypothesis too. There is no reviews for this account in the scientific literature yet. The expedition is also sharing the information about the phenomena and collecting the opinions on this matter.

Soderjanie Pustoti (talk) 14:36, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think (s)he is joking. Yes, all of those artifacts are near the 30th parallel, but calling some of these "artifacts" is a bit tenuous - dolphins near Hawaii for example. Of course, there are plenty of historical sites (and dolphins) that aren't near to the parallel. How do you explain those then?

And you admit that there is nothing in scientific literature about this "phenomenon". The fact it is new is not a valid argument. There are plenty of notable new things that are documented and have Wikipedia articles. Without necessary sources (whether new or not), then this struggles to meet WP:N. Maybe one day, if there is sufficient coverage, then the article can be recreated, but we're not there yet. Bazonka (talk) 18:07, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

to Bazonka

"...but calling some of these "artifacts" is a bit tenuous - dolphins near Hawaii for example." — it's good that you mention the Hawaii, cause once a year thousands of humpback whales are meeting there - this person (one of the prime experts in the world in the field of communication with whales) is more than 20 years is exploring this. Is it still tenuous? : )

"Of course, there are plenty of historical sites (and dolphins) that aren't near to the parallel. How do you explain those then? " — name me of at least one the same latitude or longitude, which was located along a similar cluster (OK - twice less : ) of such kind of objects. The secret is that they are no more.

Without taking too close a look, Porto, Madrid, Naples, Thessalonica, Istanbul, the Black Sea, the Caspian Sea, Tashkent, Beijing, and New York City are pretty much all on the same line, a line that also goes through the Northwest Pacific coast (dolphins), Redwood National Park (tallest trees in the world), Great Salt Lake, Salt Lake City (center of a religion), Dinosaur National Park (fossil beds that revolutionized our view of dinosaurs), Rocky Mountain National Park (10,000 + year old pathways over mountain passes), Platte River (several hundred thousand sandhill cranes stopover there on their annual migration), Mississippi River, Hopewell culture mounds in Indiana and Ohio, Meadowcroft Village (one of the oldest archaeological sites in the Americas), and in Eurasia it probably intersects the Great Wall, (throw out a few if they aren't close enough, and you still have a whole lot) this is not looking like all that unique of a situation. There is another line that goes through Cardiff, St Albans, Cologne, Denisova Cave, Lake Baikal, the Aleutians, Calgary, Hudson Bay, L'Anse aux Meadows, etc. The real take-home message is that human activity across the ages is thick on the ground in a wide belt - any line is going to intersect a lot. Agricolae (talk) 01:00, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Without necessary sources (whether new or not), then this struggles to meet WP:N. The fact it is new is not a valid argument." — I agree, but the fact that even a kid can take the world map and see how all this unique cluster of ancient objects (and dolphins / whales locations, etc.) are aligned - it's the main and real argument! Rules are not working without exceptions and here I see exactly this case - to check this phenomenon you don't need to read a dozen of historical monographs and scientific publications, just take the map, have a look on it and you will see it by yourself. And after try to find something similar - and you will see, that it's unique! : )

Soderjanie Pustoti (talk) 22:33, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Soderjanie, you appear to be operating under two misconceptions. First, regarding verifiability/notability, the question is not whether the individual sites are notable, or whether they are on the 30th parallel. Yes, anyone can look at a map and see where places are located. The issue is whether the phenomenon is notable/verifiable. Telling us to 'look at a map' is not the proper response. We as Wikipedia editors don't get to look at a map and draw our own conclusions - that would be Original Research, and is forbidden. Rather we need to have sources that have done this analysis and published it. Is there a body of literature that talks about the 30th parallel phenomenon? If not, then it is not suitable for a Wikipedia article, no matter how true the geographic location of each individual site may be. Second, this is not a discussion between you and everyone else. You need not, and you probably should not, be responding to every comment. The more you respond to each and every editor, the more it makes this look like this is your page. Make your best, well-reasoned argument, and let that stand. Any further clarifications should be short, to the point, and made sparingly. You are doing yourself no favors by responding to every comment. Agricolae (talk) 01:00, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete...well, another WP:FRINGE? here we go. Not WP:V, clear WP:OR, no third-party sources - fails WP:N as far as I can tell. Ansh666 00:25, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete : )

It seems, that only I see this belt on the world map. So, finally, anyone, Delete this long-suffering page, please. Soderjanie Pustoti (talk) 17:11, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this is not about whether any other editor can see this belt. It is about Original Research - Wikipedia is not a repository for phenomena that its editors notice. It is a repository for things that have drawn the attention of academics and reliable media. We don't observe, we summarize what others have observed. Agricolae (talk) 23:36, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:OR. And also untrue, there is no evidence of a large number of unicorns along the belt. History2007 (talk) 19:31, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

to History2007 (talk)

• Aha, I was thinking about it too... Unfortunately, they are much higher - I'll create the article about the phenomenon of 70th parallel a little bit later : P

Soderjanie Pustoti (talk) 22:53, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The assertion that this “concentration” of sites is “unmatched” and “cannot be explained by mere coincidence“ is completely unsupported, but is a key premise of the entire “phenomenon“. Reliable sources are needed reporting evidence for this claim, with objective criteria for inclusion of sites and a statistical analysis of their distribution. Nothing of the kind has been brought forward here, not even as OR (which might be replicated elsewhere), just hand-waving. The “Hypothesis“ is a fringey fairy-story, and “The Expedition Project“ adds a promotional tone to the global-vibrations gobbledegook. Oh, and per nom. and Agricolae.—Odysseus1479 03:55, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. A good half-dozen of the places listed are not even situated within the stated latitude range.–Odysseus1479 05:57, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• to P.S. from Odysseus1479

name me, please, these "A good half-dozen of the places" )

Soderjanie Pustoti (talk) 09:12, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to the latitudes given in the article, which I haven’t cross-checked elsewhere: Alexandria, Marrakesh, Essaouira, Gulf of Sidra, Jerusalem, Qumran, Multan, Amritsar, and Shanghai are all north of 31°5'. No latitude is given there for the Bahamas, but the northernmost island in the country, Grand Bahama, is at 26°39', well south of 28°5'. Although Midway and Kure Atolls, just within the zone at 28°12' and 28°25' respectively, are part of the Hawaii–Emperor chain, calling them Hawaiian islands is a bit of a stretch; Hawaii proper is south of the Tropic of Cancer.—Odysseus1479 09:54, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This article is based on a theory from some guy explained in an essentially self-published book. It's all the result of cognitive bias. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:25, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete - not just WP:FRINGE, but obscure and unnotable fringery, without even the usual predatory promoters who make nut-bar theories like indigo children notable. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:25, 22 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. LFaraone 00:08, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Annie E. Clark[edit]

Annie E. Clark (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)

After removing the overwhelmingly primary-source (including publications by associates) and self-publication laden portions of this BLP, I've concluded the subject is not the actual subject of substantial coverage by unrelated reliable sources. Note, she's a HuffPo blogger, so HuffPo pieces about this living person should be considered associated and/or primary. She does get mention, but it's mostly her acting as a spokesperson within coverage of her group, coverage of a WP:1E (cf. WP:BLP1E), or coverage of sexual harassment and assaults on school campuses. She's in coverage, but it's just not coverage of Annie. JFHJr (㊟) 18:55, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't ever tell if you are a woman-hater or not. Of course this woman is covered mostly in relation to the other people she is involved with -- she's a joint filer of a precedent-setting civil rights complaint. That doesn't mean she's an less notable than individuals who were, for example, involved in joint efforts to coordinate the Freedom Rides. And just because she was eventually hired by the Huffington Post as a blogger (because she is a talented writer) doesn't mean coverage prior to her hiring, penned by one of the news agency's editors, is dismissible. I don't think Wikipedia expected it would end up being censored into uselessness by people who follow guidelines as strictly as you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MissTempeste (talk • contribs) 20:44, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Please keep the discussion free of personal attacks. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:33, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's hard to predict what will be of historical importance. Some people here say we should always wait, but i think that's not a proper concept for a modern internet encyclopedia, and we should make a reasonable guess based on the sources. I see the NYT sources, and two for MSNBC have been added since the nomination. . I agree with the sensible part of Miss Tempeste's statement, that this is going to be significant, and that she is a significant spokesperson. DGG ( talk ) 19:25, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I added a CNN source that described Clark as the "lead complainant" in the filings and the article talks about her. Because of that and other sources now cited in the article, it passes WP:GNG. AuthorAuthor (talk) 07:22, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep although HuffPo sources are worrisome. Shii (tock) 04:34, 21 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. LFaraone 00:10, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yinlu Foods[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:GNG Darkness Shines (talk) 18:51, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, maybe if good references are provided it would be okay, but at the moment, there is none. A google search has a few hits showing promise, but it may be possible to give it a section in it's parent company's article.--Beachsand2004 (talk) 20:32, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• This !vote has been struck as coming from a sockpuppet account. See this SPI. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:15, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, good deal of secondary source coverage in news articles among multiple different language news sources. — Cirt (talk) 17:53, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I'm not sure how big a company needs to be to be notable, but I think Yinlu should reach the standard - I just added a source from Bloomberg saying it had >10,000 employees and revenues of >$800 million USD in 2010. The company has expanded since then and Baidupedia says they have 15,000 employees and revenues of 10 billion RMB = 1.6 billion USD. 114.252.103.184 (talk) 05:18, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Agree with 114.252.103.184 Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:37, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Size isn't a formal standard, in part because it will vary with different fields of endeavor. But this large a company will be notable, and athe multiple sources in the GNews search linked to in the AfD listing show it. I wonder if the nom looked at them? DGG ( talk ) 06:18, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, but they all looked to be talking about Nestle's acquisition of a 60% stake. I could not read the foreign language ones but will defer you you on their coverage. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:31, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep appears to be notable. Eeekster (talk) 01:39, 22 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. LFaraone 00:10, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nail Mulić[edit]

Nail Mulić (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 young player, fails WP:GNG (no significant coverage) and WP:NFOOTBALL (no appearances in a fully-professional league. GiantSnowman 18:50, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:52, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the one source appears to be a promotional website.--TV Man 13 23:24, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• This !vote has been struck as coming from a sockpuppet account. See this SPI. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:26, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:33, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the article is about a footballer who hasn't played in a fully pro league or represented his country at senior level, which means the subject fails WP:NFOOTY. Also fails WP:GNG due to lack of coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 07:48, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Article doesn't pass WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 19:09, 17 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. LFaraone 00:10, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shuttle (school bullying)[edit]

Shuttle (school bullying) (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)

Poor english, unconstructive and short. Fails WP:GNG as well.Knight of Gloucestershire (talk) 18:46, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not sufficient for its own article anyway. If sources can be found, maybe it can be breifly mentioned in a more encompassing article.--Beachsand2004 (talk) 19:57, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• This !vote has been struck as coming from a sockpuppet account. See this SPI. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:18, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Terrible grammar, but I get the point of what the editor was saying (a term for a bully forcing someone to do their homework or run errands). Still though, I wouldn't know what this term would be outside of South Korea, so I will have to ask for deletion unless we can come up with that term in a sourced manner. Nate • (chatter) 23:27, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Maybe a suitable page for urban dictionary, but not for wikipedia. This page is about a translation, or a word term. It is not about and action thing, person, etc. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:39, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Or move to wiktionary if English references can be found. 1292simon (talk) 12:18, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes. But only if English references can be found. Knight of Gloucestershire (talk) 17:26, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep In South Korea it is nouned also as 빵셔틀(bread shuttle) There are more than one thousand news refer 빵셔틀[4] --과학 (talk) 12:27, 21 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.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:00, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chloe Sagal[edit]

Chloe Sagal (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)

Just some Internet drama regarding an unnotable individual. Niemti (talk) 18:14, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Btw (citing this article, and Sagal's claims): "Some years later, she showed signs of metal poisoning from shrapnel which had been left in her body after surgery, and she was informed that if left untreated it could become fatal within months." Metal poisoning ("from shrapnel" or not) has no Wikipedia article, because such medical condition doesn't exist (and obviously one can't "show signs" of it too). And yes, it was scam (which is why it was pulled down by Indiegogo and all money returned). --Niemti (talk) 18:23, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Difficult to call, but this does appear to be a article about someone of little notability, but a particular eagerness for stirring up publicity and/or attention. Being a developer of a game doesn't make her notable. Particularly when the game itself doesn't appear that notable. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 19:35, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll also note I posted a lot of tags and indicated how most of everything there is Sagal's own claims. --Niemti (talk) 19:56, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename - This article is clearly a pseudobiography within the meaning intended by WP:SINGLEEVENT. The game dev herself does not appear notable and the only actual coverage of her alone (the 1st paragraph in the biography section) uses questionable sources. But the event itself seems to meet WP:GNG due to the presence of multiple reliable sources. Eurogamer is an RS that is cited within the article, and there is also coverage of the event (not the developer) at several other RSes listed at WP:VG/RS like IndieGames.com (here), HardcoreGamer.com (here), and Destructoid (here). There isn't an overwhelming amount of coverage, though, so the GNG is only satisfied at a low level and I'd entertain arguments that the article might be a net negative (e.g. by serving as a vandalism magnet, etc.). -Thibbs (talk) 12:19, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What "event"? A failed scam (with no fraud prosecution and even no victims as nobody lost any money) and an alleged (no proof for that) failed suicide? We can help by not giving any attention (just like all the media ignore the alleged suicide attempt and it's only a small Internet drama on twitter and tumblr). Also all kinds of "facts" there are so sketchy that even "Chloe" is apparently not a real name. Nothing to see here, move along. --Niemti (talk) 12:24, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I respect your opinion on this issue, but even (allegedly) failed scams that are significantly covered by multiple reliable sources meet the GNG and can have a place in Wikipedia. There are plenty of silly things that are notable despite their silliness. It's not Wikipedia's place to provide public service by censoring nonsense that's covered in the RSes. I do see McGeddon's point about the degree of coverage though. There's no question in my mind that this is/was a minor event. And if you're right that all reliable media have ignored things like the suicide attempt then of course they shouldn't appear in the article. -Thibbs (talk) 15:54, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This coverage was more like: "hey, you, YES YOU, a dying developer needs your money or will die off due to metal poisoning from shrapnel! update: oh well whatever" (and now even the Destructoid guy followed with it now only on his twitter and didn't write a new article) Not even video game tabloids write about it. But if you really must, you can briefly mention the scam (and the resulting antics) somewhere in the Indiegogo page, but I think it's kind of stuff that belongs more on places like Encyclopedia Dramatica (where ironically there's nothing about it). --Niemti (talk) 16:37, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A merge to Indiegogo would be ok too. -Thibbs (talk) 18:20, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Or to Destructoid. I don't know if you heard about their Transgate, which is possibly bigger than the initial scam, but also unreported in the mass media. (Even if as if now entirely leaked.) --Niemti (talk) 04:19, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - this is much more a WP:SINGLEEVENT than a biography, but from the sources I was looking at yesterday when cleaning it up, I don't think it yet meets WP:EVENT. Press coverage is currently shallow (just repeating forum posts rather than any investigative journalism) and seems niche, and it's not yet clear whether there will be any ongoing coverage or "lasting effect". --McGeddon (talk) 12:55, 16 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 merge to List of Nestlé brands. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:06, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of former Nestlé brands[edit]

List of former Nestlé brands (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)

Waste of space basically. Fails WP:GNG as well. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:14, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (or merge to List of Nestlé brands if too short for a separate list) - this meets WP:LISTPURP as most brand names link to articles, and there's useful information that couldn't be included in a category. Peter James (talk) 22:12, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge, at worst it could be a sublist of the above mentioned page.--TV Man 13 23:58, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• This !vote has been struck as coming from a sockpuppet account. See this SPI. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:23, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to List of Nestlé brands, to consolidate the information in one place. See also WP:ATD, Merging section. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:36, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to List of Nestlé brands, per above analysis. Cavarrone (talk) 12:02, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, and retain the history of the page and the old material. — Cirt (talk) 16:02, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to List of Nestlé brands per explanation above. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 19:11, 17 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. LFaraone 00:11, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2012–13 Wycombe Boys AFC season[edit]

2012–13 Wycombe Boys AFC season (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)

Do Wikipedia editors think that a particular season played by the youth team of a 4th tier side, is encyclopedic, or not? WP:SALT. Please. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:06, 15 May 2013 (UTC) Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:06, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The team your on about is Wycombe Wanderers F.C are playing in League Two were as Wycombe Boys AFC play in the youth premier league and have down since the 2007-8 after winning at Wemberly against Bristol City Girls in the play-offs.Weareunited878 (talk) 18:30, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Weareunited878 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 20:49, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as a hoax. Wycombe Boys playing against Bristol City Girls? John Terry scoring own goals in games against a youth team? Complete rubbish. Note also that the article's creator removed the deletion template from the article. Keresaspa

(talk) 18:40, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can I make a very good point that the football pyramid expands where beyond the semi-Pro leagues and the youth premier league/division is the top league in the league I play in... I know Wycombe Boys arent as big as Manchester United or Chelsea but considing Nigel has kept them in the league since the 2007/08 season and got them into europe the following season.Weareunited878 (talk) 21:18, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No sources at all in article, and there are no reliable sources in (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL). In reply to Weareunited, not all teams that exist qualify for an article in Wikipedia—only those that are notable by the standards of WP:ORG. —teb728 t c 07:00, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - even if there is a team with a name "Wycombe Boys AFC", the season article is definitely not notable. There is occassionally a discussion wether semi-pro teams should have separate season-articles on Wikipedia, but we can safely say that season-articles on amateur and youth-teams are not notable. Mentoz86 (talk) 07:53, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wycombe Boys AFC arent just any team since the calapse of Wycombe Town in 2001 and formation of the wycombe boys they have climbed up the league before gaining promotion the 2006/07 seasonWeareunited878 (talk) 10:40, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - clearly non-notable. GiantSnowman 19:03, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - total made-up bollocks -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:26, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - thought this seemed a bit familiar - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011–12 Youth Premier League -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:31, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• That suggests that Weareunited878 may be another sock of indefblocked LegandofThor2. —teb728 t c 04:44, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 19:14, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Save - The youth premier league isn't covered by any newspaper or sports channels like skysports or santanna sports but it is an offical league that has been running since 1800 In regards to the sockpuppet I AM NOT A FREAKIN SockpuppetWeareunited878 (talk) 19:32, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If it isn't covered by any sources then by definition it is not notable, you have just made a perfect case for the deletion of your article -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:12, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and by the way, "running since 1800"? When association football was not invented until 1863 and the first league in thw world not founded until 1888? Erm, yeah right........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:12, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention the notion that a sports league allegedly attracting crowds of up to 75,000 and more would attract no media coverage at all. At least try to make your hoaxes believable..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:20, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as an obvious hoax. – PeeJay 11:01, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per PeeJay. Clear hoax. Nonsense article. Fenix down (talk) 17:49, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - total made-up nonsense. Shame we waste time on such stuff. Egghead06 (talk) 03:17, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'Valid Point- True note all football leagues are notable but remember not all leagues are telvised.... non-league and lower aren't and that includes local leagues including the youth/Athletic leagues I play in and we some do get mentions in local newspapers.Weareunited878 (talk) 23:16, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Stop deleting other people's comments on this page as it is considered vandalism! Keresaspa (talk) 23:17, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Nobody said anything about a league having to be televised to have an article on Wikipedia. However, I don't see how that is relevant to this discussion. The league described in this article clearly doesn't exist. I am sure you do play in a local youth league, but I can guarantee it doesn't involve games against Manchester United in front of 75000+ fans at Old Trafford. Can we just close this AfD and delete this blatantly transparent hoax from WP......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:40, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why should this be deleted and forgotten about....as for the match against United it wasnt against the champions it was against their youth team that allows players from 15 upto 28Weareunited878 (talk) 12:48, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but that's just not true.......like everything else in the article..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Obvious hoax. Reason enough. Mdann52 (talk) 12:54, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fine bleedy delete it...... I will just recreate in more better23:10, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

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. LFaraone 00:12, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clubbed to Death (band)[edit]

Clubbed to Death (band) (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)

Found zilch on the internet for this article, most definitely fails WP:MUS. It seems likely that the man himself created the article back in 2006. No one has made any significant edits hitherto. There is only one citation which is an unreliable band website. Bluidsports (talk) 17:36, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:BAND. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:43, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This is borderline CSD. There is hardly an assertion of notability in the article itself, and I can't find anything on the web that would indicate it passing WP:BAND. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 20:59, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 15 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. WP:HOAX, WP:SNOW. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:49, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bruno Honores[edit]

Bruno Honores (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)

While not a blatant hoax, not a single fact in this article can be verified by any search I have been able to perform. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:36, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Nothing found to verify this article (on Google, Highbeam, Questia). In addition, even if the text was verifiable, it is unlikely that the subject would be notable. AllyD (talk) 18:06, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not verifiable and not notable. Karl 334 ^{Talk--Contribs} 18:08, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as unverifiable. As the nominator states, not a single fact in the article can be verified. Some extraordinary claims with zero proof. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unless some sources, even non-English sources, come forward I will change my position but at the moment it lacks WP:SIGCOV and WP:V. Mkdw^talk 01:46, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Unverifiable content. No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 19:16, 17 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; nomination has been withdrawn and there are no outstanding delete !votes. Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:09, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Blaxter[edit]

Kenneth Blaxter (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)

Disambiguation page with only red links a red link; isn't that against policy? QVVERTYVS (hm?) 17:25, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 I withdraw my nomination QVVERTYVS (hm?) 17:35, 15 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 g3, blatant hoax. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:11, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dancing flamingo[edit]

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

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

Unsourced; may be a hoax, certainly lacks WP:N for a full article QVVERTYVS (hm?) 17:02, 15 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 redirect to Don McBrearty. LFaraone 00:12, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More Sex and the Single Mom[edit]

More Sex and the Single Mom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article should be deleted because it reads like a movie theatre poster and fails to meet WP:MOVIE. I nominated it for CSD, that was contested and the tag removed. I nominated it for PROD with "Reads like a movie theatre poster and fails to meet WP:MOVIE." as the rationale and the person that removed the CSD tag added ((Prod2)). The article creator then removed the PROD and PROD2 tags. That is the history, the article is still exactly the same as when I marked it for CSD, it still reads as a theatre poster advertisement and it still does not pass notability requirements. Technical 13 (talk) 16:51, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - nothing in the article shows the notability of the subject. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:58, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect this brand new article to either the director Don McBrearty or List of programs broadcast by Lifetime. While we do not expect a made-for-TV film to have the coverage of a theatrical blockbuster, this verifiable sequel to Sex and the Single Mom does not have even the coverage of its predecessor. To serve Wikipedia readers we can at redirect and then include in the potential target article(s) whatever is reasonable to include therein. And we can thank its author for trying, and send him to WP:SIGCOV. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:25, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to the director Don McBrearty I will add a few sentences starting his biography about the film. Dohertyben (talk) 21:10, 20 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. LFaraone 00:13, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pyewacket (band)[edit]

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

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

This article about a band fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines for music (WP:MUSIC) as well as general notability guidelines (WP:N) due to a lack of sources. dissolve^talk 16:31, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom + I question how good those sources are.--Beachsand2004 (talk) 20:03, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• This !vote has been struck as coming from a sockpuppet account. See this SPI. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:17, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Nothing found to indicate any sort of encyclopedic relevance. --Michig (talk) 07:02, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 19:18, 17 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. LFaraone 00:13, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quincy Mississippi Shark[edit]

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

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

Does not meet WP:EVENT; specifically WP:LASTING, WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:INDEPTH. Mkdw^talk 16:30, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggest article be redirected to Bull Shark--Theda 23:46, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Do you think a redirect will be helpful in this case? I imagined that anyone searching that specific title will be looking for the news story and not really about the species. Mkdw^talk 00:12, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Just a suggestion as previously stated. The Bull shark can tolerate freshwater and travel quite a distance up rivers. I did google it [5].--Theda 02:00, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete; seems to fail the GNG. bobrayner (talk) 18:54, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; with comment re: Suggestion: If news ever comes, of which article still has no inklings of references; this could be neatly redirected. Thus far, where is the news? Fylbecatulous talk 13:10, 21 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 Soft delete. LFaraone 00:14, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

School VLE[edit]

School VLE (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 indication of notability per WP:PRODUCT or WP:GNG. Two references are from local newspapers (one of which is a freesheet), third ref is a one-line mention on a long list from a government education department, with the disclaimer "The inclusion of a link does not mean that Ofsted is endorsing a particular resource or product or even confirming that a resource will work; some have been included on the recommendation of users visited, some by simple web research – use at your own risk." No significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Proposed deletion contested by anonymous editor. Captain Conundrum (talk) 15:20, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Captain Conundrum (talk) 15:21, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Captain Conundrum (talk) 15:21, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: There appear to be hundreds of sites using this, but it's not clear to me that they are using this software, compared to any other of the many VLE's out there, like Frontier. I can't find any 3rd party mention at all. I'd support a mention in the VLE article, but for now that's all we have. Maury Markowitz (talk) 23:18, 22 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 merge to BlackBerry OS. LFaraone 00:14, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BlackBerry OS version history[edit]

BlackBerry OS version history (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)

Violation of WP:NOTCHANGELOG. Plus, there is not enough of a version history here to even justify its own page. ViperSnake151  Talk  14:54, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, it would do better to be merged with BlackBerry OS MThinkCpp (talk) 17:36, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Why is this even on AfD? Just merge it. Maury Markowitz (talk) 22:58, 22 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. LFaraone 00:15, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brenda Lowe[edit]

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

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

As of date of nom, there are 9 references. Two are YouTubes. One is a self-published source--her own website. One is the CBS website, promoting its own show. One is an interview in a newspaper (Sun-Sentinel) about her fitness routine. One is an interview in TV Guide. Two are interviews in an online blog, zap2it. The ninth is an article in Entertainment Weekly, where she is mentioned only briefly. I don't think any of these establish notability as in-depth independent reliable sources per WP:BASIC. There is also a claim that she won a beauty pageant--what pageant? Did that receive any media coverage? There is also a claim that she was a cheerleader--did her performance as a cheerleader receive any media coverage? This is a clear fail of WP:BASIC and it also fails WP:ENTERTAINER. With that said, maybe someone can find better sources—I looked and could not. Logical Cowboy (talk) 14:47, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep first, this interview in Sun-Sentinel which the nomination is trying to dismiss as if it's only about her fitness routine in fact mentions that she is in fact a Miami Dolphins Cheerleaders, it's even in the title, so how can you say that there is no third-party verification that she has been a known cheerleader for an obviously notable sports team? It's also third-party reliable verification that she's appeared in twice in Maxim (magazine), an international magazine. You're right that the cameo appearances link to YouTube, which alone isn't enough, but the music video link does imply that she has in fact appeared in a music videos, and it is in fact from the official Vevo channel for the band as opposed to average Joe's channel with the video uploaded. Needless to say the song, the music video is associated with, reached number one in the UK Singles Chart if that's worth anything. As for the commerical, the channel is the official channel for Nature's Path, not average Joe's channel. I even found this which may be just another YouTube link, but who's to say that didn't air on television or a similar form of media? Granted, I can't prove that this Miami Dolphins video did in fact appear on television, but it's material that does suggest significant ties to the Miami Dolphins even years after she retired from cheerleading for them. Zap2it is also more than just average Joe blog, so again, why does it seem like it's getting belittled as a source? Are we going to belittle TV Guide and Entertainment Weekly as reliable sources too? Also, don't say that they are merely interviews that don't verify anything in the Wikipedia article because as I explained with the Sun-Sentinel source, these interviews are reliable source coverage that the Wikipedia article claims are in fact true. Then there's Survivor where she appeared in not one but two seasons Survivor: Nicaragua and Survivor: Caramoan and went pretty far in both seasons.--DrumstickJuggler (talk) 19:23, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Response Just to clarify, WP:BASIC says that to establish notability, sources should be independent of the subject. It's fine with me to cite the four interviews, but they do not establish notability because they are mostly the subject's own words, and hence are not independent of the subject. The question here at this AfD is whether the subject is notable, not whether the facts in the article are verifiable--that's a totally different question. Logical Cowboy (talk) 19:44, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but Sun-Sentinel even put Miami Dolphins and Survivor in the title of their article, so at least in that case, it's their words, not hers.--DrumstickJuggler (talk) 19:47, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This !vote has been struck as having been made by a now-blocked sockpuppet account. See this SPI. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:09, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per DrumstickJuggler. Nominator even admits that some of these sources are solid forms of verification and DrumstickJuggler is right that the Sun-Sentinel source is using their own words instead of just Brenda's, and thus independant of the subject.--Beachsand2004 (talk) 20:06, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Response Thanks for commenting, but I think you have misunderstood this discussion and its purpose. I did not say that some of the sources are solid forms of verification. What I said is that this discussion is about notability, not verifiability. None of your comments say anything about notability. You are right that the Sun-Sentinel source does include some words that are not the subject's (a couple hundred, in fact) but you do not explain how this is relevant to any policy on Wikipedia related to this discussion for deletion. Logical Cowboy (talk) 20:32, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agreed with DrumstickJuggler because, as you said, independence of the subject is related to Wikipedia policy on notability, and you've admitted yourself the Sun-Sentinel source does indeed do that. As for the "solid forms of verification" comment, you didn't directly say that but you implied that when you said "fine with me to cite the four interviews".--Beachsand2004 (talk) 20:38, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Response Hi, I said just the opposite about the Sun-Sentinel source--it does not establish notability because it is non-independent. It is mostly the subject's own words. Yes, there are some words that are not the subject's words. That's what happens in interviews. Looking at the whole source, it does not cross the threshold of WP:BASIC, which also refers to substantial depth. Logical Cowboy (talk) 20:46, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The interview part may be her own words, but the introduction is written in third-person, and therefore that part is not in her own words, but the words of the source itself..--Beachsand2004 (talk) 20:50, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This !vote has been struck as having been made by a now-blocked sockpuppet account. See this SPI. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:09, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The discussion is of notability, since there is an agreement about verification. That said, only the interview part of the Sun-Sentinel source is first and second person, the introduction like Beachsand2004 said, is in third person. I'm also sure that we have other forms of third-person narratives amongst available sources. Therefore, I think the notability part is established too.--DrumstickJuggler (talk) 21:10, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep not all these sources are fully dependant on the subject as the nominator seems to claim. For example, the Sun Sentinel source is only dependant in the interview portion of the source, not in the opening paragraph.--TV Man 13 00:03, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Response Actually, I said just the opposite--the Sun-Sentinel source does include words that are not the subject's. But there is not enough depth of coverage there to establish notability per WP:BASIC. Unfortunately your comments do not make any connection to WP policies. Logical Cowboy (talk) 00:09, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Depth? You say a "couple hundred in fact" above in reference to words of the independant text, and what about the other sources? I think the comments by the above users already explain how it links to policy.--TV Man 13 00:13, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This !vote has been struck as having been made by a now-blocked sockpuppet account. See this SPI. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:09, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment How odd that all three of the respondents on this page mispelled the word "independent" as "independant." [6] [7] [8] That's a pretty rare misspelling. Maybe they are not independent of each other. This is also interesting. [9] Logical Cowboy (talk) 00:30, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  So more than one person in the world edits articles about a show watched by millions of people around the world. What's your point?--DrumstickJuggler (talk) 00:37, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  I believe that his point is the combination of shared edits and the uncommon misspelling shared by all three editors could easily be construed as meaning they're the same person. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:55, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Eh, Google search returns 250 million results for "independant" vs. 500 million for "independent", so it's a very common misspelling and the odds of 3 different people making the same mistake are not low. With the possible sidenote that this word is spelled "indépendant" in French, and "dependant" is an acceptable spelling of "dependent" in English. Not that I have an opinion on the AFD matter itself, just a statistical note.Geregen2 (talk) 03:27, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Hm, I get 949 million hits for "independent" [10] and 23 million for "independant" [11], a lot different than what you are saying. And the 23 million includes a lot of non-English results. I really doubt that in English this word is misspelled 1/3 of the time as you are suggesting. Maybe you are using the French google? Anyway, that was not the only similarity among the three accounts. Logical Cowboy (talk) 04:28, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: Rampant socking in this AfD. !Votes above by sock accounts that have been blocked have been struck. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:09, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete/comment Crikey. Okay, I don't know what to make of this. Looking at the template for Survivor contestants, I see quite a lot of former Survivor contestants with articles of their own, though having a look at the list shows that a LOT don't, so there isn't a precedent for articles for contestants. Apparently the beauty pageant was Señorita República Deportiva (as per "examiner.com/article/survivor-nicaragua-brenda-lowe-paddle-sports-new-pin-up-girl" which was caught by the spam filter]) but that doesn't have an article of its own (not even as Miss Republic Pageant, so she is not notable as a beauty pageant winner. Okay, she obviously passes WP:HOTTIE, but joking aside, I don't really see anything to show me that she is notable enough to retain an article on her. Mabalu (talk) 00:41, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete My major reason is WP:BLP1E. Outside of Survivor, nothing else is substantial enough for notability. She's at best a D level celebrity who could one day gain more credentials for an article, but right now she, along with most other contestants, does not warrant one. RoadView (talk) 17:21, 22 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.