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 a7, no credible assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 23:26, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

December Rose[edit]

December Rose (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 notability, and deceptive references. At first glance, this article looks like it refers to a notable musician - lots of reviews linked at the bottom, lots of interviews - and then you check them.

The reviews provided, while claiming to be reviews, actually aren't - if you follow them back to the source provided you'll see them all identified as press releases by the artist herself.

Then we have the interviews. 3 interviews by reliable, notable publications is certainly enough to cross the bar of notability. Unfortunately none are provided - Tribe of Noise is a community of musicians, and Rose was interviewed as a member of the group, by the group. Make A Star is a talent competition where she won, ah, $100, and was interviewed over this. The Hip Rock Magazine article link doesn't actually work, but even if it did, the magazine has only even existed for four months, and I can't see any evidence that it's a reliable or respected publication.

Outside of the provided sources, Rose has released one studio album (with six songs on it) that didn't chart, four singles (that also didn't chart), and hung around on youtube. There isn't any notability here that I can see. Ironholds (talk) 23:20, 5 March 2014 (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 a7, no credible assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 23:21, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cody R Burns[edit]

Cody R Burns (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 referencing for this article looks pretty impressive, but if you look closely you'll see the citations are all from (1) IMDB (2) self-published sources, or sources closely associated with Burns, and (3) yet more IMDB. I'm unable to find anything verifying the subject's notability - he's released several albums, all himself, and while there's a claim to a 1-year contract with Def Jam, the only citation provided is self-published (and since when do you need a contract to publish to iTunes?

Bottom line: not notable. Ironholds (talk) 23:10, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) buffbills7701 π! 00:00, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don Shows[edit]

Don Shows (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 any of the notability requirements for coaches. Being in a state sports hall of fame does not indicate notability. John from Idegon (talk) 23:10, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep; he was a football coach at two universities too. So he qualifies for Wikipedia. Billy Hathorn (talk) 00:18, 6 March 2014 (UTC) (part author of the article)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Only college head coaches are deemed notable. Also, the tone and tense of this article is entirely inappropriate. We do not write about current events generally WP:NOTNEWS, and we certainly do not list the scheduled date of someone's funeral in the near future WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Other than clips pertaining to a local high school coach which you would expect to find on nearly any high school coach, and info on his high school career (neither of which would make him notable), there is not much to see on this guy. Being important locally, or even regionally, is not what makes notability. John from Idegon (talk) 19:50, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete dang it. Seems like a super guy and had a huge impact in his area. But that does not qualify for inclusion in this encyclopedia. I cannot find a measure of notability that will pass for this individual for inclusion here. Try another wiki.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:19, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed to Keep you know what? I'm ready to flip on this one. After reviewing my searches more, I am seeing a tremendous amount of coverage in sports-related websites on the subject--radio, TV, newspapers, and bloggers. While it seems that the bulk of that coverage is local or perhaps even "regional" (depending on your definition of "regional"), there is just so much of it that I think we are looking at a case of passing the general notability guideline. And that's enough.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:58, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article seems to be qualified for the Wikipedia. Per Billy Hawthorn. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 07:02, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: More material has been added to the article, which has newspaper sources all over the state. Mr. Shows won two national championships in 1998 and 2008. Even if he wasn't a head coach at the two universities where he coached, he was successful there too. It would seem this article is the exception to the rule that high school coaches are not allowed on Wikipedia and only head college coaches are permitted. The memorial service info could not be added until March 8. Billy Hathorn (talk) 15:15, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment National championships in high school sports are mythical. I don't think it's enough to show notability, but I don't have strong feelings about it. Otherwise, there's nothing to show this is anything but a case of WP:NOTMEMORIAL.204.126.132.231 (talk) 16:27, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Even the college teams are not particularly important. DGG ( talk ) 03:23, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per Paulmcdonald. WP:GNG trumps all other WikiProject-specific notability guidelines. Ejgreen77 (talk) 05:06, 11 March 2014 (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 a7, no credible assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 23:24, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Rex[edit]

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

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

He's been in some films he made himself and has an IMDB page; that's about as much as you can say. Not notable, by any stretch of the imagination: I can't find any news hits at all. Ironholds (talk) 23:06, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by User:Jimfbleak per CSD G11 and CSD G12. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Doing archives[edit]

Doing archives (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)

Data archive project. It might be notable, but you can't tell from this dense piece of writing that appears to have been lifted verbatim from the subject's self-description (though I can't find it anywhere and therefore can't delete for copyright violation). Only sources cited are internal documents. Author removed prod tag without explanation or adding sources. NawlinWiki (talk) 23:00, 5 March 2014 (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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:11, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pale blue Christian Dior dress of Charlize Theron[edit]

Pale blue Christian Dior dress of Charlize Theron (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)

Being mentioned as a contender (and not even winner or near-winner) in a single poll does not make a dress notable. There is not enough coverage of this dress to meet the WP:GNG. Compare to the level of coverage for White floral Givenchy dress of Audrey Hepburn or Red Versace dress of Cindy Crawford, which each have a half dozen sources. Sᴠᴇɴ Mᴀɴɢᴜᴀʀᴅ Wha? 22:17, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also up for deletion in this AfD:

• Red Versace dress of Catherine Zeta-Jones
• White Christian Dior dress of Gisele Bündchen
• Giorgio Armani mermaid dress of Anne Hathaway
• Navy Monique Lhuillier mermaid dress of Kristen Stewart

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Sᴠᴇɴ Mᴀɴɢᴜᴀʀᴅ Wha? 22:23, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete on all. All of them do not meet the WP:GNG. There is likely to be trivial mentions of virtually every dress worn at the Oscars. Perhaps the dresses merit a single line in the main pages of the actresses, but no merge is necessary for that. mikeman67 (talk) 22:25, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I have stood up for at least one of the good doctor's dress articles (perhaps more than one), but I think these ones don't quite pass the bar. Note Sven, you have the Red Versace of Ms. Zeta-Jones listed twice. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 22:44, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed, thanks kelapstick. Sᴠᴇɴ Mᴀɴɢᴜᴀʀᴅ Wha? 01:21, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all - most are stubs based on a single source (often gossip-mag-type sources) and don't come close to being notable in their own right. There are plenty of individual items of clothing that are notable but these aren't in that category, in my view. In many cases, the coverage relates to deportment, attitude and accessories as much as it relates to the dress itself. Stalwart111 23:22, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No reason this couldnt have a mention on Theron's page or Dior's page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bali88 (talk • contribs)
• Keep/Merge If the details of these particular dresses seem to slight, there are still alternatives to deletion. For example, it seems easy to find entire books about the fashion which is displayed at the Academy Awards: Made For Each Other: Fashion and the Academy Awards; Star style at the Academy Awards: a century of glamour. Perhaps we could have a general article about this fashion parade? Our editing policy indicates that we should try to make something of this. Andrew (talk) 01:35, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Alternatives to deletion" has a limit, and isn't a backdoor around notability. I can't see what's in that book, but the promotional summary seems to indicate that it focuses on specific items of clothing, in which case it can be used as a source for those specific items of clothing. Its existence does not justify the coverage of dresses that aren't covered. If there are multiple sources that provide substantial coverage of one of these dresses in specific (not fashion of the red carpet, not fashion of that year, etc.), that dress meets the notability guideline and can have a stand-alone articles. If not, we can shuffle trivially covered items around in any number of article configurations, but it's still not going to get around the fact that they're trivially covered. For that reason, I disagree very strongly with your interpretation of the editing policy. Sᴠᴇɴ Mᴀɴɢᴜᴀʀᴅ Wha? 05:01, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think your interpretation is incorrect. Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone_lists says if the list subject is notable "the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable" so it's clear you can combine non-notable articles into a list as long as the list is as a whole about a notable topic. "The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been", so it would be ok to include dresses that weren't in the book. That would justify a merge though not a keep. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:47, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think an article of the sort--given that it has reliable sources, could make a very good wikipedia article. :-) Bali88 (talk) 22:22, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all, not notable in any reasonable encyclopedic sense. Wikipedia is not a gossip tabloid. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:53, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/comment - We've had these discussions before - I am rather behind on doing the Red carpet fashion articles (mea culpa) but the long term plan was to merge these into the articles for their relevant years as I wrote them, like I did with Red Ben de Lisi dress of Kate Winslet, Elie Saab net dress of Halle Berry, etc. into Red carpet fashion in 2002 - I deliberately didn't include any of the nominated articles in the individual dresses section in Template:Red carpet fashion as they didn't appear individually notable enough, so yes, I guess I am saying delete. I've checked, and all the key info on each article here is merged into the rough working draft on my userspace apart from the 1999 Zeta Jones dress. Mabalu (talk) 15:16, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The one citation doesn't really do enough to establish any notability here, and I'd consider the threshold for notability to be reasonably high for an article of clothing. Ducknish (talk) 22:07, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all five per Ducknish. We need more than one citation per stub. These would be subject to re-creation if somebody could find more coverage in reliable media. Bearian (talk) 19:31, 12 March 2014 (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. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:47, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Journalism, Ethics and Society[edit]

Journalism, Ethics and Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Subject appears to be a non-notable book WP:NBOOK by a non-notable author. A Google failed to turn up much of anything outside of the usual Amazon and related listings. PROD was removed. Ad Orientem (talk) 22:11, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - prod was removed a month ago and article was improved and commented on by experianced editors such as User:DGG , book is Wikipedia notable , just the article needs time to be expanded - Mosfetfaser (talk) 22:21, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply The article is two sentences long. It cites no RS sources and makes no claim to notability. The only thing I see DGG doing in the edit history was taking down a premature PROD. The edit history doesn't suggest much has been done. I don't claim infallibility and I have missed things before, but I am not seeing anything here that rings the notability bell. If you want to offer something specific that says otherwise I am absolutely open to any new evidence. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:36, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Page makes no claim for any notability at all, and an online search was no more helpful. Clearly fails WP:NBOOK. mikeman67 (talk) 22:30, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The fact that the book exists, period, is not enough for a wikipedia entry. Bali88 (talk) 13:07, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I have found one source, but so far it's fairly slow going. I'm wondering if it wouldn't be better to create an article for the author and redirect there. Anyone know if he's written anything else? Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:47, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did a Google on the author before I sent this to AfD. Unfortunately the man is cursed with one of those super common names. But FWIW I didn't find anything that screamed notable. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:08, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to David Berry (educator). It took a while and it certainly wasn't easy- I had to try to find one of his books and then work out from there since the name posed a huge problem. I also don't really see where he's done any of the typical author or educator type stuff such as creating a web page for himself. However I've found enough reviews for his work to where he'd justify an article on his own. On a side note, I have to note the irony that someone involved in teaching about media and journalism has such a low Internet profile. It's probably how he wants it, but still... a little funny. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:18, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I kind of named him "educator" since I was somewhat at a loss as to what to term him since he's a senior lecturer but also a writer and editor. Since all of his work is meant for the academic world (ie, textbooks), I figured that educator is sort of a good catch all name. Feel free to toss out any different article titles if you can find a better fitting one. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:19, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to David Berry (educator). On Google Scholar, I found that the book is cited 14 times, but never in detail, always in passing. None of these 14 ever talks about the influence of the book, or the influence of Berry. Binksternet (talk) 19:31, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable. CombatWombat42 (talk) 03:03, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notability of a book is shown by reviews, and tokyoGirl mentions the very large number of them. There';s also the very large library holdings-- 791 according to WorldCat. DGG ( talk ) 15:33, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I see a number of reviews for Barry's works in general that was added to David Berry (educator), but I still only see one review for the book in question here. mikeman67 (talk) 18:08, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I searched multiple research databases for secondary sources about this book and found nothing. Zero (0) results in NewsBank. Zero (0) results in InfoTrac. No discussion amongst other books in Google Books. Fails WP:NOTE, lack of any meaningful significant discussion among secondary sources. — Cirt (talk) 19:38, 12 March 2014 (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. j⚛e decker^talk 06:29, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Ward[edit]

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

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

This article is about a blogger who fails WP:N and WP:BIO as he hasn't been the subject of significant coverage in multiple, reliable sources. He has received some passing mentions around the internet, but nothing significant and detailed enough to warrant encyclopedic coverage.

(Note that this was a paid-editing project, presumably ordered by the subject; so there are significant COI issues involved with the creation) ThemFromSpace 21:54, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Needs to be rewrite the article to be less promotional, but I don't see any pressing need to not include him. He has a presence in the blogging world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bali88 (talk • contribs)
• Delete Having "a presence in the blogging world" does not make someone notable, there need to be sources about that (and not just some blogs, either). That this was a paid job explains the horrendous overcategorization (I just deleted a bunch of inappropriate cats). --Randykitty (talk) 13:34, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Kitty deleted a bunch of inappropriate cats. lol I'm a nerd. Bali88 (talk) 02:12, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Randykitty. Snappy (talk) 18:17, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. I checked factiva for sources and couldn't find any. SmartSE (talk) 15:29, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The Irish Examiner bit is a start, but that seems to be about it for reliable sources, that I could find. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 00:36, 12 March 2014 (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 Linden Park, South Australia. j⚛e decker^talk 17:23, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Linden Park Primary School[edit]

Linden Park Primary School (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 primary school. We don't generally have articles for primary schools unless they are especially notable. Epeefleche (talk) 21:28, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 00:06, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 00:06, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:ORG. I would oppose merge as there is almost no content to include. LibStar (talk) 00:26, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and mention in Linden Park, South Australia. Not notable in its own right. WWGB (talk) 01:03, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Linden Park, South Australia as a plausible search term. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:28, 10 March 2014 (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. j⚛e decker^talk 06:28, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Twelve Gauge Valentine[edit]

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

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

Delete: Their one major label album didn't chart, and their article doesn't cite a single source. Invisiboy42293 (talk) 21:13, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, fails WP:MUSIC and WP:V. NawlinWiki (talk) 23:03, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NMUSIC, WP:GNG. Ducknish (talk) 22:09, 10 March 2014 (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.  Sandstein  10:38, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Betraying the Martyrs[edit]

Betraying the Martyrs (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)

Despite playing some notable festivals, their one album hasn't charted and most of the sources appear to be either first-party or webzines. Unless someone can come up with something better, I don't think they're ready for an article. Invisiboy42293 (talk) 21:07, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 21:27, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The band released on album worldwide via Listenable Records and Sumerian Records, two big labels for that genre. A second record is in work right now. The band toured Europe and North America several times, played on some bigger tours and festivals like Bonecrusher Fest (EU) and the Mayhem Festival (US/CA) and shared stage with acts like Dark Funeral, Carnifex, Asking Alexandria, Dance Gavin Dance, Veil of Maya and Born of Osiris to name few. To be lazy for looking for some better sources can´t be a significant reason for a deletion request. --Goroth (talk) 16:02, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:BAND. In order to be Wikipedia notable, they have to have either two major-label albums (announcing a second album isn't the same as actually having one), significant coverage of their touring in professional music publications (not webzines or blogs, and more than a couple of sentences), two or more notable sites with full articles on the band specifically, or all of the above, if possible. Until you can come up with that, they are not notable and my vote is still delete.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 16:38, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep while the nominator is right to note that a single Sumerian release, on its own, is not sufficient to hurdle WP:MUSIC, it is sufficient if that record hits the charts, as this one did. The sourcing for this article needs some cleanup, but that's not in and of itself reason to delete; one starting point could be this interview from Revolver Magazine. Chubbles (talk) 21:49, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Deathcore <yawn>, a genre already overrepresented because their audience is disproportionately plugged in. Never heard them, reviews don't tempt me. Even so, they tick an official notability box or two, and from what I can discern, their audience already seems to be a full order of magnitude larger than similar groups just on the cusp of notability that are discussed in AfD. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 01:57, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:55, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John Schlossberg[edit]

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

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

I have nominated this page for deletion as he is the 21 year old grandson of a celebrity, and notability is not inherited. Until he earns an achievement of his own, this page should be deleted. This page was nominated at an earlier time for deletion, and the result of the debate was delete which can be seen on this page. Thomasc93 (talk) 05:24, 11 February 2014 (UTC) — Thomasc93 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Keep per the core notability guideline WP:GNG, multiple reliable sources with significant coverage. The WP:INHERIT essay is part of Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. It would apply if a Keep voter was arguing based on who a person is. But no one is claiming notability based on who he is. Invoking inherit in the nomination is a strawman. Of course any source is going to mention his more famous relatives, it can't be avoided, but these sources are all mainly about John Schlossberg. The last Delete was overturned on these grounds.[1] -- GreenC 07:20, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. He is a college student. The only thing notable about him is being related to someone notable. -- Wikipedical (talk) 08:32, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom or redirect to Kennedy family. He hasn't done anything yet. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:59, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Reluctant keep. Now that I look more closely, he does satisfy WP:GNG. The Daily Mail is practically drooling over him. Whether he deserves the attention is irrelevant. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:05, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect Only notable by descent. I was considering which parent to redirect to but Clarityfiend's suggestion of a redirect to Kennedy family might be fairer (he is mentioned there in the list of Kennedies). --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:13, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is determined on Wikipedia by multiple reliable sources. This is summarized at WP:42 or see WP:GNG. The sources are all about John Schlossberg. Those articles might exist only because he's the descendant of JFK, but the reason doesn't matter; the papers apparently felt he was notable. -- GreenC 17:32, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, Jesus third time you are nominating this page. Major newspapers across the globe apparently feel he is notable, in 2014. articles reported about his political activity, so why should wikipedia question his notability. If people like River Viiperi are notable to have wikipedia article, why question JKS wikipedia page?--SadarMoritz (talk) 22:49, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and merge some basic info, such as his existence, to a notable family member's article - IMO in its present state, this article is an insult to all encyclopaedic writing. The sixth line of text of WP:Notability states, "This (Notability) is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article." Wait until he's actually accomplished something for him to have a standalone.Paavo273 (talk) 01:16, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John Schlossberg's notability (or not) is not an "insult", that suggests personal bias. -- GreenC 16:35, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep He just came out on Yale Blog (http://www.queerty.com/jfks-grandson-jack-comes-out-on-yale-blog-editors-immediately-delete-post-20140213/) and the post was deleted by the editors. This is now big news, and the references to this page will increase. We should keep this article.Bill Brandw (talk) 20:48, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, that was a hoax and is not factual. - Gloriamarie (talk) 19:02, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Factual that Schlossberg has been the repeated target of people who give him a hard time online. -- GreenC 06:36, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So have lots of people in daily life XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 06:42, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hackers who target the grandson of President Kennedy know what they are doing. -- GreenC 07:00, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - clearly notable for his family connection, and meets WP:BASIC. -Yambaram (talk) 16:01, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I don't believe he's notable just based on the family connection alone - there are dozens of Kennedy grandchildren, and even though their names may be mentioned in passing in books or articles does not mean they merit their own article in an encyclopedia. Looking at the sources cited in the article, I'm not seeing the "major newspapers" someone else mentioned at all. He's written some op-eds for CNN and The New York Times, but I have several friends who have done the same, and that doesn't make you worthy of an encyclopedia article strictly based on that. The sources that are articles actually about him just appear to be mainly websites. He'll probably be notable as a journalist or politician at some point, but at this point, he is not. As you can see from this article, which is mostly about things he has done related to being a Kennedy grandchild, which would also apply to his dozens of cousins. - Gloriamarie (talk) 19:02, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No-one ever claimed he is notable for his family connections alone. He is notable for having multiple reliable sources with significant coverage, per WP:GNG. Those articles might exist only because he's the descendant of JFK, but the reason doesn't matter; the papers apparently felt he was notable. When you say "The sources that are articles actually about him just appear to be mainly websites." What does that mean? Of course the reliable sources are 'websites'. The websites include: Boston Common magazine, Newsday.com, New York Post, Today.com, New York Times, Associated Press. -- GreenC 19:59, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete he has not done anything notable. "Daily Mail is practically drooling over him" is a moot point since Daily Mail is a tabloid that has repeatedly been declared unreliable. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 04:35, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The rules don't require that he do something only that he have something: significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. The Daily Mail is not even used as a source in the article. -- GreenC 06:29, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem in this case is that the sources provided don't say what he is significant for (his Kennedy family affiliations don't count). XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 06:31, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's an argument for the special notability rules. The General GNG rules don't require it. Only that the topic has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Also, we have articles on 6 month old babies so the idea that someone has to be notable for doing something is inaccurate. Though Schlossberg actually has done things (started a non profit, etc). -- GreenC 06:48, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem isn't reliability of sources or how amount of info they contain. The problem is they don't say how he is significant to society or anything. As for 6 month old baby articles, lots of those probably shouldn't have articles yet if at all. The article also doesn't list anything notable about him. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 06:58, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia doesn't require "significant to society". Only significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. The reason doesn't matter; the papers apparently felt he was notable. -- GreenC 07:08, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have a feeling you've misunderstood the notability policies. Notability/Significance/Impact takes precedence over coverage. You could have tons of information, and even that wouldn't mean anything if it didn't establish how the subject is notable or really popular or anything. While it is true that things with established notability need coverage, not all things with coverage are notable. I mean, I could easily talk to various family and friends of anybody to gain info on that person, but that doesn't automatically make him/her notable. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 07:17, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned you have your own unique interpretation and have not read WP:GNG which says something is notable if it has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. It's telling that while I continually cite the rules and quote them, you do not. -- GreenC 17:04, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A person is not notable merely for being mentioned in sources. Rather, those sources must indicate the reason why the person is notable. Regarding Green C's citation of WP:GNG, I refer to the following portion of that very guideline:

"Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have stand-alone article..."

So just because a person appears in sources doesn't mean that discussion is over. The context, or reason why they're being mentioned, is crucial. A person is not notable simply because they are related to someone notable, as indicated by WP:BLPFAMILY. If they were, then we'd have to give every single baby in the Kennedy family their own article the day they're born, which is obviously not the case. I'm not sure if this is explicitly spelled out by policy or guidelines, but it's certainly a implicit part of notability, and is underlined by an article's Lead section.

To give perhaps a more illustrative example, take me. I've been mentioned by name in at least four different reliable, secondary sources, all of which are independent of me, none of which are tabloids:

• When I was a child, maybe four or five years old, I was photographed dozing off while sitting in a pile of autumn leaves. The photo appeared as a "Slice of Life" piece, complete with a caption that identified me by name, in a newspaper. I don't know if I can find an online version, but I know my mother kept a clipped copy.
• When I was 16, Madonna and Matt Dillon filmed some of the scenes of their film Bloodhounds of Broadway at a location four blocks from my house, and I was quoted, by name in a local paper because I was hanging around that location looking to spot of glimpse of of one of them, and ended up saying hi to Dillon when he arrived at one point.
• I was one of the Wikipedians quoted by Maura Ewing in an October 2012 article on Wikipedia that appeared on Salon.com.
• A year ago, I helped set up a mini comics festival at our local community center, displayed some artwork there, and emceed one or two of the panels, and I was featured for this reason in at least two sources that reported on it ([2][3]).

By Green C's rationale, I'd be notable, because I was in three separate reliable sources. But am I?

Of course not.

These four events are completely unrelated, different events with no connection between them. The first two are extremely trivial, and even in the case of the fourth, in which I played a more central role, it was for a small, local festival that so far, we've only had one of, and which itself is not notable. I don't think helping to organize a small festival or even emceeing panels on it makes a person notable, even if two or three different sources mention this. The event itself would have be large enough to be notable before notability could be conferred on those who help set it up, and even then, not necessarily. John Schlossberg is not notable, for the simple reason that his article doesn't even provide a reason for which he is notable that satisfies Wikipedia's criteria. Nightscream (talk) 01:14, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again that is an appeal to the special notability guidelines, which require a reason for being notability. The general notability guidelines do not require a specific reason or personal accomplishment, just significant coverage in multiple reliable sources for whatever reason those sources want. -- GreenC 01:42, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Agee with GreenC. User:Nightscream, if you can't see any difference between your life's notability and John's, then there's a problem. Of course being a family member of the US president doesn't guarantee you an article on Wikipedia, but considering both John's family connection as well as his relatively wide media coverage by various reliable and secondary sources, and the fact that he's a writer (which in most cases is notable just for itself), all together make the case for keeping this article a much stronger one than deleting it, per Wikipedia's policies. Yambaram (talk) 16:11, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The United States is not an aristorcracy/monarchy like Britain, and the grandchildren of politicians are not default notable. Schlossberg has done nothing notable, and continues to do nothing notable. He does not yet merit a Wikipedia article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:48, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing has been shown to show he has done anything notable outside of being born a grandson of President Kennedy. Notability is not inherited, he is not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:51, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No one (but yourself) says he is "default notable" - he is notable because of the existence of sources, as is described in WP:GNG. Those articles might exist only because he's the descendant of JFK, but the reason doesn't matter; the papers apparently felt he was notable. Those papers are not beholden to Wikipedia's rules in determining notability (!) but we are beholden to the papers when determining notability. -- GreenC 08:15, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - since I've noticed this fact is ignored, please remember that John is also a writer, who (taken from the article) "writes for the Yale Daily News, Yale Herald,[7] and posts opinion pages for the New York Times.[8]". In addition, the existences of all the sources make him sufficiently notable per WP:GNG. Yambaram (talk) 16:18, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is an excellent point. Plus whose to say the non-profit he started, an ongoing and successful organization, wouldn't have garnered him attention regardless of who he is. It can't be helped the sources talk about his famous family, including if he ever became President someday, they will still be talking about his famous grandfather. -- GreenC 16:27, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Being an op ed writer or a college paper writer does not make someone notable. In fact, very few journalists are notable, even ones who have done a lot more writing than this guy. If he died today he would not be worth having an article on. He is not notable at present.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:22, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT .. an op-ed writer or founder of a non-profit can be notable, so long as there are multiple reliable sources about the subject, per WP:GNG. -- GreenC 02:54, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As I said in the deletion review, there are sources talking about him in detail. [4] [5] Dream Focus 19:59, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, would any of the coverage of Schlossberg have occurred if he weren't related to the Kennedys? If not (and I don't see that anyone is seriously arguing this), then WP:INHERIT applies. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:58, 22 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Actually not. INHERIT is an essay. It is an essay called "Arguments to avoid making during an AfD". No one is making that argument. We are arguing Keep due to the guideline WP:GNG. Don't conflate the sources reasons for printing an article with our own rules, the sources aren't beholden to Wikipedia rules of argument in AfD! It's a logical fallacy and makes no sense. We determine notability based on what the real world thinks, and the real world thinks this topic is notable, as evidenced by the sources. -- GreenC 14:31, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  21:06, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

• This discussion was previously closed as "delete". It is relisted for the reasons discussed in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 February 23.  Sandstein  21:07, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. GNG is the north star, and essays don't trump them. We have guidelines for a purpose, and this is one -- so non-consensus essay views don't trump consensus project views. This meets GNG.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:25, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, perhaps one day we should have a considered discussion as to whether it is of moment if our readership has interest in an article. If it is, perhaps we should reflect it in our notability standards. I believe that one of the purposes of the Project is precisely that -- to cover what is of interest to the readers. This article has attracted 38,000 views in the past 90 days. I don't think that the interests of the Project would be best served by deleting the very article such inquisitive readers are seeking.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:47, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Epeefleche puts it well. NOTINHERITED is part of an essay that Wikipedians are free to disregard, and it's right that we disregard it. It's never been a coherent or logical set of guidelines. It's always been basically just a laundry list of things some people wish that other people weren't allowed to say at AfD. It doesn't have the stature to prevail over the GNG.—S Marshall T/C 22:13, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Sort-of-weak keep. Subject meets the GNG. I don't really think he's done or been involved in anything noteworthy enough to "deserve" (whatever that means) the level of notability he's reached, but that shouldn't be relevant in making this decision. We cover the Courtney Stoddens of the world, and he's well above that level. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:58, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as the subject passes WP:GNG. The article's subject received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources; some of these are documented in the article. The General Notability Guideline trumps the other subject-related guidelines and essays mentioned in the opposing comments and !votes. - tucoxn\^talk 23:12, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep He seems to receive significant news coverage. People will google him. He's notable. Bali88 (talk) 01:02, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as Notability is not inherited, expanding on my [DRV argument. When a subject's perceived "notability" is evaluated, there is broad precedent in this project that if it stems from a famous relative, i.e. the subject would likely not receive the amount of coverage he/she does absent the famous relation, then that is not suited for a standalone article. Much the same as a WP:BLP1E (1E is not being argued her,e just used as a reference) case is considered; absent the event, is that person still notable? We have evaluated similar cases in the past such as Al Gore's son (it took awhile to stick), Michelle Bachmann's husband, and Meg Whitman's housekeeper. Any argument of "it just meets the GNG" should be weighed next-to-nothing in the final tally here, just as they would be in BLP1e discussion. Tarc (talk) 13:35, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • per WP:BLP1E, it does not at all seem suitable to keep him until he's actually done something notable, which being a college student and writing for its news team is not. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 20:40, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't particularly care if the Schlossberg article is kept or tossed, but I'm not sure I agree with the logic that a person isn't notable if they're only known for being associated with someone who is notable. I realize that "other stuff exists" is not a good argument, but a good analogy: K Fed has an article and I think we can all agree that he fits in this category. Most folks would agree that he's notable. Why? Because people are talking about him and people want to read about him. It doesn't matter that he hasn't done a darn thing with his life except be a lazy gold digger and he wouldn't be notable if he hadn't married Britney Spears, the the fact of the matter is that he did and now he's famous. And he's notable because he's famous. I just don't think that we should give all that much thought to *how* someone came to be notable, just that they *are* notable. Basically because if we go by this logic, we could retrofit non-notability into pretty much everyone. This person wouldn't be notable if they hadn't been murdered or if they hadn't written this novel, we could apply that logic to everyone to question their notability. I realize I don't speak for everyone, but I think if there is a decent likelihood that a good amount of people will come on here looking for an article about a topic, we should consider that notability. :-) Bali88 (talk) 23:24, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Upon reviewing Kevin Federline's page, saying he "hasn't done a darn thing with his life except be a lazy gold digger" is rather oversimplified. Yes, he is easily best known for his marriage to Britney Spears, but he had previously been noted as a backup dancer for Michael Jackson, Justin Timberlake, Destiny's Child, Pink, and LFO. He is also noted as rapper. Just thought I should mention that. It is true that one's relationship (dating, marriage, engagement, etc.) can drastically increase the public attention he/she receives, though he/she is essentially not notable if not known for doing anything else. In the case of Jack Schlossberg here, absolutely nothing notable about him is known, not even being a writer for Yale and certainly not for being a student there. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 00:02, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are lot of people who have been back up dancers for famous people and aren't notable and even so, isn't that kind of a parallel move? Proximity to famous people and all that? And his rapping career... lol Bali88 (talk) 00:36, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that lots of backup dancers aren't notable, though not sure what exactly you are saying with the "lol" regarding his rapping..... XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 00:41, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm just being mean to ol' kevin. Wasn't his music kind of a joke? Bali88 (talk) 01:40, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't listened to it, so can't really say. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 02:08, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• No offense, but this strikes me as a fringe interpretation of WP:NOTINHERITED. When the reflected scrutiny the press gives a famous person doesn't find anything notable to comment on in the lives of their relatives, that is when NOTINHERITED offers useful advice. But when the reflected scrutiny does trigger coverage of new details -- unrelated to the famous person -- then the advice of NOTINHERITED no longer applies.

  There are some individuals, related to famous individuals in their industry, who chose to change their names, so they weren't riding on the coat-tails of their famous relatives. And I bet we have never heard of most of them, because they never did have press coverage to establish their own notability. By your argument would we have an article on Nicholas Cage, the nephew of famous director Francis Ford Coppola?

  Other 20 something youths are handsome; other 20 something youths go to Ivy League Universities; other 20 something youths write for their college newspapers, train to be EMTs, have harassing hoaxsters falsely "out" them as "gay"; some 20 something youths even give moving speeches to audiences full of somebodies -- without ever triggering coverage by reliable sources. And you know what? We don't make articles about those individuals. But an individual, like Schlossberg, who has considerable RS coverage -- we do cover those individuals -- their relationship with a famous relative has then become irrelevant. Geo Swan (talk) 18:02, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep After reading the opinions above I feel I need to remind participants of their obligation to follow the recommendations of WP:BEFORE. The "delete" opinions seem to be a combination of lapses from WP:BEFORE, that fail to recognize that RS have covered Schlossberg in detail -- and classic lapses from the advice of WP:IDONTLIKEIT from participants whose comments boil down to they don't think Schlossberg should be notable, who have blithely ignored that widespread coverage of him in RS have made him notable whether they like it or not.

  Yes, we have the advice of WP:NOTINHERITED, in the WP:ATA essay, and 95+ percent of the relatives of notable people do turn out to be nobodies, who if they are mentioned in the press, have only a truly passing mention, of their relationship with the more famous relative, and say nothing about them. However, I suggest a fair reading of the press reporting on Schlossberg show he is one of the exceptions, one of the less than 5 percent of relatives of notable people who have had their own notability established. Geo Swan (talk) 17:41, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:Before is not policy, guideline, or even an essay, it is the lowest level of "suggestion" one can find in this project. Curious to find you commenting here after I opposed your entry at Deletion Review a few hours ago. Stalker much? Tarc (talk) 17:55, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• If it says it is a guideline, and failing to follow it causes disruption to the community, it should remain a guideline.  Unrelated ad hominem arguments do not make it either more or less a guideline.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:54, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Hmmm. Tarc, didn't you call upon the authority of NOTINHERITED, which is part of the essay WP:Arguments to avoid?

It really surprises me that you should call BEFORE a mere "suggestions", and are not acknowledging that it is part of the instructions as to how and when to nominate articles for deletion.

If there was a consistent logic to how much attention we should pay to wikidocuments, I think BEFORE would trump the advice of an essay like ATA. However User:DGG has made an important point, paraphrasing from memory, that the wikipedia is a complex, evolving, political entity, and, in practice, one can see that there are times when the community places more confidence in some essays, which theoretically, could be just a fringe opinion, than in other wikidocuments that, theoretically, one would consider of higher precedence.

In this particular case I think following the instructions of BEFORE is important. In this particular case I also think ATA has some relevant advice, but I think it is the advice in its WP:IDONTLIKEIT section, not its NOTINHERITED section, as I think a fair reading of the references shows the reporters behind those RS have written about Schlossberg, in detail, about aspects of his life that are not mere reflections of the notability of his more famous relatives. This is what we should require to agree notability has been established, and, like it or not, it has been established. Geo Swan (talk) 18:06, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep  Note that I commented twice at the most recent DRV.  IMO, there is no argument here that satisfies WP:Deletion policy without invoking WP:IAR.  The argument to WP:NOTINHERITED is a contrary interpretation of WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions.  The related implied argument that WP:NOTINHERITED is an emerging tenet of WP:NOT does not explain John Quincy Adams.  IMO, the policy path to consensus here is to conclude that the topic passes WP:GNG but is not "worthy of notice" as is required by WP:N.  The remedy for such is a merge, which does not need AfD.  In part I think that editors are not unreasonably reacting to the misuse of the encyclopedia in the "Career" section, but removing trivia and speculation is handled by WP:Editing policy.  Unscintillating (talk) 16:22, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• John Quincy Adams got plenty of notability outside of his famous father and the Adams family, being a well-known politician who served as President. Merging Jack Schlossberg to Kennedy family is fine with me, though he isn't really notable on his own since being a college student at Yale isn't noteworthy and niether is writing for its news team. If he becomes a more professional writer (not saying Yale papers lack credibility or anything, but they're not really professional), then it would be more appropriate to keep. WP:BLP1E also states that being in the news by itself doesn't automatically mean someone is notable. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 16:55, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You keep bringing up BLP1E, here and at the DRV, however BLP1E requires the person to be a "low profile individual", and the grandson of President John F. Kennedy is most certainly not a low profile individual, as evidenced by the large amount of media coverage over a long period of time. Furthermore there is no "single event", simply being someone is not an "event". The purpose of BLP1E is to protect the privacy of private individuals who otherwise had a brief flash of fame eg. a neighbor who witnessed a plane crash and got on the news with man on the street interviews. That person's privacy should be protected we shouldn't be writing Wikipedia articles due to a single event. That is why there is a clause on "low profile individuals" so BLP1E is not misapplied to people who are already well known like the Kennedys. --GreenC 17:11, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He is definitely low profile compared to second cousins such as RFK's grandson Joe and Eunice's grandchildren Katherine and Patrick Schwarzenegger. Jack here is medium-profile at most. Being JFK's grandson doesn't make him high profile anymore than it does his sisters Rose and Tatiana. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 17:27, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Why are you comparing him to other younger Kennedy cousins? I looked at Kennedy family, to see how many I recognized, and see how many had standalone articles, and how many didn't. I had never heard of most of them, and I don't think I had ever heard of any of the Kennedys who did not already have standalone articles.

  So long as the coverage of those other Kennedys is nonexistent, or is of a truly passing nature, not saying anything beyond something like "...also present was JFK's relative, young Foobar Kennedy" we should not cover Foobar Kennedy in a standalone article. But when Foobar Kennedy has significant coverage, over an extended period of time, coverage that covers different aspects of his life, then Foobar has met the criteria for a standalone article. When considering whether Foobar merits coverage, it doesn't matter if no one has yet started an article on Foobar's even more notable cousin. That is just an argument for someone to get cracking and start an article on that cousin too. Geo Swan (talk) 18:24, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Being JFK's grandson doesn't make him high profile. That is a strawman, no one but yourself is saying that. Read what I said again: "the grandson of President John F. Kennedy is most certainly not a low profile individual as evidenced by the large amount of media coverage over a long period of time." Also you are misapplying NOTINHERIT essay. NOTINHERIT is based in the guideline WP:NRVE which says notability requires verifiable evidence. The essay is meant to block users who make wild and unsupported claims like "Being JFK's grandson makes him notable" (which no one here is saying, other than your strawman claims). NOTINHERIT is not meant to stop claims that are supported with evidence ie. sources. -- GreenC 19:55, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with the way you're interpreting WP:NOTINHERITED. The guideline isn't meant to take away someone's notability if someone thinks it wasn't earned. It's meant to apply to people who otherwise are unknowns being included in wikipedia just because they have a relationship with a notable person. If he was a random college kid related to the Kennedy's who wasn't getting news coverage, I think the rule would apply. Alyson Hannigan's daughter, for example, doesn't really get much media coverage. If someone tried to include her, it would be deleted and rightfully so. She isn't notable just because her mother is notable. But if her daughter got a ton of media coverage and was widely discussed she would be notable. The idea that he isn't notable because he only writes for the Yale Daily News is faulty. Even if he wrote for a major magazine...the majority of writers for those publications don't meet notability guidelines, so I'm not sure how that changes things. Bali88 (talk) 17:37, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even Conor Kennedy, who doesn't have his own article, got more media attention by dating Taylor Swift than Jack Schlossberg ever has. Conor doesn't have an article because of WP:BLP1E. If Conor fails notability, than Jack unquestionably fails it as well. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 20:18, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That would be passing mention, not coverage about himself. Different things here. Dream Focus 00:44, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Passing mention or not, he definitely got more coverage than Jack. At least for now, there's no point in having an article on Jack when Conor fails notability. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 00:58, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Conor Kennedy doesn't "fail notability". No one created an article yet. The non-existence of a topic has nothing to do with its notability. Another logical fallacy is you make a big deal about inheritance, but then make this inheritance-based argument that one Kennedy is the same as another. -- GreenC 02:18, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not what I meant. My point was that if Conor doesn't fulfill notability policies then Jack doesn't either, even if we don't use WP:INHERIT. I was simply using Conor as an example of someone who got lots of coverage but is not notable. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 02:24, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Meets the GNG. No policy or guideline seems to apply which would prevent an article. So we keep it. Put another way, notability on Wikipedia doesn't require you be notable for a good reason. Hobit (talk) 02:08, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think a lot of the keep votes have been overly persuaded by his claims to have been involved in organizing something as a high school student, but he was only one of 10+ people involved and not the leader, so this is not a claim to notability. In a non-aristocratic country Schlossberg has no claim to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:52, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Attempt to gauge interest by views of articles under consideration for deletion is unwise. A large part of the traffic is probably driven by the fact the article is being considered for deletion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:56, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The facts are that the article attracts a great deal of reader interest. This is true apart from any views attracted by the AfD. You can can check this easily -- the article attracted hundreds of views per day (and up) before it was considered for deletion.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:17, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The view count isn't really important. Besides, the most of its views came from AfD and/or were from users expanding the article. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 19:28, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Your assumption (stated as fact) that "most of its views came from AfD and/or were from users expanding the article" is clearly false. See the 36,000 views here. Cf. it to to the AfD date. And to the number of edits to the article.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:17, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Either way, view count is rather moot. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 22:22, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete — If I overly simplify the article, I see, in order: 1. he writes stuff (but not notable stuff); 2. he's the grandson of someone famous; 3. he was born, had some parents, those parents had famous parents, had a childhood, etc; 4. raised funds in 8th grade (but not famously/only because of a source covering #2); 5. has a blog and does some news reporting (but not famously); 6. wants to be a politician in the future (but hasn't even run for anything); 7. said something at a dinner with politicians (because of #2, #3, and #6); 8. is on an award committee (but not a famous one, and only because of #2). If you apply specific notability to each one, they seem to mostly fail the corresponding guidelines (e.g., WP:BIO, WP:AUTHOR, WP:POLITICIAN). So, if the claim that he meets the GNG is because of things that wouldn't make someone independently notable on their own, it feels a bit like original research to glue non-notable things together to advance the assertion that, "He's notable in our opinion because he's done n non-notable things, which equals 1 big notable thing: him!" I think that's part of the problem with inherited notability; if you come from a famous family, you can get press just by posting a scandalous picture on Twitter, getting arrested for a DUI, or pooping in a park (and/or all of the above, if you're crazy like that :P)—gluing the 3 non-notable events together (even with news article sources), doesn't seem like it should make you notable (and wouldn't if a no-name did it), but I guess that's really just a matter of opinion. --slakr^\ talk / 20:48, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• You have it backwards. Start with GNG. It's the gold standard. If someone is notable by virtue of RSs covering the person in significant fashion -- for whatever reason whatsoever (even a non-notable reason) -- then they are notable. Period. End of story. No reason to weigh how notable the events are that lead the RSs to cover the person in significant fashion. None at all. The supplementary notability provisions are simply for cases where -- otherwise -- a subject is not covered sufficiently by RSs. That's all. (And I see, by this comment of yours, why some editors have viewed some closes differently than you have ... if this is how you interpret GNG).--Epeefleche (talk) 00:30, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• You've oversimplified notability. By the rationale you just gave, Conor Kennedy would've been notable for making numerous headlines while dating Taylor swift. As I previously mentioned, Conor fails notability per WP:BLP1E. Seeing to it that Conor got much more coverage during those months than Jack ever has at all, and Conor fails notability, then there is no doubt Jack fails notability. BLP1E indicates that one thing/event alone isn't enough to make someone notable. The "one thing" in this case is his general academic activities. Even Lee Harvey Oswald and John Wilkes Booth were known for more than just being charged with assassinations. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 01:14, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Your logic is so faulty I don't even know where to start. -- GreenC 02:23, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I really don't think that was necessary..... XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 02:34, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Your logic is faulty. -- GreenC

Epeefleche: My point is that the GNG allows for considerably greater amounts of subjective evaluation (e.g., "is this significant? what about that?" "how many sources should there be? Is this enough? Is that enough? What does Epeefleche think it should be? Does soandso disagree?" etc...), while specific notability criteria tend to be, well, more specific. As such, I'm saying evaluating the specific notability for each instance might be a more helpful way of determining some of the more subjective prongs of GNG when there's disagreement between one person's versus another person's evaluation thereof. It's not a "Period. End of story" issue, even if you, personally, see it as such. --slakr^\ talk / 10:02, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GNG only allows for subjective evaluation of the GNG factors ("significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"). But the factor you're weighing -- the level of notability of the event for which the subject is covered -- is simply not one of the GNG factors. If a subject meets the GNG factors, that is in fact the end of the inquiry. You're conflating the secondary test -- which is only applied if a subject fails to meet GNG -- with the GNG test. That's incorrect. As incorrect as it would be to say if a subject met the secondary test that it was not enough, because they failed to have substantial coverage. If you want to change what the delineated GNG factors are, to add the concept that the substantial coverage in RSs must be for a "notable" event, go ahead and try -- but don't construe a community guideline by inserting additional factors into it that you would like it to have ... but which it simply doesn't have.Epeefleche (talk) 15:03, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I wasn't clear, but let's recap: 1. I am saying GNG has several subjective elements, which leads to things like: a. someone saying "no, I don't think this guy meets the GNG," and b. someone telling that person they're factually wrong (case in point). 2. Because of #1, the only-used-if-GNG-is-failed specific notability guidelines (e.g., WP:BIO, WP:EVENT, etc...) should presumably, by the transitive property make the guy as easily or more easily passed as notable and, if he meets the GNG already, serve as failovers. 3. So, if this article is unable to meet even one of the as-or-more-easily-met specific notability guidelines despite all points of the subject's alleged notability having specific notability guidelines for each of them, then my point is that a blanket claim that "it's notable because it meets my minimum bar for the GNG," in the face of reliably failing the more case-specific criteria seems a little counter-intuitive (but obviously not necessarily wrong by any means). You obviously disagree, which is totally fine, because that's your opinion, which is what the discussion is all about. :P --slakr^\ talk / 16:54, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree because that's not what GNG says. GNG quite frankly does not require -- though you would like it to -- that the article meet a failover criteria. You're simply making up your own additional add-on criteria for GNG. And acting as though it is part of the consensus-built GNG criteria. It isn't. But perhaps the close here, and comments of others, will inform one of us.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:56, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, for the reasons I've stated at the previous deletion discussion. Yambaram (talk) 20:04, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Seems like Slakr's comments were misunderstood. I could be wrong but it looks like he was saying that it fails non-GNG notability policies regardless of GNG. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 22:48, 14 March 2014 (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. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:19, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Terminal (band)[edit]

Terminal (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)

Doesn't meet WP:MUSIC; their only album, while released by a semi-major label, did no more scrape the bottom of a minor chart, and they don't seem to have gotten any significant third-party write-ups (the current sources are all either first-party or barely worth mentionings). Also, they were previously nominated and approved for deletion, so I don't even know why it's still up. In any case, I say delete. Invisiboy42293 (talk) 20:56, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article differs substantially from whatever was up in 2005; this is not a repost and so is not eligible for a G4 (nor is the mere fact of a prior deletion reason to delete it again). The band, as the nominator notes, hit a Billboard chart, and even if they did not chart high on it, that is sufficient according to WP:MUSIC bullet 2. The group also meets WP:MUSIC bullet 6, as members have also played in Oh, Sleeper (most of Terminal later joined this band), Alive in Wild Paint, and Analog Rebellion. Finally, the nominator is mistaken about the sourcing; Terminal have a biography and a full review of their album on Allmusic and at Jesus Freak Hideout, and to this I've added coverage of the band's splintering on Alternative Press, as well as international coverage from Cross Rhythms and a retrospective from a staff writer at Absolute Punk who called the record "one of the great emo releases of the 00's". Chubbles (talk) 22:13, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Thank you, Chubbles, for finding all these sources. Well done. Let's keep it in its improved state. -- Y not? 15:08, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Not quite. The Altpress piece (which is currently a dead link anyway) and the Absolute Punk piece are just short news articles, no more than a paragraph each, so I don't know if they meet bullet 1's requirement that they be "non-trivial" (album reviews don't either, by the way). The Allmusic bio is getting there, but it needs at least one more substantial write-up to fulfill bullet 1. And while their album did chart, it nevertheless charted pretty low on a relatively minor chart. That technically fulfills bullet 2, but it's not enough without sufficient press attention to back it up.

Right now they're teetering on the edge of notability, but I'm still gonna go with delete.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 16:30, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll note that the Altpress piece is not a dead link; it displays on my end. Invisiboy's WP:HEY standard, I believe, is well beyond what WP:MUSIC actually requires of bands and musicians, both in terms of charting and coverage via album reviews (both generally regarded as acceptable indicators). Chubbles (talk) 21:36, 11 March 2014 (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. A quick check of the possible copyvio pointed out by @Dougweller: does look troubling, but that's fixable by normal editorial attention -- RoySmith (talk) 19:33, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bethesda Presbyterian Church (Edwards, Mississippi)[edit]

Bethesda Presbyterian Church (Edwards, Mississippi) (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)

Contested prod. This is not a notable church, since age doesn't confer notability. (In any case, there are thousands of churches in many other countries much older than this one that are not notable.) StAnselm (talk) 19:57, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 23:58, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 23:58, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 23:58, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Just like this article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Knox Presbyterian Church (Harrison Township, Michigan) got deleted, I think this one should too. This article doesn't follow Wikipedia:IMPORTANCE and nobody really knows about this outside of Edwards, Mississippi...... BrandonWu (talk) 01:04, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't see or participate in that AFD, and can't see the former content of the article. It seems from comments that there was not sufficient documentation in that article or available to be added; here may be different. --doncram 03:21, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I added three references to that article, and removed the unreliable references.  The Detroit Free Press does not have online archives for 1922 to 1999, so we don't know what else is available online; but it would be a surprise for a church this large and with this much history to not have any additional press coverage in a Detroit library.  Since the topic has been brought up, here are four sources as captured from a Google cache of the deleted article:

• Wes White (3 December 2010). "Founding EPC Church in Detroit departs for the PCA; joins Great Lakes Presbytery". The Aquila Report. Retrieved 2014-02-14. "In 1915, the mission was officially organized as Knox Presbyterian Church. The Church continued to grow and went through several buildings and locations."
• Marie Ling McDougal (2002). Harrison Township, Michigan. Arcadia Publishing. p. 66. ISBN 978-0-7385-1925-8. Retrieved 2014-02-14. "In July of 1980, the congregation withdrew from the United Presbyterian Church in the USA and became a charter member of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church."
• "Portfolio Pages, Knox Evangelical Presbyterian Church". Merritt Cieslak Design. Retrieved 2014-02-14. "the new facilities...included a 450 seat multi-purpose room...The design of the facility was intended to compliment the existing building..."
• "Detroit Free Press Archives. Church replicates temple from Bible. Abstract.". www.freep.com. 30 August 2006. Retrieved 2014-02-15. "More than 200 members of the Knox Presbyterian Church spent the summer building a replica of the Tabernacle of Moses..."

• Keep. It seems to have some historical importance, being so old (old for the United States, and older still for Mississippi which was not widely settled until later than the eastern states), and it is documented as 48th out of 50 oldest PCA churches in the United States. It is older than the oldest Presbyterian church building in Mississippi that is listed yet in Wikipedia article List of Presbyterian churches in the United States#Mississippi. And, there is book listed at Amazon: The history of the Bethesda Presbyterian Church in Hinds County, Mississippi: A discourse ... delivered ... December 22, 1878, Synod of Mississippi, Presbytery of Central Mississippi] having Unknown Binding – January 1, 1879, by Joseph A Graves (Author). Note Edwards is in Hinds County. That seems like a significant, legitimate source, not yet obtained or cited in the article. --doncram 03:18, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Some text is probably too closely paraphrased from [6]. The editor has a history of copyright violations. Dougweller (talk) 18:39, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The analogy with the Knox Church deletion is incorrect. That church was founded in 1913 in Michigan, and is not in any way exceptional or particularly historic. This church was founded in Mississippi a century earlier, and was an exceptionally early church of its denomination in the region. It's therefore of historic interest. DGG ( talk ) 02:07, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's a historic church in Mississippi, founded in the 1800s. talk

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. j⚛e decker^talk 06:26, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Google translate sings[edit]

Google translate sings (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, no indication of notability, appears to describe a recreational pastime for moments at the computer when we are bored. No indication of cultural significance (if any) or significance to, for example, machine translation. Comprised of original research, contains unencyclopedic statements about alleged hilarity and what "most people have found". Possibly a school project. Some of the content might be suitable example material in an article like Machine translation. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:46, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: per nom—without discussing the validity of the subject, it is obvious that the content is not useful for any potential article. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 01:59, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to Draft namespace It is useful as a generic Easter egg article. --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 22:50, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per nom, especially as not even the title is sourced or well known. While a discussion of this subject may be appropriate in a relevant article such as Google Translate, this article contains no useful content. BethNaught (talk) 17:40, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per nom, uses weasel words and has no sources. --DavidK93 (talk) 19:34, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Clear lack of notability, it's about somebody's google game and isn't encyclopaedic in the slightest. Ducknish (talk) 22:17, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as apparently WP:MADEUP. Ludicrosity in suits when reading this article — to say nothing of the Marpleisms. Cnilep (talk) 04:11, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Most of this article is a copyright violation consisting of the lyrics to Let It Go (Disney song) and a plagiarism of this YouTube video. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:51, 12 March 2014 (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. j⚛e decker^talk 06:26, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bill A. Jones[edit]

Bill A. Jones (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 major roles. The role in Glee is as a supporting actor, not a major character. Asides from the list of bit parts, the accomplishments, and the charitable work, are both trivial. The references are mere notices of the shows, or PR. DGG ( talk ) 19:32, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Looking at the apparent breadth of his work I was leaning keep until looking at the sources of the article, and this article is mostly build on a foundation of PR releases and IMDB. He's had plenty of bit parts but nothing notable enough, and looking to WP:NACTOR, he doesn't really have the sort of following that would necessitate an article. Until he lands a major role or gains greater popularity, there's not enough notability to support an article. Ducknish (talk) 22:23, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Minor actor with no notable coverage in sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:27, 12 March 2014 (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. j⚛e decker^talk 17:21, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greenberg Glusker[edit]

Greenberg Glusker (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)

Represented a number of important companies, but not in any particularly imporrtant case. a; any coverage they received in the press would have been merely incidental. "Top 100 E entertainment lawyers" is not an award, and does not provide notability Everything else is pure PR. DGG ( talk ) 19:18, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per lack of substantial coverage in reliable indpeendent sources. Article appears to be paid promotion with misleading cites etc. Candleabracadabra (talk) 00:57, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, noteworthy secondary source coverage including The New York Times and The Hollywood Reporter, among numerous others. — Cirt (talk) 17:03, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete 434 hits in Newsbank. Once press releases are eliminated, down to 142. Many of these are duplicated wire-service stories and I can't see how to count that automatically, but never mind. Mostly they are quotes from people who work there, e.g. "X, a partner at Greenberg Glusker, said her client was entitled to something really over-the-top for incomprehensible reasons." Many of them are public notice ads, e.g. "We can't serve you but you better show up in court next Tuesday." One of them, this one, from the Mercury News in 2008, actually discusses the firm in more than a passing way. However, by itself, it's not even close to enough to satisfy WP:NCORP.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:30, 6 March 2014 (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. j⚛e decker^talk 06:24, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jenny Hargrave[edit]

Jenny Hargrave (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)

Doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:ARTIST inclusion guidelines. Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 18:29, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Two primary sources plus one routine student listing and a prediction of a future event (graduation). No evidence of notability indicated or found. Could be a WP:CSD A7? AllyD (talk) 20:24, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I considered using A7 but I prefer to be generous in assessing articles by new users (Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers), and so I considered that the sentence about her having produced a notable work was an "claim of significance".-- Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 18:39, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete She may well become a notable artist, but she is not such yet.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:06, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to The Misshapes. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:47, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Leigh Lezark[edit]

Leigh Lezark (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)

Appears to be notable mostly for being a member of The Misshapes. Can probably merge any worthwhile content (if any) to the group article. Mosmof (talk) 17:07, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge This article Isn't noble on its own but the women is notable as a member of the The Misshapes.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 18:00, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge any worthwhile content into The Misshapes per nom; the other two members redirect to the group's article and I'm not seeing enough to warrant a standalone article in this case, either.  Gong show 01:40, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 6 March 2014 (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. j⚛e decker^talk 06:24, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Generic 19.BIBS[edit]

Generic 19.BIBS (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)

Trojan computer virus is not notable enough for own article. All the info is taken from a single unreliable source. Therefore, the suggested merge is also inappropriate. P 1 9 9  ✉ 16:26, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not notable item, merge target not suitable for this content. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 03:30, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - computer virus article of unclear notability, lacking independent coverage in reliable sources. Yahoo answers is not RS. A search revealed no significant coverage.Dialectric (talk) 21:25, 12 March 2014 (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. j⚛e decker^talk 06:23, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Four Horsemen (Jericho episode)[edit]

Four Horsemen (Jericho episode) (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 TV series episode, fails WP:GNG. The pisode is already summarised at List of Jericho episodes#Season_1:_2006.E2.80.932007, so no need to merge.

The article is referenced only to one source: a review on IGN.com. However, IGN is in not independent. The company's own website describes it as an media and services provider, not as indpendent publication.

Even if editors somehow overlook the nature of IGN, one review does not amount to "significant coverage" per GNG. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:59, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. I wouldn't agree that citing IGN would be detrimental for television articles such as this, as it has been used on some good articles. As the sole review, however, it cannot support the article. Whisternefet (c · l) 01:16, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Just as a note, IGN is an independent source and would count towards GNG consideration, as it has no direct ties to the producers of the show or of the broadcasting station, which is the test we use for independence. But that said, one source is not going to meet GNG requirements (that's not significant coverage). --MASEM (t) 15:57, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete most of the Jericho TV series episode articles should be deleted, being redundant with the list and mostly just plot dumps. Winning the timeslot doesn't make an episode notable, otherwise we'd make an article for every single episode that won some media market. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 06:01, 12 March 2014 (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. j⚛e decker^talk 06:23, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Azerbaijan Grand Prix[edit]

Azerbaijan Grand Prix (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)

WP:Notability, WP:Speculation The only reference provides states that this event is likely to happen in the future. That is a long way short of satisfying notability guidelines and is essentially speculation. Falcadore (talk) 15:50, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Speculation, can be re-created when it appears on a provisional calendar. -Drdisque (talk) 17:43, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per WP:CRYSTAL. It's not even notable speculation as of yet (NOTNEWS may apply). Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:12, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. No prejudice against recreation if/when this event moves from speculation to reality. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 19:22, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is not speculation. Daily Mail, Der Spiegel (largest German weekly), The Guardian ("Bernie Ecclestone signs deal to host F1 grand prix in Azerbaijan"), Le Figaro (one of the biggest daily newspaper of France). Fits with "Depth of coverage" and "Diversity of sources" of Wikipedia:Notability (events). --Deansfa (talk) 22:32, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• No, it violates WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NOTNEWS. The Daily Mail is also not a reliable source. Or even close to one. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:47, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• No, it meets Wikipedia:Notability (events) criteria. The Figaro and Der Spiegel is also a reliable source. More than any other one. --Deansfa (talk) 17:18, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:CRYSTAL and NOTNEWS trump any "notability" guideline. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:36, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I read the Le Figaro reference as well as the original refereance and neither represents a confirmation at all. --Falcadore (talk) 04:14, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Also, those articles are clearly coming from the same source, and are just being rewritten for local audiences. You can tell because all of them contain the same content - not one of them offers anything new. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:45, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not enough information on it currently to make a whole article for it, just keep it as a section on the 2015 Formula One season article. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 16:39, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The only information is one off-hand comment by Bernie. That is simply not enough for an article. QueenCake (talk) 22:03, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not enough present information to support an article on this future event. Ducknish (talk) 22:26, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: As per TOOSOON. Bernie rarely comments on this sort of thing unless he has something up his sleeve, but there are plenty of examples of things falling apart later on - like the proposed Thai Grand Prix; Bernie was very enthusiastic about it, but it appears to be dead in the water. There is a precedent for articles being created in advance, like Grand Prix of America, but that is mostly being substantiated by its tumultuous history moreso than anything else. Best to wait and see. Prisonermonkeys (talk)
• Delete - A single comment by Bernie doesn't make it notable. That'd be like Brian France saying he would like a NASCAR race in Long Beach. That doesn't necessarily mean it will happen. WP:CRYSTAL and possibly WP:NOTNEWS violation. NFLisAwesome ^{(ZappaOMati's alternate account)} 19:10, 12 March 2014 (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. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:01, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Technium CAST[edit]

Technium CAST (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 evidence of any notability and no references to help out at all despite a ref improve tag from 2007. Fails WP:ORG on all criteria.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   15:33, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article is now out of date in any case, so I would support this without anyone in place to update/maintain. --Stoaty (talk) 16:55, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete See No reason why this should stay on wiki.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 17:50, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Editors are also requested to keep the snarky and sarcastic remarks to a minimum, or better yet, not make them at all. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:01, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Croatian–Ottoman Wars[edit]

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

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

This article is content fork of Ottoman–Hungarian Wars and Ottoman–Habsburg wars and should be deleted as such, against criteria number 5 of WP:DEL-REASON. Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:13, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, but keep any new content and add it to the "forked" pages. Old Al (Talk) 15:52, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I agree with AD and Old Al. 23 editor (talk) 21:07, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep.Presently the article seems to be a duplication of the Austria-Ottoman wars. But it can be expanded to concentrate on the Croatian theater of wars. Thus instead of deletion, it should be tagged for expansion. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 11:19, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for reasons stated by Nedim Ardoga. Orser67 (talk) 15:25, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 00:16, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 00:16, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 00:16, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 00:16, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Given so little content, this is hardly a content fork, rather it's a somewhat strangely named history article with insufficient content and context. The history of Croatia series is currently split in ~1526, but this article would easily fit into that context given a bit of expansion - the Ottoman wars were the single most significant thing that happened to the Croatian lands between the 1400s and and the 1700s. There's a fair bit of WP:POTENTIAL here, so weak keep. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:04, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- Croatia was a province of Hungary (or possibly Austria), not a separate country. What we have here is little more than a list of wars, most of which refer to Hungary, not Croatia. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:03, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• • No, Croatia was very much a country during this time, it was simply not a sovereign state. And there's no "possibly" with regard to Austria - the succession of suzerainty to Austria is well documented (a formal election was held in 1527, even). Peter, you seem to have a propensity for making factual errors with regard to these topics, I've had to correct you in several of these XfD discussions as of late. Please get up to speed, because this is distracting and not at all conducive to a healthy deletion debate. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:11, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:48, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reanimated (Family Force 5 album)[edit]

Reanimated (Family Force 5 album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I couldn't find evidence it meets WP:NALBUM Boleyn (talk) 14:16, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I'm seeing the sort of coverage one might expect for a notable but not-exactly-houshold-name artist. for example, Sputnik review. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:16, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. Very borderline, but perhaps just enough to squeak by: a brief review [7], a longer review [8], and the album reached the top 10 of two genre-specific Billboard charts [9].  Gong show 00:54, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. In addition to the charts and the JFH and Allmusic reviews, there are reviews from HM [10], CCM Magazine [11], Indie Vision Music [12], New Release Tuesday [13], and Christian Music Zine. Also some brief coverage by Christian news and music outlets Breathecast, Cross Rhythms [14], The Christian Post [15], and WUFU [16].--¿3family6 _contribs 03:28, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 6 March 2014 (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. j⚛e decker^talk 06:22, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fight For Future[edit]

Fight For Future (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:BAND. See also Ukrainian and Russian discussions. Man in the street (talk) 13:56, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:BAND. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:43, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Sam Sailor ^Sing 21:14, 9 March 2014 (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. j⚛e decker^talk 06:22, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rene Campbell[edit]

Rene Campbell (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 amateur sportsperson. Trivial coverage, apart from a couple of tabloid exploitation pieces. Article seems more concerned about what she eats. Rob Sinden (talk) 13:18, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete , as these are mostly local circuts, and she is not notable. And the diet part shows traces of promotion. Old Al (Talk) 15:50, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:GNG.204.126.132.231 (talk) 16:16, 10 March 2014 (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 g5, created by banned User:Jude Enemy. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:20, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comedy Kids[edit]

Comedy Kids (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 project BOVINEBOY2008 13:15, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Non-notable. reddogsix (talk) 15:38, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as WP:HOAX - googling "Comedy Kids" with any of the associated parties yields no results.  Gong show 01:01, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 6 March 2014 (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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:59, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2011 in UEFA[edit]

2011 in UEFA (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)

Contested PROD. Unnecessary fork that's covered in other subject specific articles an does not need replication here. This is a one off "2011" orphan article with no other years created. I suggest deletion. JMHamo (talk) 13:03, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 13:05, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - WP:NOTSTATS, this is pure overkill. GiantSnowman 13:11, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Wow, why haven't I noticed this article before? This is a content fork of 2011 in association football - and if there is a consensus to remove this article the content should be merged with that article. The title is a little poor though and should be changed to either 2011 in European football or 2010-11 in European football to follow the season which the continental tournaments are being played. The brackets for the continental tournaments should be removed per WP:NOTSTATS, and more explanatory text should be added, but that isn't a reason to delete. This article, even though it is only one, perfectly fits the pattern for the summary-style articles we have like 2010–11 in English football - the only difference is that this article could cover the tournaments arranged by UEFA, where the other articles covers the tournaments arranged by the national associations. Mentoz (talk) 12:14, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Mentox86. Nfitz (talk) 01:04, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per Mentoz. Agree, there should be some trimming of stats, but there is prose in the article. see no reason why summary season articles at continental association level should not exist. I actually found this article to be quite a useful introduction to the season and would suggest we need more of them. Fenix down (talk) 10:56, 11 March 2014 (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 Space western. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:59, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Space Frontier[edit]

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

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

This is not an actual topic. The one source is to the "frontier theme" in science fiction, which is a legitimate essay topic, but is not a subject for an article. Most of the other statements in this article were ones that were not sourced or original research. jps (talk) 12:25, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Is this the same/similar to Space Western? A redirect could be the best solution. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:46, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect Seems that Space Western is the same thing and would make sense to redirect this article to Space Western.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 13:56, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete doesn't seem like it's talking about space westerns (though it is confusing), but more like fictional space explorations as in Star Trek. Also, I've never heard of space westerns or sci-fi westerns referred to as "space frontier". If it must be redirected, Space Frontier Foundation is probably the place. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:53, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete due to the fact that this is not a concept that pertains to a specific genre of science fiction. It seems to be a non-unique concept. Old Al (Talk) 15:44, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. That this supposed subgenre doesn't even exist in the main article for science fiction is an indication to me that it's not worthy of note. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:51, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Space western or delete. Basically redundant to space western, though one could nitpick at minor differences between them. Google search turns up no obvious signs of notability. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:36, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• as a "theme" and not a genre or sub-genre that is recognized by anyone, Wikipedia should not be home to an WP:OR essay on the topic. it seems likely that most people typing the topic in the search bar would be seeking Space Frontier Foundation , so a redirect there would be my first choice, although "delete" or "redirect to space western" would also be acceptable. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:59, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as non-existent sub-genre of a heavily-documented and discussed genre. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:54, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename or Redirect as Frontier (science fiction) [17]. " Stories of people conquering new frontiers, leaving our world to colonize a preferable one. Usually told with a "Grass is greener" aspect, only to learn that the same (if not worse) problems face them in the new colony." It is Space Western but WITHOUT the American West backdrop or background. 69.165.246.181 (talk) 22:25, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a non-notable concept/sub-genre/whatever. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:44, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as there isn't really an article here, more like a sentence. Would reconsider if there was some substantial content that explained this concept. By the way, if this article is deleted, be sure to remove mention of it in the Template:Science fiction where it has been added. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:47, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the content was removed, I think it needs to be reworded and retitled. 69.165.246.181 (talk) 00:45, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: Perhaps the original version of the article should be reviewed for discussion for deletion or not. I'm afraid this version cannot be considered encyclopedic 69.165.246.181 (talk) 03:06, 7 March 2014 (UTC) [18] here's the original version with some modifications made by me. 69.165.246.181 (talk) 03:08, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Why are you still insisting that the version prior to TRPoD's edits was any good? Every single one of TRPoD's removals has been agreed with by multiple editors, all of whom are fairly experienced... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:05, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. The strongest argument I saw on either side was from @Lankiveil:, who said WP:Trout-- RoySmith (talk) 13:00, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Qutbi Bohra[edit]

Qutbi Bohra (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)

Highly defamatory article, no such sect exists , used as a bad word against a claimant to the post of the successor of dawoodi bohras Summichum (talk) 08:58, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The first discussion was closed as no consensus on 27 February this year, less than a week ago. The nominator also filed a request for Arbcom to get this article deleted (see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: Fictitious Qutbi Bohra article should be deleted but I expect that to be speedily dismissed in favour of this AfD. Thryduulf (talk) 11:53, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed it was speedily dismissed [19]. Thryduulf (talk) 16:35, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 11:53, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 11:53, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per reasons stated above. Old Al (Talk) 15:46, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I've given my reasons on the first deletion nomination

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Qutbi_Bohra

17:11, 5 March 2014 (UTC)Ftutocdg (talk)

I am the unfortunate author of this article. Ever since i wrote this article an editor named Ftutocdg has vandalised this article a number of times, just because of some pov of his regarding Khuzaima Qutbuddin. He is not only vandalised this article but then he also put it for deletion. He gave pointless and repetative arguments and concluded every time with same repeated questions. Even at AFD he repeatedly vandalised the article. Now he has tied up with summichum, who has not only heavily tagged the article but also has put the article for deletion again. The last time when at AFD i had answered to all their queries. The AFD was longer than the article. I have also mentioned all the details on talk page.

But here they go again, another AFD? They are using the very instruments that help write a good article, against the article as a weapon to get the article deleted. And this time it seem they have gathered their friends together for the article is getting one delete after another.

Are there nobody in Wikipedia to reprimand them. Are there nobody to correct such destructive behavior of theirs. They are not only after this article but against all articles that are connected to Khuzaima Qutbuddin. It seems that they want to change the view of the world regarding Khuzaima Qutbuddin by adding or substracting him in the different articles of Wikipedia.

From the time i have come to Wikipedia, my intentions were to make as much contribution to Wikipedia as possible, but here i am defending articles, not once, not twice but everyday, everytime i login i have to first check if these vandals have done any harm to the article or not.

I again assert that i have mentioned answers to all the queries in the talk pages and now all the twenty references are valid references. Further the issue of succession that Ftutocdg and his chum has mentioned about is given in detail in succession issue. I hope editors discuss this article in the light of its content and not by the mention of the characters in the article.

I appologize for the harsh language. I don't mean to hurt anyone, just opened my heart, it had become too heavy. Araz5152 (talk) 20:13, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment:
• Who is new Syedna? Trouble brews as half-brother stakes claim, Indian Express, 6 February 2014
  • Quote: "However, followers of Khuzaima Bhaisaheb Qutbuddin consider him the rightful successor, having been the late Syedna’s closest aide over the years. A statement released by this sect, which has unofficially started calling itself the ‘Qutbi Bohras’, says the late Syedna had instructed the Mazoon to not reveal the nass at the time."

Meaning - The term "Qutbi Bohra" is actually called by a group of people to themselves. Whatever you call yourself is not defamation.

• Bohras who refuse to denounce Qutbuddin face boycott, threats, Mumbai Mirror, 19 February 2014
  • Quote: "Rival claims for the title of 53rd Dai, or head, of the Dawoodi Bohras, from the late Syedna Burhanuddin's brother Khuzaima Qutbuddin and son Mufaddal Saifuddin have proved traumatic for the followers of Qutbuddin. Some of them are currently holed up in Thane, living under his protection, and constantly receiving threats from the rival side. Photographs of some of them have been circulated on WhatsApp. Indeed, while this reporter was talking to them, a they received a call from Rajasthan, from someone who asked chillingly: "What's the rate for a Qutbi Bohra?" Some of them were attacked en route to Thane. They've filed police complaints, but don't intend to press charges."

Meaning - The term "Qutbi Bohra" is also recognized by others.

Now if the issue is such that the "content" of the article is wrong, then that's a different issue not handled at AfDs. That can't be the reason for deletion. I see no reason put forward as such for "deletion" of article. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:01, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Strong keep: "Qutbi Bohra" find its mention into many already listed secondary, independent and reliable sources listed under references section of the article. And, as per Dharmadhyaksha. POV is not a reason for deletion. Edit the article to make it in compliance with WP:PG or simply tag with various maintenance tags available for someone else to perform this job. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 09:49, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment You !vote Strong Keep asserting there are "many listed ... sources [mentioning QB]". There are however only two when you prune the mess. Sam Sailor ^Sing 02:17, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1 ) Qutbi Bohra name

Qutbi Bohra name is refering to Khuzaima Qutbuddin followers on newspapers. It is not a officialy sect name. Just reported words, like (quoted form User:Dharmadhyaksha answer)

" which has unofficially started calling itself the ‘Qutbi Bohras’ "

" Indeed, while this reporter was talking to them, a they received a call from Rajasthan, from someone who asked chillingly: "What's the rate for a Qutbi Bohra?" "

Mufaddal Saifuddin followers are called for example Mufaddali Bohra in bohras circles, but it dosen't mean such sect officialy exists.

2 ) Higly dafamatory artcile with baseless references

The second problem is on the content of the artcile where most of references provided Araz5152 are dubious (public forum, peepl.com, and other yahoo groups talk pages). He is defaming one the claimant of the office of 53rd dai of Dawoodi Bohra. Khuzaima Qutbuddin has never claimed to be the leader of a so-called Qutbi sect, on the contrary, he is claiming to be the leader of the Dawoodi Bohra sect.

3) if keep'

In the case it is decided to keep this article,, and regarding to the dubious references provided by User:Araz5152, i want it to be kept in this version and it serves as a basis for possible changes : Qutbi Bohra, as edited by Summichum at 17:57, 25 February 2014

Hope you understand

Best regards, Ftutocdg (talk) 18:56, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PS : I know Araz5152 will again and again flood this discussion with his conspiracy theory drama. But I hope that people who know basic Bohras history will react properly.

• Wikipedia includes notable subjects. If a term say, "PPP" find its mention in multiple reliable sources, It is suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia irrespective of the "PPP" whether it is existing/non-existing person/building/monument/book/space jet/etc.

If an article doesn't read encyclopedic. There's a Wikipedia guideline to make corrections. If there are some dispute over some content, editors should ask for a WP:Third opinion or reach to Dispute resolution noticeboard not AfD.

In this case, I find the reason of deletion invalid. See, WP:DEL#REASON. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 19:21, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree. The article as written matches several WP:DEL#REASON criteria :

• Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and articles that are themselves hoaxes (but not articles describing notable hoaxes)
• Advertising or other spam without relevant content (but not an article about an advertising-related subject)
• Articles that breach Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons

Ftutocdg (talk) 20:07, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup, Wikipedia:Too long; didn't read. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 03:57, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello Ftutocdg- Reasons cited for deletion by you doesn't make sense to me, because:
• Indian express, Hindustan times, Mumbai mirror, etc. are reliable sources. (See. Wikipedia reliable sources guideline).
• I'm not sure what is your definition of Advertising. Explain! (See, WP:NOTADVERTISING#ADVERTISING for better understanding)
• The present article is not a biography denoted to a particular person. If at some points it consist some unsourced defamatory content related to some living person. That particular line/section should be deleted. It is not a reason to nominate the article as a whole for deletion.
• And, as there is no valid reason of deletion. I would be better changing my opinion from "keep" to "strong keep". Anupmehra -Let's talk! 17:23, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Main problem is how the article is written, completely defamatory. That's why in my opinion it matches " Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and articles that are themselves hoaxes " citeria.

Araz5152 has witten it with no reliable references

example of dubious references

http://www.csss-isla.com/iis-archive115.htm

http://www.dawoodi-bohras.org.uk/azad/azad54.pdf/

https://dawoodi-bohras.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=7751

http://en.cyclopaedia.net/wiki/Qutbi

http://www.newageislam.com/islamic-world-news/north-carolina-lawmaker,-links-islamic-prayer-to-terrorism--report/d/11151

http://peeepl.co.uk/details/bohra-kutbi/

http://www.dawoodi-bohras.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8141&start=210

http://in.groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/DawoodiBohraIzzy/conversations/topics/1978

http://themuslim500.com/profile/asghar-ali-engineer

Seems most of you don't know Dawoodi Bohras recent events regarding the succession of Mohammad Burhanuddin.

It's pure propaganda by Araz5152 to legitimate Mufaddali Bohra camp.

So if the article is kept as you want, please keep it based on this version : Qutbi Bohra, as edited by Summichum at 17:57, 25 February 2014

Regards, Ftutocdg (talk) 18:09, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• There are tons of topic on Wikipedia I'm not familiar with. What I see is, the mention of the subject (Qutbi Bohra) in multiple reliable sources. I repeat, if there are some unsourced/improperly sourced/poorly sourced defamatory content, just delete/re-write that particular one leaving an edit summary or making your case on article's talk page. At some instances you seem to be agree with the presence of the subject on Wikipedia but in another form. Suggest your changes on the article's talk page. If there's some dispute over this. Ask for a wp:third opinion or wp:request for comments from editors not already involved there. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 18:20, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Araz5152 is continuously undoing our edits and claiming vandalism. It is impossible to talk with him (I've already try). Yes, I was going to request a wp:third opinion but the article was nominated here. My wish is to keep a different version of this artcile as Araz5152 reference are completely dubious : Qutbi Bohra, as edited by Summichum at 17:57, 25 February 2014

regards, Ftutocdg (talk) 18:34, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One editor simply can not repeatedly revert other editors edit more than 3 times on an article within 24hrs. It violates three revert rule and results in a block. Beside three revert rule, being engaged into an wp:edit war often results into a block. Feel free to make a case at wp:aiv if you further encounter such situations on any page. Coming back to this nominated article for deletion, I welcome your wp:inclusionist view towards this article, doesn't matter the version. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 19:11, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ftutocdg's claim that the article is defamatory is completely false and i have already proved it in the last AFD and in the talk pages.

Furthermore the article has more than 20 reliable references, not mentioned by Ftutocdg. The name Qutbi Bohra is clearly mentioned in the references mentioned and hence all the claims of Ftutocdg are false.

And he himself proves how wrong and false his concerns for the article. Just check out the article link he has given which he wants to put up. It contains just 5 sentences and makes no sense. That is the level of vandalisation they had done to the article not once but many times. They have blanked the article a number of times even when it was at AFD last time. The only thing they are concerned with is their pov over Khuzaima Qutbuddin. They, Ftutocdg and summichum, are not at all concerned with the article or the reality but just want to get the article deleted or blanked out or whatever they can to get it out of Wikipedia. I repeat that they have this amazing pov that they could change the way the world looks at Khuzaima Qutbuddin by adding or deleting his name in the articles of Wikipedia. They have been doing this for some time now with many articles on Wikipedia.

I again would like to assert that:

• Ftutocdg claim of defamatory article is false.
• Ftutocdg claim of using different Wikipedia terms are also false.
• Summichums multi tagging of this article just before submitting the article for 2nd AFD is also false and Ftutocdg was warned by administrator DGG when he wrongly tagged the article.
• The article has more than 20 valid references.
• The article is true and there is no element of hoax or original research or propoganda. The whole article is based on references provided.
• The version which Ftutocdg wants to put up is a highly vandalised version of the article and contains only 5 sentences, the rest of the whole article is blanked out.

I have answered to all the queries of Ftutocdg in the last AFD and in talk pages. I request editors to please understand the pov of Ftutocdg and discuss with him accordingly. Araz5152 (talk) 21:08, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Araz5152, you have proved nothing. Same rhetoric. Your artcile is a hoax, and you know it. So please stop your drama. I don't want to discuss further with you. Regard, Ftutocdg (talk) 21:31, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• AfD is not a place to make wp:personal attacks (in fact, no where on Wikipedia). Assume good faith and stick around the topic. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 06:56, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Notable, knowledgeable, what else you would want? If you feel that the article lacks WP standards, then try making it better. OccultZone (Talk) 03:22, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep. --SamanthaPuckettIndo (talk) 08:21, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per my comment above. And this is simply getting longer with no weighted points as such. You people should chitchat somewhere else. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:21, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as it lacks WP:SIGCOV and I have spend quite some time going through all of those refs provided and added proper citations. Please notice the direct quote in Hindustan Times on 12 March 2013 of a founder of the sect: "While people are internally calling themselves Qutbi Bohras, it is not likely that there will be an open declaration of the sect as long as there is no power balance within the community." Take away the primary sources from the mainstream DBs, there's not much left. Take away all sources not directly calling the faction Qutbi Bohra, and there's only two left. If the community decides on !Keep, I would strongly suggest stubbing to something the size of Qutbi Bohra, as edited by Summichum at 17:57, 25 February 2014 to get rid of the elaborate WP:SYNTH and associated challenges. Best, Sam Sailor ^Sing 02:04, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An editor Sam sailor has been continously deleting and modifying references of the article just like a child playing with a toy. Just see the amount of manupulations he has done and after deleting 12 references till now, he is still continuing he claims that i am doing edit war. He is the one vandalising the references and also voted for the articles removal, clearly showing his intentions regarding the article. I request the administors to take his vandalism seriously as he is using a loophole in the system by making small vandalising edits and also modifying the same such that if reverted the will accuse the reverting editor instead of the vandaliser like Sam sailor. Please do the needful, request to all editors.

After removing the references he has also labeled article for citation needed etc.

And the article he is refering to in the AFD has just 5sentences and is a highly vandalised version of the article. This shows the intention of this editor Sam sailor. I request Wikipedia authorities to do the needful as soon as possible. Araz5152 (talk) 06:25, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Araz5152, its not just Sam, but me and any other decent Wikipedian also would remove all the unsourced stuff, original researches and synthesis and stuff that seemingly has references but the reference doesn't really backup the claim made. Your howling and writing huge messages to "authorities" is not gonna work. You reverting back the article edits might only get to a good block time. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:48, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What an irony? The very policies that are used to protect articles on Wikipedia are been exploited by some editors and nobody at Wikipedia can do anything. Nobody has any rights to stop editors who go on a rampage over an article just because of some pov of theirs, using the very policies of Wikipedia used to protect articles. I guess there is no system of checking the edits of such editors against vandalisation such that they can blatantly claim that whatever you report to authorities nobody is going to listen. This is not according to Wikipedia standards and also not healthy with respect to protection of articles on Wikipedia.

• Protection should be such that deletion and blanking should not be allowed to editors other than the author of the article or administrators. This would curtail vandalism to a great extend. It will also stop vulturism in editing wherein editors who do not contribute with any articles but just pick on other editor's articles for whatever reasons would be discouraged and genuine critics would be encouraged who will follow the procedure of mentioning on talk pages for editing.

• Furthermore if there are issues it can be discussed in talk pages and updation made accordingly.

• If any author does not log in for specific period of time the article may be alloted to another editor or taken up by adminstrator or it can be locked and put up as library content which can be edited by any administrator.

• This would add international standards as one expects on Wikipedia and also encourge authors to provide more contribution.

Anyway still it is a huge effort by Wikipedia to maintain such a huge collection of articles, it does not matter if a few articles get deleted or vandalised or removed from Wikipedia just because some pov of some editors. I understand to gain something one has to loose something. It is perfectly alright for all administrators and other authorities not to do anything and watch an article getting ripped of part by part. After all Wikipedia is with all, by all and for all. So nobody takes any responsibility. My sympathies are with the policies of Wikipedia. Thank you. Araz5152 (talk) 07:55, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Trout everyone involved in this silly edit war, which through the previous discussion, a few talk pages, an attempted RFAR, and then back here, and has wasted an enormous amount of editor's time. Suggest dispute resolution or mediation might be a better way forward than continuing this quasi-legalistic spat. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:05, 13 March 2014 (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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:26, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pick Up the Phone Booth and Die[edit]

Pick Up the Phone Booth and Die (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)

Pretty obvious spam that I tagged under CSD G11, but was despeedied by an IP who didn't give any proper reasoning - the article is pretty clearly promotional. Fails GNG, as there is no RS coverage, and there is no reliable source for the claim that this was a finalist for the award - and I'm not even seeing how such a small-scale award would generate any notability at all, unless it was won. The creator isn't notable, there are no reliable sources in the article (or even any inline references). Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:49, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Don't see anything "promotional" there. It's factual and does no harm. Notability can always be disputed, but it's fairly well known in interactive fiction circles, not of course because of any particular intrinsic merit but as some sort of inside joke, as can be seen by the many spoofs listed here. Mewulwe (talk) 11:22, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I don't see it as promotional either, but there is no evidence either in the article or anywhere else that I can see of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. None of the "keep" reasons advanced by Mewulwe carries any weight under Wikipedia policies & guidelines. For "it's factual" see WP:ITEXISTS, for "does no harm" see WP:NOHARM, and "it's fairly well known in interactive fiction circles", justified by a link to a list in a wiki, comes nowhere near the requirement for substantial coverage in reliable source. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:04, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Insufficiently cogent to be promotional. However, I can see no merit here and it fails any reasonable test of notability.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   16:37, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable, as pointed out above. Text adventures were already an obscure hobby by the mid 90's following FTL's release of Dungeon Master in 1989. Dolescum (talk) 18:45, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I agree with prior opinions that this is not promotional, but I failed to find any notability for this game. I find no articles or sources referring to it or signifying notability. Scarlettail (talk) 20:12, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. I just couldn't find anything out there for this game. I found a brief mention by PC Gamer, but it'd be considered a trivial source at best. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:27, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not promotional, but not at all notable either. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:11, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: as others have said, I don't see this as "promotional" at all, and certainly not a G11 candidate. Unless someone can rouse BoingBoing or another RS to quickly do a piece on its legacy to get some cultural memory transferred into the "reliable source" record, it looks like a deletion is inevitable, which is a shame, because it does appear to have had some influence in its genre, judging from a cursory Googling. Could I request that the closing admin userfy this to here if it's deleted? 28bytes (talk) 14:14, 11 March 2014 (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. j⚛e decker^talk 17:19, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Somma[edit]

Robert Somma (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 BLP article is an orphan, about a male former federal bankruptcy judge who resigned after being busted for a DUI while dressed in women's clothing after leaving a gay bar. Per this discussion, there appears to be a consensus that bankruptcy judges are not inherently notable; i.e. that they are not notable unless there is something else about them that confers notability. For example, Alice M. Batchelder went on to become a U.S. district judge and chief judge of the Sixth Circuit. Arthur Gonzalez handled three high-profile bankruptcies: the Chrysler bankruptcy, the Worldcom bankruptcy (at the time the largest) and the Enron bankruptcy.

I just picked those two randomly from Category:Judges of the United States bankruptcy courts; but pretty much all the others in that category (there are only 13, including Somma) have something either related to their bankruptcy career (e.g., length of term, chief judge of the bankruptcy court, presiding over prominent bankruptcies) or subsequent career development (e.g., serving as an Article III judge). Somma's article stands out in that there's nothing special about him except for a titillating DUI arrest. He had a short (3-year) undistinguished career as a bankruptcy judge; handled no prominent cases and had no other notable aspects in his term; and no subsequent judicial career, or indeed, any other public career.

The article was created in April 2008, in response to the news of his resignation, by a WP:SPA editor who never made further edits after setting up the article; the editor's entire Wikipedia career consists of creating this article and then making a minor edit to it 20 minutes later. I stumbled upon it a couple of years ago and did some cleanup on it, and pretty much forgot about it. It's had no significant edits since then.

My take is that Somma is not notable, and the article is more an exercise in schadenfreude than a legitimate Wikipedia article. TJRC (talk) 02:18, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. TJRC (talk) 02:51, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per the excellent, detailed reasoning by the nominator, and WP:BLP. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:13, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Article is no longer an orphan and sources have been added to show that Somma is notable for more than one event. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 05:32, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you see notability? The only edits show that he works as an attorney (all bankruptcy judges are attorneys), worked on the side as an assistant at the state (not federal) AG's office, and taught or teaches part-time at a law school. None of these convey notability to me.

Also, with respect to the orphan status, not that orphan status is itself a basis for deletion; but if he's discussed nowhere else, that's a big clue suggesting non-notability. For practical purposes, although the article is technically not an orphan any longer, the only reason it is not an orphan is that Somma has been added as a bullet-item to a couple of lists one list: lawyers who used to work at Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis (where he was managing partner for a few months, but, assuming that to be a notable law firm, notability is not inherited); and List of American federal politicians convicted of crimes. He isn't actually discussed anywhere. TJRC (talk) 17:45, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I note that another editor removed him from List of American federal politicians convicted of crimes, on the ground (quite correct, I think) that he is not a politician. TJRC (talk) 19:06, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, to clarify, my position is not that Somma is notable only for one event, i.e., WP:BLP1E. If that were the case, it might be appropriate to move the article to Arrest of Robert Somma, or some such. My position is that he does not meet WP:GNG at all. His arrest is not notable; his term as a bankruptcy judge is not notable; his legal career is not notable; and his part-time teaching activities are not notable. He is not notable, not even for one event. TJRC (talk) 17:32, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, the "extra sources" don't confirm anything except that Somma worked as a garden variety bankruptcy judge. The one 'colourful' event is a case of WP:ONEEVENT and this article should be deleted posthaste for WP:BLP reasons. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:16, 13 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:48, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstone universities[edit]

Sandstone universities (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 verifiable definition of Sandstone Universities - just vernacular and so not suitable for Wikipedia. not a notable definition

• Comment See the original version of this nomination. It was created by Bradhall at 23:58 on 26 February 2014, but it's only now arriving at AFD because Brad didn't use the AFD template (so the bot didn't notice anything), and because he didn't add it to any logs. I'm neutral here. Nyttend (talk) 00:50, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:13, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment the term has some wide usage, see this search but I'm yet to see clear definition. LibStar (talk) 01:34, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This term is the standard way of referring to Australia's original group of universities (eg, the oldest institution in each state), which are often lumped together in analysis of the sector due to the similarities in their histories, attitudes and status (not to mention the issues they face in maintaining their historic core buildings - in all seriousness). Google searching the term demonstrates this, with examples of relevant sources which uses this to group and analyse these universities being [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27] [28], [29], [30], [31], [32]. Nick-D (talk) 07:08, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:56, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Appears to be a common term akin to Red brick university in the UK. Probably should be renamed Sandstone university however. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:59, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - this is a term that has entered the Australian vernacular, as demonstrated by the sources provided above. Stalwart111 01:38, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep According to Wikipedia's Notability Guideline: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." This is the case given the sources listed by Necrothesp above. Also there is no prohibition on vernacular in Wikipedia's Inclusion Guideline. Bunya (talk) 06:23, 8 March 2014 (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.